general _order_ of the books is the following: Gospels, Acts, Catholic
Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. A solitary manuscript of the
fifteenth century (Venet. 10, Evan. 209) places the Gospels between the
Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse(89); in the Codices Sinaiticus,
Leicestrensis, Fabri (Evan. 90), and Montfortianus, as in the Bodleian
Canonici 34, the copy in the King’s Library Brit. Mus. (Act. 20), and the
Complutensian edition (1514), the Pauline Epistles precede the Acts. The
Pauline Epistles stand between the Acts and the Catholic Epistles in
Phillipps 1284, Evan. 527; Parham 71. 6, Evan. 534; Upsal, Sparfwenfeldt
42, Acts 68; Paris Reg. 102 A, Acts 119; Reg. 103 A, Acts 120. In Oxford
Bodl. Miscell. 74 the order is Acts, Cath. Epp., Apocalypse, Paul. Epp.,
but an earlier hand wrote from 3 John onwards. In Evan. 51 Dr. C. R.
Gregory points out minute indications that the scribe, not the binder, set
the Gospels last. In the Memphitic and Thebaic the Acts follow the
Catholic Epistles (_see_ below, vol. ii, chap. iii). The Codex Basiliensis
(No. 4 of the Epistles), Acts Cod. 134, Brit. Mus. Addl. 19388, Lambeth
1182, 1183, and Burdett-Coutts III. 1, have the Pauline Epistles
immediately after the Acts and before the Catholic Epistles, as in our
present Bibles. Scholz’s Evan. 368 stands thus, St. John’s Gospel,
Apocalypse, then all the Epistles; in Havniens. 1 (Cod. 234 of the
Gospels, A.D. 1278) the order appears to be Acts, Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep.,
Gospels; in Ambros. Z 34 _sup._ at Milan, Dean Burgon testifies that the
Catholic and Pauline Epistles are followed by the Gospels; in Basil. B.
vi. 27 or Cod. 1, the Gospels have been bound after the Acts and Epistles;
while in Evan. 175 the Apocalypse stands between the Acts and Catholic
Epistles; in Evan. 51 the binder has set the Gospels last: these, however,
are mere accidental exceptions to the prevailing rule(90). The four
Gospels are almost invariably found in their familiar order, although in
the Codex Bezae (as we partly saw above, p. 65) they stand Matthew, John,
Luke, Mark(91); in the Codex Monacensis (X) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew (but
two leaves of Matthew _also_ stand before John), also in the Latin _k_; in
Cod. 90 (Fabri) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark; in Cod. 399 at Turin John,
Luke, Matthew, an arrangement which Dr. Hort refers to the Commentary of
Titus of Bostra on St. Luke which accompanies it; in the Curetonian Syriac
version Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. In the Pauline Epistles that to the
Hebrews immediately follows the second to the Thessalonians in the four
great Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi(92): in
the copy from which the Cod. Vatican. was taken the Hebrews followed the
Galatians (_above_, p. 57). The Codex Claromontanus, the document next in
importance to these four, sets the Colossians appropriately enough next to
its kindred and contemporaneous Epistle to the Ephesians, but postpones
that to the Hebrews to Philemon, as in our present Bibles: an arrangement
which at first, no doubt, originated in the early scruples prevailing in
the Western Church, with respect to the authorship and canonical authority
of that divine epistle.
13. We must now describe the _Lectionaries_ or Service-books of the Greek
Church, in which the portions of Scripture publicly read throughout the
year are set down in chronological order, without regard to their actual
places in the sacred volume. In length and general arrangement they
resemble not so much the Lessons as the Epistles and Gospels in our
English Book of Common Prayer, only that every day in the year has its own
proper portion, and the numerous Saints’ days independent services of
their own. These Lectionaries consist either of lessons from the Gospels,
and are then called _Evangelistaria_ or _Evangeliaria_
(εὐαγγελιστάρια)(93); or from the Acts and Epistles; termed
_Praxapostolos_ (πραξαπόστολος) or _Apostolos_(94): the general name of
Lectionary is often, though incorrectly, confined to the latter class. A
few books called ἀποστολοευαγγέλια have lessons taken both from the
Gospels and the Apostolic writings. In _Euchologies_, or Books of Offices,
wherein both the _Apostolos_ and the _Gospels_ are found, the former
always precede in each Office, just as the Epistle precedes the Gospel in
the Service-books of Western Christendom. The peculiar arrangement of
Lectionaries renders them very unfit for the hasty, partial, cursory
collation which has befallen too many manuscripts of the other class, and
this circumstance, joined with the irksomeness of using Service-books
never familiar to the habits even of scholars in this part of Europe, has
caused these documents to be so little consulted, that the contents of the
very best and oldest among them have until recently been little known.
Matthaei, of whose elaborate and important edition of the Greek Testament
(12 tom. Riga 1782-88) we shall give an account hereafter, has done
excellent service in this department; two of his best copies, the uncials
B and H (Nos. 47, 50), being Evangelistaria. The present writer also has
collated three noble uncials of the same rank, Arundel 547 being of the
ninth century, Parham 18 bearing date A.D. 980, Harleian 5598, A.D. 995.
Not a few other uncial Lectionaries remain quite neglected, for though
none of them perhaps are older than the eighth century, the ancient
character was retained for these costly and splendid Service-books till
about the eleventh century (Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Graec. p. 260), before
which time the cursive hand was generally used in other Biblical
manuscripts. There is, of course, no place in a Lectionary for divisions
by κεφάλαια, for the so-called Ammonian sections, or for the canons of
Eusebius.
The division of the New Testament into Church-lessons was, however, of far
more remote antiquity than the employment of separate volumes to contain
them. Towards the end of the fourth century, that golden age of Patristic
theology, Chrysostom recognizes some stated order of the lessons as
familiar to all his hearers, for he exhorts them to peruse and mark
beforehand the passages (περικοπαί(95)) of the Gospels which were to be
publicly read to them the ensuing Sunday or Saturday(96). All the
information we can gather favours the notion that there was no great
difference between the calendar of Church-lessons in earlier and later
stages. Not only do they correspond in all cases where such agreement is
natural, as in the proper services for the great feasts and fasts, but in
such purely arbitrary arrangements as the reading of the book of Genesis,
instead of the Gospels, on the week days of Lent; of the Acts all the time
between Easter and Pentecost(97); and the selection of St. Matthew’s
history of the Passion alone at the Liturgy on Good Friday(98). The
earliest formal _Menologium_, or Table of proper lessons, now extant is
prefixed to the Codex Cyprius (K) of the eighth or ninth century; another
is found in the Codex Campianus (M), which is perhaps a little later; they
are more frequently found than the contrary in later manuscripts of every
kind; while there are comparatively few copies that have not been
accommodated to ecclesiastical use either by their original scribe or a
later hand, by means of noting the proper days for each lesson (often in
red ink) at the top or bottom or in the margin of the several pages. Not
only in the margin, but even in the text itself are perpetually
interpolated, mostly in vermilion or red ink, the beginning (ἀρχή or αρχ)
and ending (τέλος or τελ) of each lesson, and the several words to be
inserted or substituted in order to suit the purpose of public reading;
from which source (as we have stated above, p. 11) various readings have
almost unavoidably sprung: e.g. in Acts iii. 11 τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ of the
Lectionaries ultimately displaced αὐτοῦ from the text itself.
We purpose to annex to this Chapter a table of lessons throughout the
year, according to the use laid down in Synaxaria, Menologies, and
Lectionaries, as well to enable the student to compare the proper lessons
of the Greek Church with our own, as to facilitate reference to the
manuscripts themselves, which are now placed almost out of the reach of
the inexperienced. On comparing the manner in which the terms are used by
different scribes and authors, we conceive that _Synaxarion_ (συναξάριον)
is, like Eclogadion, a name used for a table of daily lessons for the year
beginning at Easter, and that these have varied but slightly in the course
of many ages throughout the whole Eastern Church; that tables of Saints’
day lessons, called _Menologies_, (μηνολόγιον), distributed in order of
the months from September (when the new year and the indiction began) to
August, differed widely from each other, both in respect to the lessons
read and the days kept holy(99). While the great feasts remained entirely
the same, different generations and provinces and even dioceses had their
favourite worthies, whose memory they specially cherished; so that the
character of the menology (which sometimes forms a larger, sometimes but a
small portion of a Lectionary) will often guide us to the country and
district in which the volume itself was written. The Parham
Evangelistarium 18 affords us a conspicuous example of this fact: coming
from a region of which we know but little (Ciscissa in Cappadocia Prima),
its menology in many particulars but little resembles those usually met
with(100).
14. It only remains to say a few words about the _notation_ adopted to
indicate the several classes of manuscripts of the Greek Testament. These
classes are six in number; that containing the Gospels (_Evangelia_ or
_Evan._), or the Acts and Catholic Epistles (_Act._ and _Cath._), or the
Pauline Epistles (_Paul._), or the Apocalypse (_Apoc._), or Lectionaries
of the Gospels (_Evangelistaria_ or _Evst._), or those of the Acts and
Epistles (_Apostolos_ or _Apost._). When one manuscript (as often happens)
belongs to more than one of these classes, its distinct parts are numbered
separately, so that a copy of the whole New Testament will appear in four
lists, and be reckoned four times over. All critics are agreed in
distinguishing the documents written in the uncial character by capital
letters; the custom having originated in the accidental circumstance that
the Codex Alexandrinus was designated as Cod. A in the lower margin of
Walton’s Polyglott. Lectionaries in uncial letters are not marked by
capitals, but by Arabic numerals, like cursive manuscripts of all
classes(101). Of course no system can escape some attendant evils. Even
the catalogue of the later manuscripts is often upon its first appearance
full of mis-statements, of repetitions and loose descriptions, which must
be remedied and supplied in subsequent examination, so far as opportunity
is granted from time to time. In describing the uncials (as we purpose to
do in the two next chapters) our course is tolerably plain; but the lists
that comprise the last eight chapters of this volume, and which
respectively detail the cursive manuscripts and the Lectionaries of the
Greek Testament, must be regarded only as an approximation to what such an
enumeration ought to be, though much pains and time have been spent upon
them: the comparatively few copies which seem to be sufficiently known are
distinguished by an asterisk from their less fortunate kindred.
For indeed the only method of grappling with the perplexity produced by
the large additions of manuscripts, especially of the cursive character,
which constant discovery has effected during late years, is to enumerate
arithmetically those which have been supplied from time to time, as was
done in the last edition of this work, carefully noting if they have been
examined by a competent judge or especially if they have been properly
collated. In the Appendix of the third edition, the late Dean Burgon
continued his work in this direction by adding a list of some three
hundred and seventy-four cursives, besides the others with which he had
previously increased the number before known. That list, as was stated in
the Postscript to the Preface, awaited an examination and collation by
competent persons. Such an examination has been made in many instances by
Dr. C. R. Gregory, who also, whether fired by Dean Burgon’s example as
shown in his published letters in the _Guardian_ or not, has in his turn
added with most commendable diligence in research a very large number of
MSS. previously unknown. Some more have been added in this edition, but
much work is still required of scholars, before this mass of materials can
be used with effect by Textual students.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III. SYNAXARION AND ECLOGADION OF THE GOSPELS AND
APOSTOLIC WRITINGS DAILY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
[Gathered chiefly from Evangelist. Arund. 547, Parham 18, Harl. 5598,
Burney 22, Gale O. 4. 22, Christ’s Coll. Camb. F. 1. 8, compared with the
Liturgical notes in Wake 12, and those by later hands in Cod. Bezae (D).
Use has been made also of Apostolos B-C. III. 24, B-C. III. 53, and the
Euchology, or Book of Offices, B-C. III. 42.]
Ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην [Arundel 547]
Τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ κυριακῇ τοῦ πάσχα.
Easter-day, John i. 1-17. Acts i. 1-8.
2nd day of Easter week (τῆς διακινησίμου) 18-28. Acts 12-26.
3rd, Luke xxiv. 12-35. Acts ii. 14-21.
4th, John i. 35-52. Acts ii. 38-43.
5th, John iii. 1-15. Acts iii. 1-8.
6th (παρασκευῇ) John ii. 12-22. Acts ii. 12-36.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John iii. 22-33. Acts iii. 11-16.
Ἀντίπασχα or 1st Sunday after Easter (τοῦ Θωμᾶ, B-C. iii. 42) John xx.
19-31. Acts v. 12-20.
2nd day of 2nd week, John ii. 1-11. Acts iii. 19-26.
3rd, John iii. 16-21. Acts iv. 1-10.
4th, John v. 17-24. Acts iv. 13-22.
5th, John v. 24-30. Acts iv. 23-31.
6th (παρασκευῇ) John v. 30-vi. 2. Acts v. 1-11.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John vi. 14-27. Acts v. 21-32.
Κυριακῇ γ´ or 2nd after Easter (τῶν μυροφόρων, B-C. iii. 42) Mark xv.
43-xvi. 8. Acts vi. 1-7.
2nd day of 3rd week John iv. 46-54. Acts vi. 8-vii. 60.
3rd, John vi. 27-33. Acts viii. 5-17.
4th (6th, Gale), John vi. 48-54. Acts viii. 18-25.
5th, John vi. 40-44. Acts viii. 26-39.
6th (παρασκευῇ, 4th, Gale) John vi. 35-39. Acts viii. 40-ix. 19.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John xv. 17-xvi. 1. Acts viii. 19-31.
Κυριακῇ δ´ or 3rd Sunday after Easter (τοῦ παραλύτου sic, B-C. iii. 42)
John v. 1-15. Acts ix. 32-42.
2nd day of 4th week, John vi. 56-69. Acts x. 1-16.
3rd, John vii. 1-13. Acts x. 21-33.
4th (τῆς μεσοπεντηκοστῆς, B-C. iii. 42) John vii. 14-30. Acts xiv. 6-18.
5th, John viii. 12-20. Acts x. 34-43.
6th (παρασκευῇ) John viii. 21-30. Acts x. 44-xi. 10.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John viii. 31-42. Acts xii. 1-11.
Κυριακῇ ε´ or 4th Sunday after Easter (τῆς σαμαρείτιδος) John iv. 5-42.
Acts xi. 19-30.
2nd day of 5th week, John viii. 42-51. Acts xii. 12-17.
3rd, John viii. 51-59. Acts xii. 25-xiii. 12.
4th, John vi. 5-14. Acts xiii. 13-24.
5th, John ix. 49-x. 9. Acts xiv. 20-27 (-xv. 4, B-C. iii. 24).
6th (παρασκευῇ) John x. 17-28. Acts xv. 5-12.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John x. 27-38. Acts xv. 35-41.
Κυριακῇ ϛ´ or 5th Sunday after Easter (τοῦ τυφλοῦ) John ix. 1-38. Acts
xvi. 16-34.
2nd day of 6th week, John xi. 47-54. Acts xvii. 1-9.
3rd, John xii. 19-36. Acts xvii. 19-27.
4th, John xii. 36-47. Acts xviii. 22-28.
5th Ἀναλήψεως, Ascension Day
Matins, Mark xvi. 9-20.
Liturgy, Luke xxiv. 36-53. Acts i. 1-12.
6th (παρασκευῇ) (11, Gale, Wake 12). John xiv. 1-10. Acts xix. 1-8.
7th (σαββάτῳ) John xiv. 10-21 (om. 18-20, Gale). Acts xx. 7-12.
Κυριακῇ ϛ´ or 6th Sunday after Easter τῶν ἁγίων _τιη_ πατέρων ἐν Νικαίᾳ.
John xvii. 1-13. Acts xx. 16-38.
2nd day of 7th week, John xiv. 27-xv. 7. Acts xxi. 8-14.
3rd, John xvi. 2-13. Acts xxi. 26-32.
4th, John xvi. 15-23. Acts. xxiii. 1-11.
5th, John xvi. 23-33. Acts xxv. 13-19.
6th (παρασκευῇ) John xvii. 18-26. Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 1
7th (σαββάτῳ) John xxi. 14-25. Acts xxviii. 1-31.
Κυριακῇ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς
Whitsunday.
Matins, John xx. 19-23.
Liturgy, John vii. 37-viii. 12(102). Acts ii. 1-11.
Ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον.
2nd day of 1st. week. Τῇ ἐπαύριον τῆς πεντηκοστῆς.
Matt. xviii. 10-20. Eph. v. 8-19.
3rd, Matt. iv. 25-v. 11.
4th, Matt. v. 20-30.
5th, Matt. v. 31-41.
6th (παρασκευῇ) Matt. vii. 9-18.
7th (σαββάτῳ) Matt. v. 42-48. Rom. i. 7-12.
Κυριακῇ α´ τῶν ἁγίων πάντων, Matt. x. 32-33; 37-38; xix. 37-30; Heb. xi.
33-xii. 2.
2nd day of 2nd week, Matt. vi. 31-34; vii. 9-14. Rom. ii. 1-6.
3rd, Matt. vii. 15-21. Rom. ii. 13, 17-27.
4th, Matt. vii. 11-23. Rom. ii. 28-iii. 4.
5th, Matt. viii. 23-27. Rom. iii. 4-9.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. ix. 14-17. Rom. iii. 9-18.
7th (σαββάτῳ) Matt. vii. 1-8. Rom. iii. 19-26.
Κυριακῇ β´ Matt. iv. 18-23. Rom. ii. 10-16.
2nd day of 3rd week, Matt. ix. 36-x. 8. Rom. iv. 4-8.
3rd, Matt. x. 9-15. Rom. iv. 8-12.
4th, Matt. x. 16-22. Rom. iv. 13-17.
5th, Matt. x. 23-31. Rom. iv. 18-25.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. x. 32-36; xi. 1. Rom. v. 12-14.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. vii. 24-viii. 4. Rom. iii. 28-iv. 3.
Κυριακῇ γ´, Matt. vi. 22-23. Rom. v. 1-10.
2nd day of 4th week, Matt. xi. 2-15. Rom. v. 15-17.
3rd, Matt. xi. 16-20. Rom. v. 17-21.
4th, Matt. xi. 20-26. Rom. vii. 1....
5th, Matt. xi. 27-30.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xii. 1-8.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. viii. 14-23. (om. 19-22, Gale). Rom. vi. 11-17.
Κυριακῇ δ´, matt. viii. 5-13. Rom. vi. 18-23.
2nd day of 5th week, Matt. xii. 9-13. Rom. vii. 19-viii. 3.
3rd, Matt. xii. 14-16; 22-30. Rom. viii. 2-9.
4th, Matt. xii. 38-45. Rom. viii. 8-14.
5th, Matt. xii. 46-xiii. 3. Rom. viii. 22-27.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xii. 3-12. Rom. ix. 6-13.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. ix. 9-13. Rom. viii. 14-21.
Κυριακῇ ε´, Matt. viii. 28-ix. 1. Rom. x. 1-10
2nd day of 6th week, Matt. xiii. 10-23. Rom. ix. 13-19.
3rd, Matt. xiii. 24-30. Rom. ix. 17-28.
4th, Matt. xiii. 31-36. Rom. ix. 29-33.
5th, Matt. xiii. 36-43. Rom. ix. 33; x. 12-17.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xiii. 44-54. Rom. x. 15-xi. 2.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. ix. 18-26. Rom. ix. 1-5.
Κυριρκῇ ϛ´, Matt. ix. 1-8. Rom. xii. 6-14.
2nd day of 7th week, Matt. xiii. 54-58. Rom. xi. 2-6.
3rd, Matt. xiv. 1-13. Rom. xi. 7-12.
4th, Matt. xiv. 35-xv. 11. Rom. xi. 13-20.
5th, Matt. xiv. 12-21. Rom. xi. 19-24.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xiv. 29-31. Rom. xi. 25-28.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. x. 37-xi. 1. Rom. xii. 1-3.
Κυριακῇ ζ´ Matt. ix. 27-35. Rom. xv. 1-7.
2nd day of 8th week, Matt. xvi. 1-6. Rom. xi. 29-36.
3rd, Matt. xvi. 6-12. Rom. xii. 14-21.
4th, Matt. xvi. 20-24. Rom. xiv. 10-18.
5th, Matt. xvi. 24-28. Rom. xv. 8-12.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xvii. 10-18. Rom. xv. 13-16.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xii. 30-37. Rom. xiii. 1-10.
Κυριακῇ η´, Matt. xiv. 14-22. 1 Cor. i. 10-18.
2nd day of 9th week, Matt. xiv. xviii. 1-11. Rom. xv. 17-25.
3rd xviii. 18-20 (al. 22); Matt. xix. 1-2; 13-15. Rom. xv. 26-29.
4th, Matt. xx. 1-16. Rom. xvi. 17-20.
5th, Matt. xx. 17-28. 1 Cor. ii. 10-15.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xxi. 12-14; 17-20. 1 Cor. ii. 16-iii. 8.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xv. 32-39. Rom. xiv. 6-9.
Κυριακῇ θ´, Matt. xiv. 22-34. 1 Cor. iii. 9-17.
2nd day of 10th week, Matt. xxi. 18-22. 1 Cor. iii. 18-23.
3rd, Matt. xxi. 23-27. 1 Cor iv. 5-8.
4th, Matt. xxi. 28-32. 1 Cor. v. 9-13.
5th, Matt. xxi. 43-46. 1 Cor. vi. 1-6.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xxii. 23-33. 1 Cor. vi. 7-11.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xvii. 24-xviii. 1. Rom. xv. 30-33.
Κυριακῇ ι´, Matt. xvii. 14-23. 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
2nd day of 11th week, Matt. xxiii. 13-22. 1 Cor. vi. 20-vii. 7.
3rd, Matt. xxiii. 23-28. 1 Cor. vii. 7-15.
4th, Matt. xxiii. 29-39.
5th, Matt. xxiv. 13 (14, Wake 12; 15 Cod. Bezae) -28.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Matt. xxiv. 27-35 (33 Sch. and Matt.); 42-51. —vii. 35.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xix. 3-12. 1 Cor. i. 3-9.
Κυριακῇ ια´, Matt. xviii. 23-35. 1 Cor. ix. 2-12.
Ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον.
2nd day of 12th week, Mark i. 9-15. 1 Cor. vii. 37-viii. 3.
3rd, Mark i. 16-22. 1 Cor. viii. 4-7.
4th, Mark i. 23-28. 1 Cor. ix. 13-18.
5th, Mark i. 29-35. 1 Cor. x. 2-10.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark ii. 18-22. 1 Cor. x. 10-15.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xx. 29-34. 1 Cor. i. 26-29.
Κυριακῇ ιβ´, Matt. xix. 16-26. 1 Cor. xv. 1-11.
2nd day of 13th week, Mark iii. 6-12. 1 Cor. x. 14-23.
3rd, Mark iii. 13-21. 1 Cor. x. 31-xi. 3.
4th, Mark iii. 20-27. 1 Cor. xi. 4-12.
5th, Mark iii. 28-35. 1 Cor. xi. 13-23.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark iv. 1-9. 1 Cor. xi. 31.-xii. 6.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xxii. 15-22. 1 Cor. ii. 6-9.
Κυριακῇ ιγ´, Matt. xxi. 33-42. 1 Cor. xvi. 13-24.
2nd day of 14th week, Mark iv. 10-23. 1 Cor. xii. 12-18.
3rd, Mark iv. 24-34. 1 Cor. xii. 18-26.
4th, Mark iv. 35-41. 1 Cor. xiii. 8-xiv. 1.
5th, Mark v. 1-20 (al. 17). 1 Cor. xiv. 1-12.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark v. 22-24; 35-vi. 1. 1 Cor xiv. 12-20.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xxiii. 1-12. 1 Cor. iv. 1-5.
Κυριαλῇ ιδ´, Matt. xxii. 2-14. 2 Cor. i. 21-ii. 4.
2nd day of 15th week, Mark v. 24-34. 1 Cor. xiv. 26-33.
3rd, Mark vi. 1-7. 1 Cor. xiv. 33-40.
4th, Mark vi. 7-13. 1 Cor. xv. 12-20.
5th, Mark vi. 30-45. 1 Cor. xv. 29-34.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark vi. 45-53. 1 Cor. xv. 34-40.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xxiv. 1-13 (om. 10-12, Gale). 1 Cor. iv. 7-v. 5.
Κυριακῇ ιε´, Matt. xxii. 35-40. 2 Cor. iv. 6-11 (15, B-C. III. 24).
2nd day of 16th week, Mark vi. 54 (al. 56)—vii. 8. 1 Cor. xvi. 3-13.
3rd, Mark vi. 5-16. 2 Cor. i. 1-7.
4th, Mark vi. 14-24. 2 Cor. i. 12-20.
5th, Mark vi. 24-30. 2 Cor. ii. 4-15.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark viii. 1-10. 2 Cor. ii. 15-iii. 3.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. xxiv. 34-37; 42-44. 1 Cor. x. 23-28.
[Κυριακῇ ιϛ´ (16th) Matt. xxv. 14-30 (29, Gale). 2 Cor. vi. 1-10(103).
σαββάτῳ ιζ´ (17th) Matt. xxv. 1-13.
Κυριακῇ ιζ´ (17th) Matt. xv. 21-28].
Ἀρχὴ τῆς ἰνδικτοῦ τοῦ νέου ἔτους, ἤγουν τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ λουκᾶ [Arund.
547, Parham 18].
Ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν [Christ’s Coll. F. 1. 8].
2nd day of 1st week, Luke iii. 19-22.
3rd, 23-iv. 1.
4th, 1-15.
5th, 16-22.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 22-30.
7th (σαββάτῳ), 31-36.
Κυριακῇ α´, v. 1-11.
2nd day of 2nd week, iv. 38-44.
3rd, v. 12-16.
4th, 33-39.
5th, vi. 12-16 (al. 19).
6th (παρασκευῇ), 17-23.
7th (σαββάτῳ), v. 17-26.
Κυριακῇ β´, v. 31-36.
2nd day of 3rd week, 24-30.
3rd, 37-45.
4th, vi. 46-vii. 1.
5th, vii. 17-30.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 31-35.
7th (σαββάτῳ), v. 27-32.
Κυριακῇ γ´, vii. 11-16.
2nd day of 4th week, 36-50.
3rd, vii. 1-3.
4th, 22-25.
5th, ix. 7-11.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 12-18.
7th (σαββάτῳ), vi. 1-10.
Κυριακῇ δ´, Luke viii. 5-8, 9-15.
2nd day of 5th week, ix. 18-22.
3rd, 23-27.
4th, 43-50.
5th, 49-56.
6th (παρασκευῇ), v. 1-15.
7th (σαββάτῳ), vii. 1-10.
Κυριακῇ ε´, xvi. 19-31.
2nd day of 6th week, x. 22-24.
3rd, xi. 1-10 (Mt.).
4th, 9-13.
5th, 14-23.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 23-26.
7th (σαββάτῳ), viii. 16-21.
Κυριακῇ ϛ´, viii. 27 (26, Gale)-35; 38-39.
2nd day of 7th week, xi. 29-33.
3rd, 34-41.
4th, 42-46.
5th, 47-xii. 1.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xii. 2-12.
7th (σαββάτῳ), ix. 1-6.
Κυριακῇ ζ´, viii. 41-56.
2nd day of 8th week, xii. 13-15; 22-31.
3rd, xii. 42-48.
4th, 48-59.
5th, xiii. 1-9.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 31-35.
7th (σαββάτῳ), ix. 37-43.
Κυριακῇ η´, x. 25-37.
2nd day of 9th week, xiv. 12-51.
3rd, Luke xiv. 25-35.
4th, xv. 1-10.
5th, xvi. 1-9.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xvi. 15-18; xvii. 1-4.
7th (σαββάτῳ), ix. 57-62.
Κυριακῇ θ´, xii. 16-21.
2nd day of 10th week, xvii. 20-25.
3rd, xvii. 26-37; xviii. 18.
4th, xviii. 15-17; 26-30.
5th, 31-34.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xix. 12-28.
7th (σαββάτῳ), x. 19-21.
Κυριακῇ ι´, xiii. 10-17.
2nd day of 11th week, xix. 37-44.
3rd, 45-48.
4th, xx. 1-8.
5th, 9-18.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 19-26.
7th (σαββάτῳ), xii. 32-40.
Κυριακῇ ια´, xiv. 16-24.
2nd day of 12th week, xx. 27-44.
3rd, xxi. 12-19.
4th, xxi. 5-8; 10-11; 20-24.
5th, xxi. 28-33.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xxi. 37-xxii. 8.
7th (σαββάτῳ), xiii. 19-29.
Κυριακῇ ιβ´, xvii. 12-19.
2nd day of 13th week, Mark viii. 11-21.
3rd, 22-26.
4th, 30-34.
5th, ix. 10-16.
6th (παρασκευῇ), Mark ix. 33-41.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Luke xiv. 1-11.
Κυριακῇ ιγ´, Luke xviii. 18-27.
2nd day of 14th week, Mark ix. 42.-x. 1.
3rd, x. 2-11.
4th, 11-16.
5th, 17-27.
6th (παρασκευῇ), 24-32.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Luke xvi. 10-15.
Κυριακῇ ιδ´, Luke xviii. 35-43.
2nd day of 15th week, Mark x. 46-52.
3rd, xi. 11-23.
4th, 22-26.
5th, 27-33.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xii. 1-12.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Luke xvii. 3-10.
Κυριακῇ ιε´, Luke xix. 1-10.
2nd day of 16th week, Mark xii. 13-17.
3rd, 18-27.
4th, 28-34.
5th, 38-44.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xiii. 1-9.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Luke xviii. 1-8.
Κυριακῇ ϛ´ (_of the Publican_), Luke xviii. 9-14. Apost. 2 Tim. iii.
10-15. (B-C. III. 42).
2nd day of 17th week, Mark xiii. 9-13.
3rd, 14-23.
4th, 24-31.
5th, xiii. 31-xiv. 2.
6th (παρασκευῇ), xiv. 3-9.
7th (σαββάτῳ), Luke xx. 46-xxi. 4.
Κυριακῇ ιζ´ (_of the Canaanitess_) Matt. xv. 21-28.
σαββάτῳ πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω, Luke xv. 1-10.
Κυριακῇ πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω, (_of the Prodigal_), Luke xv. 11-32. 1 Thess. v.
14-23 (1 Cor. vi. 12-20, B-C. III. 42).
2nd day of the week _of the Carnival_, Mark xi. 1-11. 2 Tim. iii. 1-10.
3rd, xiv. 10-42. iii. 14-iv. 5.
4th, 43-xv. 1. iv. 9-18.
5th, xv. 1-15. Tit. i. 5-12.
6th (παρασκευῇ) xv. 20; 22; 25; 33-41. Tit. i. 15-ii. 10.
7th (σαββάτῳ) Luke xxi. 8-9; 25-27; 33-36; 1 Cor. vi. 12-20 (2 Tim. ii.
11-19, B-C. III. 24).
Κυριακῇ τῆς ἀποκρέω, Matt. xxv. 31-46. 1 Cor. viii. 8-ix. 2 (1 Cor. vi.
12-20, B-C. III. 24).
2nd day of the week _of the cheese-eater_ Luke xix. 29-40; xxii. 7-8; 39.
Heb. iv. 1-13.
3rd, xxii. 39-xxiii. 1. Heb. v. 12-vi. 8.
4th, _deest._
5th, xxiii 1-33; 44-56. Heb. xxii. 14-27.
6th (παρασκευῇ), _deest._
7th (σαββάτῳ), Matt. vi. 1-13. Rom. xiv. 19-23; xvi. 25-27.
Κυριακῇ τῆς τυροφάγου Matt. vi. 14-21. Rom. xiii. 11-xiv. 4.
Παννυχὶς τῆς ἁγίας νηστείας.
Vigil of Lent (Parh., Christ’s) Matt. vii. 7-11.
Τῶν νηστειῶν (Lent).
σαββάτῳ α´, Mark ii. 23-iii. 5. Heb. i. 1-12.
Κυριακῇ α´, John i. 44-52. Heb. xi. 24-40.
σαββάτῳ β´, Mark i. 35-44. iii. 12-14.
Κυριακῇ β´, ii. 1-12. i. 10-ii. 3.
σαββάτῳ γ´, 14-17. x. 32-37.
Κυριακῇ γ´, viii. 34-ix 1. iv. 14-v. 6.
σαββάτῳ δ´, vii. 31-37. vi. 9-12.
Κυριακῇ δ´, ix. 17-31. 13-20.
σαββάτῳ ε´, viii. 27-31. ix. 24-28.
Κυριακῇ ε´, x. 32-45. 11-14.
σαββάτῳ ϛ´ (_of Lazarus_) John xi. 1-45. xii. 28-xiii. 8.
Κυριακῇ ϛ´ τῶν Βαΐων, Matins, Matt. xxi. 1-11; 15-17 [εἰς τὴν λιτήν, Mark
x. 46-xi. 11, Burney 22]. Liturgy, John xii. 1-18. Phil. iv. 4-9.
Τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεγάλῃ (Holy Week).
2nd, Matins, Matt. xxi. 18-43. Liturgy, xxiv. 3-35.
3rd, Matins, xxii. 15-xxiv. 2. Liturgy, xxiv. 36-xxvi. 2.
4th, Matins, John (xi. 47-53 (al 56) Gale) xii. 17 (al. 19)-47 (al. 50).
Liturgy, Matt. xxvi. 6-16.
5th, Matins, Luke xxii. 1-36 (39, Gale). Liturgy, Matt. xxvi. 1-20.
Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ νιπτῆρος, John xiii. 3-10.
μετὰ τὸ νίψασθαι, 12-17(104); Matt. xxvi. 21-39; Luke xxii. 43, 44; Matt.
xxvi. 40-xxvii. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 23-32.
Εὐαγγέλια τῶν ἁγίων πάθων _ιυ_ _χυ_. (Twelve Gospels of the Passions).
(1) John xiii. 31-xviii. 1. (2) John xviii. 1-28. (3) Matt. xxvi. 57-75.
(4) John xviii. 28-xix. 16. (5) Matt. xxvii. 3-32. (6) Mark xv. 16-32. (7)
Matt. xxvii. 33-54. (8) Luke xxiii. 32-49. (9) John xix. 25-37. (10) Mark
xv. 43-47 (11) John xix. 38-42. (12) Matt. xxvii. 62-66.
Εὐαγγέλια τῶν ὡρῶν τῆς ἁγίας παραμονῆς. (Night-watches of Vigil of Good
Friday).
Hour (1) Matt. xxvii. 1-56. (3) Mark xv. 1-41. (6) Luke xxii. 66-xxiii.
49. (9) John xix. 16 (al. 23 or xviii. 28)-37.
Τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρασκευῇ (Good Friday) εἰς τὴν λειτουργίαν (ἑσπέρας, B-C. III.
42).
Matt. xxvii. 1-38; Luke xxiii. 39-43; Matt. xxvii. 39-54; John xix. 31-37;
Matt. xxvii. 55-61. 1 Cor. i. 18-ii. 2.
Τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ (Easter Even).
Matins, Matt, xxvii. 62-66. 1 Cor. v. 6-8 (Gal. iii. 13, 14, B-C. III.
24). Evensong, Matt, xxviii. 1-20. Rom. vi. 3-11 (λειτουργ. Matt. xxviii.
1-20, ἑσπέρας Rom. vi. 3-11, B-C. III. 42).
Εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά (_vid._ Suicer Thes. Eccles. 1. 1229), eleven
Gospels, used in turn, one every Sunday at Matins, beginning with All
Saints’ Day (B-C. III. 42). In some Evst. these are found at the end of
the book.
(1) Matt. xxviii. 16-20. (2) Mark xvi. 1-8. (3) _ib._ 9-20. (4) Luke xxiv.
1-12. (5) _ib._ 12-35. (6) _ib._ 36-53. (7) John xx. 1-10. (8) _ib._
11-18. (9) _ib._ 19-31. (10) John xxi. 1-14. (11) _ib._ 15-25.
We have now traced the daily service of the Greek Church, as derived from
the Gospels, throughout the whole year, from Easter Day to Easter Even,
only that in Lent the lessons from the 2nd to the 6th days inclusive in
each week are taken from the book of Genesis. The reader will observe that
from Easter to Pentecost St. John and the Acts are read for seven weeks,
or eight Sundays. The first Sunday after Pentecost is the Greek All
Saints’ Day, their Trinity Sunday being virtually kept a fortnight
earlier; but from the Monday next after the day of Pentecost (Whit-Monday)
St. Matthew is used continuously every day for eleven weeks and as many
Sundays. For six weeks more, St. Matthew is appointed for the Saturday and
Sunday lessons, St. Mark for the other days of the week. But inasmuch as
St. Luke was to be taken up with the new year, the year of the indiction
[Arund. 547], which in this case must be September 24(105), if all the
lessons in Matthew and Mark were not read out by this time (which, unless
Easter was very early, would not be the case), they were at once broken
off, and (after proper lessons had been employed for the Sunday before and
the Saturday and Sunday which followed(106) the feast of the Elevation of
the Cross, Sept. 14) the lessons from St. Luke (seventeen weeks and
sixteen Sundays in all) were taken up and read on as far as was necessary:
only that the 17th Sunday of St. Matthew (called from the subject of its
Gospel _the Canaanitess_) was always resumed on the Sunday preceding that
before the Carnival (πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέω), which is also named from its Gospel
that of _the Prodigal_, and answers to the Latin _Septuagesima_. Then
follow the Sunday of the Carnival (ἀποκρέω) or _Sexagesima_, that of the
_Cheese-eater_ (τυροφάγου) or _Quinquagesima_, and the six Sundays in
Lent. The whole number of Sunday Gospels in the year (even reckoning the
two interpolated about September 14) is thus only fifty-three, the
_Canaanitess_ coming twice over: but in the Menology or Catalogue of
immoveable feasts will be found proper lessons for three Saturdays and
Sundays about Christmas and Epiphany, which could either be substituted
for, or added to the ordinary Gospels for the year, according as the
distance from Easter in one year to Easter in the next exceeded or fell
short of fifty-two weeks. The system of lessons from the Acts and Epistles
is much simpler than that of the Gospels: it exhibits fifty-two Sundays in
the year, without any of the complicated arrangements of the other scheme.
Since the Epistles from the Saturday of the 16th week after Pentecost to
the Sunday of the Prodigal could not be set (like the rest) by the side of
their corresponding Gospels, they are given separately in the following
table(107).
Κυριακῇ ιϛ´ 2 Cor. vi. 1-10.
σαββάτῳ ιζ´ 1 Cor. xiv. 20-25.
Κυριακῇ ιζ´ 2 Cor. vi. 16-viii. 1
σαββάτῳ ιε´ 1 Cor. xv. 39-45.
Κυριακῇ ιε´ 2 Cor. ix. 6-11.
σαββάτῳ ιθ´ 1 Cor. xv. 58-xvi. 3.
Κυριακῇ ιθ´ 2 Cor. xi. 31-xii. 9.
σαββάτῳ κ´ 2 Cor. i. 8-11.
Κυριακῇ κ´ Gal. i. 11-19.
σαββάτῳ κα´ 2 Cor. iii. 12-18.
Κυριακῇ κα´ Gal. ii. 16-20.
σαββάτῳ κβ´ 2 Cor. v. 1-10 (1-4 in B-C. III. 24).
Κυριακῇ κβ´ Gal. vi. 11-18.
σαββάτῳ κγ´ 2 Cor. viii. 1-5.
Κυριακῇ κγ´ Eph. ii. 4-10.
σαββάτῳ κδ´ 2 Cor. xi. 1-6.
Κυριακῇ κδ´ Eph. ii. 14-22.
σαββάτῳ κε´ Gal. i. 3-10.
Κυριακῇ κε´ Eph. iv. 1-7.
σαββάτῳ κϛ´ Gal. iii. 8-12.
Κυριακῇ κϛ´ Eph. v. 8-19.
σαββάτῳ κζ´ Gal. v. 22-vi. 2.
Κυριακῇ κζ´ Eph. vi. 10-17.
σαββάτῳ κη´ Col. i. 9-18.
Κυριακῇ κη´ 2 Cor. ii. 14-iii. 3.
σαββάτῳ κθ´ Eph. ii. 11-13.
Κυριακῇ κθ´ Col. iii. 4-11.
σαββάτῳ λ´ Eph. v. 1-8.
Κυριακῇ λ´ Col. iii. 12-16.
σαββάτῳ λα´ Col. i. 2-6.
Κυριακῇ λα´ 2 Tim. i. 3-9.
σαββάτῳ λβ´ Col. ii. 8-12.
Κυριακῇ λβ´ 1 Tim. vi. 11-16.
σαββάτῳ λγ´ 1 Tim. ii. 1-7.
Κυριακῇ λγ´ as Κυρ. λα´. (2 Tim. i. 3-9 in B-C. III. 24).
σαββάτῳ λδ´ 1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5.
Κυριακῇ λδ´ 2 Tim. iii. 10-15.
σαββάτῳ λε´ 1 Tim. iv. 9-15.
Κυριακῇ λε´ 2 Tim. ii. 1-10.
σαββάτῳ λϛ´ 2 Tim. ii. 11-19.
ON THE MENOLOGY, OR CALENDAR OF IMMOVEABLE FESTIVALS AND SAINTS’ DAYS.
We cannot in this place enter very fully into this portion of the contents
of Lectionaries, inasmuch as, for reasons we have assigned above, the
investigation would be both tedious and difficult. All the great
feast-days, however, as well as the commemorations of the Apostles and of
a few other Saints, occur alike in all the books, and ought not to be
omitted here. We commence with the month of September (the opening of the
year at Constantinople), as do all the Lectionaries and Synaxaria we have
seen(108).
Sept. 1. Simeon Stylites, Luke iv. 16-22; Col. iii. 12-16 (1 Tim. ii. 1-7,
B-C. III. 53).
2. John the Faster, Matt. v. 14-19 (Wake 12). (John xv. 1-11, Parham 18.)
8. Birthday of the Virgin, Θεοτόκος, Matins, Luke i. 39-49, 56 (B-C. III.
24 and 42). Liturgy, Luke x. 38-42; xi. 27, 28; Phil. ii. 5-11. Κυριακῇ
πρὸ τῆς ὑψώσεως, John iii. 13-17; Gal. vi. 11-18.
14. Elevation of the Cross, Matins, John xii. 28-36. Liturgy, John xix.
6-35 (diff. in K and some others); 1 Cor. i. 18-24.
σαββάτῳ μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν, John viii. 21-30; 1 Cor. i. 26-29. Κυριακῇ μετὰ
τὴν ὕψωσιν Mark viii. 34-ix. 1; Gal. ii. 16-20.
18. Theodora(109), John viii. 3-11 (Parham).
24. Thecla, Matt. xxv. 1-13; 2 Tim. i. 3-9.
Oct. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite, Matt. xiii. 45-54; Acts xvii. 16 (19,
Cod. Bezae)-34 (16-23, 30, B-C, III. 24) (diff. in K).
6. Thomas the Apostle, John xx. 19-31; 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
8. Pelagia, John viii. 3-11(110).
9. James son of Alphaeus, Matt. x. 1-7, 14, 15.
18. Luke the Evangelist, Luke x. 16-21; Col. iv. 5-9, 14, 18.
23. James, ὁ ἀδελφόθεος, Mark vi. 1-7; James i. 1-12.
Nov. 8. Michael and Archangels, Matins, Matt, xviii. 10-20. Liturgy, Luke
x. 16-21; Heb. ii. 2-10.
13. Chrysostom, Matins, John x. 1-9. Liturgy, John x. 9-16; Heb. vii.
26-viii. 2.
Nov. 14. Philip the Apostle, John i. 44-55; Acts viii. 26-39.
16. Matthew the Apostle, Matt. ix. 9-13; 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
17. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Matt. x. 1-10 (Wake 12); 1 Cor. xii. 7, 8, 10,
11.
25. Clement of Rome, John xv. 17-xvi. 1; Phil. iii. 20-iv. 3.
30. Andrew the Apostle, John i. 35-52; 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
Dec. 20. Ignatius, ὁ θεόφορος, Mark ix. 33-41; Heb. iv. 14-v. 6 (Rom.
viii. 28-39, B-C. III. 24).
Saturday before Christmas, Matt. xiii. 31-58 (Luke xiii. 19-29, Gale);
Gal. iii. 8-12.
Sunday before Christmas, Matt. i. 1-25; Heb. xi. 9-16 (9, 10, 32-40, B-C.
III. 24).
24. Christmas Eve, Luke ii. 1-20; Heb. i. 1-12. Προεόρτια, 1 Pet. ii. 10
(B-C. III. 24).
25. Christmas Day, Matins, Matt. i. 18-25. Liturgy, Matt. ii. 1-12; Gal.
iv. 4-7.
26. εἰς τὴν σύναξιν τῆς Θεοτόκου, Matt. ii. 13-23; Heb. ii. 11-18.
27. Stephen(111), Matt. xxi. 33-42 (Gale); Acts vi. 1-7.
Saturday after Christmas, Matt. xii. 15-21; 1 Tim. vi. 11-16.
Sunday after Christmas, Mark i. 1-8; Gal. i. 11-19. The same Lessons for
29. Innocents (Gale). Saturday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Matt. iii. 1-6; 1 Tim. iii.
13-iv. 5.
Sunday πρὸ τῶν φώτων, Mark i. 1-8; 1 Tim. iii. 13-iv. 5 (2 Tim. iv. 5-8,
B-C. III. 24).
Jan. 1. Circumcision, Luke ii. 20, 21, 40-52; 1 Cor. xiii. 12-xiv. 5.
5. Vigil of θεοφανία, Luke iii. 1-18; 1 Cor. ix. 19-x. 4.
6. Θεοφανία (Epiphany) Matins, Mark i. 9-11. Titus ii. 11-14 (B-C. III. 42
adds iii. 4-7). Liturgy, Matt. iii. 13-17.
7. John, ὁ πρόδρομος, John i. 29-34.
Saturday μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, Matt. iv. 1-11; Eph. vi. 10-17.
Sunday μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, Matt. iv. 12-17; Eph. iv. 7-13.
16. Peter ad _Vincula_, John xxi. 15-19 (B-C. III. 42).
22. Timothy, Matt. x. 32, 33, 37, 38; xix. 27-30; 2 Tim. i. 3-9.
Feb. 2. Presentation of Christ, Matins, Luke ii. 25-32. Liturgy, Luke ii.
22-40; Heb. vii. 7-17.
3. Simeon ὁ θεοδόχος and Anna, Luke ii. 25-38; Heb. ix. 11-14.
23. Polycarp, John xii. 24-36,
24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist. Matins, Luke vii. 18-29
(17-30, B-C. iii. 42). Liturgy, Matt. xi. 5-14; 2 Cor. iv. 6-11.
March 24. Vigil of Annunciation, Luke i. 39-56 (Gale).
25. Annunciation, Luke i. 24-38; Heb. ii. 11-18.
April 23. St. George, Matins, Mark xiii. 9-13. Liturgy, Acts xii. 1-11
(Cod. Bezae)(112).
25. (Oct. 19, B-C. III. 24). Mark the Evangelist, Mark vi. 7-13; Col. iv.
5, 10, 11, 18.
30. James, son of Zebedee, Matt. x. 1-7, 14, 15.
May 2. Athanasius, Matt. v. 14-19; Heb. iv. 14.-v. 6.
8. (Sept. 26, B-C. III. 42). John, ὁ θεόλογος, John xix. 25-27; xxi. 24,
25; 1 John i. 1-7 (iv. 12-19, B-C. III. 42).
21. Helena, Luke iv. 22, &c., Evst. 298.
26. Jude the Apostle, John xiv. 21-24.
June 11. Bartholomew and Barnabas the Apostles, Mark vi. 7-13; Acts xi.
19-30.
19. Jude, brother of the Lord, Mark vi. 7-13, or εὐαγγέλιον ἀποστολικόν
(Matt. x. 1-8? June 30).
24. Birth of John the Baptist, Luke i. 1-25; 57-80; Rom. xiii. 11-xiv. 4.
29. Peter and Paul the Apostles, Matins, John xxi. 15-31. Liturgy, Matt.
xvi. 13-19; 2 Cor. xi. 21-xii. 9.
30. The Twelve Apostles, Matt. x. 1-8. July 20. Elijah, Luke iv. 22, &c.,
Evst. 229.
22. Mary Magdalene, ἡ μυροφόρος, Mark xvi. 9-20; 2 Tim. ii. 1-10.
Aug. 1. τῶν ἁγίων μακκαβαίων, Matt. x. 16, &c., Evst. 228 and others.
Aug. 6. Transfiguration. Matins, Luke ix. 29-36 or Mark ix. 2-9. Liturgy,
Matt. xvii. 1-9; 2 Pet. i. 10-19.
15. Assumption of the Virgin, Luke x. 38-42 (Gale, Codex Bezae).
20. Thaddaeus the Apostle, Matt. x. 16-22; 1 Cor. iv. 9-16.
25. Titus, Matt. v. 14-19 (Gale); 2 Tim. ii. 1-10.
29. Beheading of John the Baptist, Matins, Matt. xiv. 1-13. Liturgy, Mark
vi. 14-30; Acts xiii. 25-32 (39, B-C. III. 24).
Εἰς τὰ ἐγκαίνια, Dedication, John x. 22 (17, Gale)—28 (Gale, Cod. Bezae);
2 Cor. v. 15-21: Heb. ix. 1-7.
At Cambridge (Univ. Libr. II. 28. 8) is a rare volume containing the Greek
Gospel Church-Lessons, Θεῖον καὶ ἱερὸν εὐαγγέλιον, Venice, 1615-24, once
belonging to Bishop Hacket: also the Apostolos of a smaller size. Another
edition appeared in 1851, also at Venice.
For a comparison of the Greek with the Coptic Calendar, see p. 77, note 2.
For the Menology in the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, see Vol. II, Chap. 1.
CHAPTER IV. THE LARGER UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
We proceed to describe in detail the uncial manuscripts of the Greek
Testament, arranged separately as copies of the Gospels, of the Acts and
Catholic Epistles, of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Apocalypse. They
are usually indicated by the capital letters of the English and Greek
alphabets, and stand on the list not in the order of their relative value
or antiquity, but mainly as they were applied from time to time to the
purposes of Textual criticism.
א (_Aleph_). CODEX SINAITICUS, now at St. Petersburg, the justly
celebrated copy which sometime ago for a quarter of a century attracted
general attention in the learned world. Tischendorf (Notitia Ed. Cod.
Sinaitici, pp. 5, 6) when travelling in 1844 under the patronage of his
own sovereign, King Frederick Augustus of Saxony, picked out of a basket
full of papers destined to light the oven of the Convent of St. Catherine
on Mount Sinai, the forty-three leaves of the Septuagint which he
published in 1846 as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (_see_ p. 32). These,
of course, he easily got for the asking, but finding that further portions
of the same codex (e.g. the whole of Isaiah and 1, 4 Maccabees) were
extant, he rescued them from their probable fate, by enlightening the
brotherhood as to their value. He was permitted to copy one page of what
yet remained, containing the end of Isaiah and the beginning of Jeremiah,
which he afterwards published in the first volume of his “Monumenta Sacra
Inedita” (1855), pp. xxx. and 213-16; and he departed in the full hope
that he should be allowed to purchase the whole. But he had taught the
monks a sharp lesson, and neither then, nor on his subsequent visit in
1853, could he gain any tidings of the leaves he had left behind;—he even
seems to have concluded that they had been carried into Europe by some
richer or more fortunate collector. At the beginning of 1859, after the
care of the seventh edition of his N. T. was happily over, he went for a
third time into the East, under the well-deserved patronage of the Emperor
of Russia, the great protector of the Oriental Church; and the treasure
which had been twice withdrawn from him as a private traveller, was now,
on the occasion of some chance conversation, spontaneously put into the
hands of one sent from the champion and benefactor of the oppressed
Church. Tischendorf touchingly describes his surprise, his joy, his
midnight studies over the priceless volume (“_quippe dormire nefas
videbatur_”) on that memorable 4th of February, 1859. The rest was easy;
he was allowed to copy his prize at Cairo, and ultimately to bring it to
Europe, as a tribute of duty and gratitude to the Emperor Alexander II. To
that monarch’s wise munificence both the larger edition (1862), and the
smaller of the New Testament only (1863), are mainly due.
The Codex Sinaiticus is 13-½ inches in length by 14-7/8 inches high, and
consists of 346-½ leaves of the same beautiful vellum as the Cod.
Friderico-Augustanus which is really a part of it whereof 199 contain
portions of the Septuagint version, 147-½ the whole New Testament,
Barnabas’ Epistle, and a considerable fragment of Hermas’ Shepherd. It has
subsequently appeared that the Russian Archimandrite (afterwards Bishop)
Porphyry had brought with him from Sinai in 1845 some pieces of Genesis
xxiii, xxiv, and of Numbers v, vi, and vii, which had been applied long
before to the binding of other books(113). Each page comprises four
columns (_see_ p. 27), with forty-eight lines in each column, of those
continuous, noble, simple uncials (_compare_ Plate iv. 11 a _with_ 11 b).
The poetical books of the Old Testament, however, being written in στίχοι,
admit of only two columns on a page (_above_, p. 52). “In the Catholic
Epistles the scribe has frequently contented himself with a column of
forty-seven lines(114).” The order of the sacred books is remarkable,
though by no means unprecedented. St. Paul’s Epistles precede the Acts,
and amongst them, that to the Hebrews follows 2 Thess., standing on the
same page with it (p. 74). Although this manuscript has hitherto been
inspected by few Englishmen (Tregelles, however, and Dean Stanley were
among the number), yet its general aspect has grown familiar to us by the
means of photographs of its most important pages taken for the use of
private scholars(115), as well as from the facsimiles contained in
Tischendorf’s several editions. Breathings and accents there are none
except in Tobit vi. 9, and Gal. v. 21, as has been already mentioned: the
apostrophus and the single point for punctuation are entirely absent for
pages together, yet occasionally are rather thickly studded, not only in
places where a later hand has been unusually busy (e.g. Isaiah i. 1-iii.
2, two pages), but in some others (e.g. in 2 Cor. xii. 20 there are eight
stops). Even words very usually abridged (except _θσ_, _κσ_, _ισ_, _χσ_,
_πνα_ which are constant) are here written in full though the practice
varies, πατηρ, υιος, ουρανος, ανθρωπος, δαυειδ: we find ϊσραηλ´, ισλ or
_ιηλ_: ϊερουσαλημ´, _ιημ_, _ιλμ_, _ιηλμ´_. Tischendorf considers the two
points over iota and upsilon (which are sometimes wanting) as seldom from
the first hand: the mark >, besides its rather rare marginal use in
citations (_see_ p. 64, note 4), we notice in the text oftener in the Old
Testament than in the New. Words are divided at the end of a line: thus Κ
in ΟΥΚ, and Χ in ΟΥΧ are separated(116). Small letters, of the most
perfect shape, freely occur in all places, especially at the end of lines,
where the _superscript_ (_see_ p. 50) is almost always made to represent Ν
(e.g. seventeen times in Mark i. 1-35). Other _compendia scribendi_ are Κ
for και, and ΗΝ written as in Plate i. No. 2(117). Numerals are
represented by letters, with a straight line placed over them, e.g. _μ_
Mark i. 13. Although there are no capitals, the initial letter of a line
which begins a paragraph generally (not always) stands out from the rank
of the rest, as in the Old Testament portion of Cod. Vaticanus, and less
frequently in the New, after the fashion of certain earlier pieces on
papyrus. The titles and subscriptions of the several books are as short as
possible (_see_ p. 65). The τίτλοι or κεφάλαια _majora_ are absent; the
margin contains the so-called Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons, but
Tischendorf is positive that neither they nor such notes as στιχων _ρπ_
(_see_ p. 53, note 3) appended to 2 Thessalonians, are by the original
scribe, although they may possibly be due to a contemporary hand. From the
number of ὁμοιοτέλευτα and other errors, one cannot affirm that it is very
carefully written. Its itacisms are of the oldest type, and those not
constant; chiefly ι for ει, and δε and ε, and much more rarely η and υ and
οι interchanged. The grammatical forms commonly termed Alexandrian occur,
pretty much as in other manuscripts of the earliest date. The whole
manuscript is disfigured by corrections, a few by the original scribe, or
by the usual comparer or διορθώτης (_see_ p. 55); very many by an ancient
and elegant hand of the sixth century (אa), whose emendations are of great
importance; some again by a hand but little later (אb); far the greatest
number by a scholar of the seventh century (אc), who often cancels the
changes introduced by (אa); others by as many as eight several later
writers, whose varying styles Tischendorf has carefully discriminated and
illustrated by facsimiles(118).
The foregoing considerations were bringing even cautious students to a
general conviction that Cod. א, if not, as its enthusiastic discoverer had
announced, “omnium antiquissimus” in the absolute sense of the words, was
yet but little lower in date than the Vatican manuscript itself, and a
veritable relic of the middle of the fourth century—the presence in its
margin of the sections and canons of Eusebius [d. 340?], by a hand nearly
if not quite contemporaneous, seems to preclude the notion of higher
antiquity(119)—when Constantino Simonides, a Greek of Syme, who had just
edited a few papyrus fragments of the New Testament alleged to have been
written in the first century of the Christian era, suddenly astonished the
learned world in 1862 by claiming to be himself the scribe who had penned
this manuscript in the monastery of Panteleemon on Mount Athos, as
recently as in the years 1839 and 1840. The writer of these pages must
refer to the Introduction to his Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (pp.
lx-lxxii, 2nd edition, 1867) for a statement of the reasons which have
been universally accepted as conclusive, why the manuscript which
Simonides may very well have written under the circumstances he has
described neither was nor possibly could be that venerable document. The
discussion of the whole question, however, though painful enough in some
aspects, was the means of directing attention to certain peculiarities of
Cod. א which might otherwise have been overlooked. While engaged in
demonstrating that it could not have been transcribed from a
Moscow-printed Bible, as was “Cod. Simoneidos” (to borrow the designation
employed by its author), critics came to perceive that either this copy or
its immediate prototype must have been derived from a papyrus exemplar,
and that probably of Egyptian origin (Collation, &c. pp. viii; xiv;
lxviii), a confirmation of the impression conveyed to the reader by a
first glance at the eight narrow columns of each open leaf (p. 28). The
claim of Simonides to be the sole writer of a book which must have
consisted when complete of about 730 leaves, or 1460 pages of very large
size (Collation, &c. p. xxxii), and that too within the compass of eight
or ten months(120) (he inscribed on his finished work, as he tells us, the
words Σιμωνίδου τὸ ὅλον ἔργον), made it important to scrutinize the
grounds of Tischendorf’s judgement that four several scribes had been
engaged upon it, one of whom, as he afterwards came to persuade himself,
was the writer of its rival, Codex Vaticanus(121). Such an investigation,
so far as it depends only on the handwriting, can scarcely be carried out
satisfactorily without actual examination of the manuscript itself, which
is unfortunately not easily within the reach of those who could use it
independently; but it is at all events quite plain, as well from internal
considerations as from minute peculiarities in the writing, such as the
frequent use of the apostrophus and of the mark > (_see above_, p. 50) on
some sheets and their complete absence from others (Collation, &c. pp.
xvi-xviii; xxxii; xxxvii), that at least two, and probably more, persons
have been employed on the several parts of the volume(122).
It is indeed a strange coincidence, although unquestionably it can be
nothing more, that Simonides should have brought to the West from Mount
Athos some years before one genuine fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas in
Greek, and the transcript of a second (both of which materially aided
Tischendorf in editing the remains of that Apostolic Father), when taken
in connexion with the fact that the worth of Codex Sinaiticus is vastly
enhanced by its exhibiting next to the Apocalypse, and on the same page
with its conclusion, the only complete extant copy, besides the one
discovered by Bryennios in 1875, of the Epistle of Barnabas in Greek,
followed by a considerable portion of this self-same Shepherd of Hermas,
much of which, as well as of Barnabas, was previously known to us only in
the Old Latin translation. Both these works are included in the list of
books of the New Testament contained in the great Codex Claromontanus D of
St. Paul’s Epistles, to be described hereafter, Barnabas standing there in
an order sufficiently remarkable; and their presence, like that of the
Epistles of Clement at the end of Codex Alexandrinus (p. 99), brings us
back to a time when the Church had not yet laid aside the primitive custom
of reading publicly in the congregation certain venerated writings which
have never been regarded exactly in the same light as Holy Scripture
itself. Between the end of Barnabas and the opening of the Shepherd are
lost the last six leaves of a quaternion (which usually consists of eight)
numbered 91 at its head in a fairly ancient hand. The limited space would
not suffice for the insertion of Clement’s genuine Epistle, since the head
of the next quaternion is numbered 92, but might suit one of the other
uncanonical books on the list in Cod. Claromontanus, viz. the Acts of Paul
and the Revelation of Peter.
With regard to the deeply interesting question as to the critical
character of Cod. א, although it strongly supports the Codex Vaticanus in
many characteristic readings, yet it cannot be said to give its exclusive
adherence to any of the witnesses hitherto examined. It so lends its grave
authority, now to one and now to another, as to convince us more than ever
of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the New Testament
from any one copy, however ancient and, on the whole, trustworthy, when
evidence of a wide and varied character is at hand.
A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS in the British Museum, where the open volume of the
New Testament is publicly shown in the Manuscript room. It was placed in
that Library on its formation in 1753, having previously belonged to the
king’s private collection from the year 1628, when Cyril Lucar, Patriarch
of Constantinople (whose crude attempts to reform the Eastern Church on
the model of Geneva ultimately provoked the untoward Synod of Bethlehem in
1672(123)), sent this most precious document by our Ambassador in Turkey,
Sir Thomas Roe, as a truly royal gift to Charles I. An Arabic inscription,
several centuries old, at the back of the Table of Contents on the first
leaf of the manuscript, and translated into Latin in another hand, which
Mr. W. Aldis Wright recognizes as Bentley’s (Academy, April 17, 1875),
states that it was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr(124). A recent
Latin note on the first page of the first of two fly-leaves declares that
it was given to the Patriarchal Chamber in the year of the Martyrs, 814
[A.D. 1098]. Another, and apparently the earliest inscription, in an
obscure Moorish-Arabic scrawl, set at the foot of the first page of
Genesis, was thus translated for Baber by Professor Nicoll of Oxford,
“Dicatus est Cellae Patriarchae in urbe munitâ Alexandriâ. Qui eum ex eâ
extraxerit sit anathematizatus, vi avulsus. Athanasius humilis” (Cod.
Alex. V.T., Prolegomena, p. xxvi, note 92). That the book was brought from
Alexandria by Cyril (who had been Patriarch of that see from 1602 to 1621)
need not be disputed, although Wetstein, on the doubtful authority of
Matthew Muttis of Cyprus, Cyril’s deacon, concludes that he procured it
from Mount Athos. In the volume itself the Patriarch has written and
subscribed the following words: “Liber iste scripturae sacrae N. et V.
Testamenti, prout ex traditione habemus, est scriptus manu Theclae,
nobilis foeminae Aegyptiae, ante mile [sic] et trecentos annos circiter,
paulò post Concilium Nicenum. Nomen Theclae in fine libri erat exaratum,
sed extincto Christianismo in Aegypto a Mahometanis, et libri unà
Christianorum in similem sunt reducti conditionem. Extinctum ergo est
Theclae nomen et laceratum, sed memoria et traditio recens observat.”
Cyril seems to lean wholly on the Arabic inscription on the first leaf of
the volume: independent testimony he would appear to have received none.
This celebrated manuscript, the earliest of first-rate importance applied
by scholars to the criticism of the text, and yielding in value to but one
or two at the utmost, is now bound in four volumes, whereof three contain
the Septuagint version of the Old Testament almost complete(125), the
fourth volume the New Testament with several lamentable defects. In St.
Matthew’s Gospel some twenty-five leaves are wanting up to ch. xxv. 6
ἐξέρχεσθε, from John vi. 50 ἵνα to viii. 52 καὶ σύ(126) two leaves are
lost, and three leaves from 2 Cor. iv. 13 ἐπίστευσα to xii. 6 ἐξ ἐμοῦ. All
the other books of the New Testament are here entire, the Catholic
Epistles following the Acts, that to the Hebrews standing before the
Pastoral Epistles (_see above_, p. 74). After the Apocalypse we find what
was till very recently the only known extant copy of the first or genuine
Epistle of Clement of Rome, and a small fragment of a second of suspected
authenticity, both in the same hand as the latter part of the New
Testament. It would appear also that these two Epistles of Clement were
designed to form a part of the volume of Scripture, for in the Table of
Contents exhibited on the first leaf of the manuscript under the head Η
ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, they are represented as immediately following the
Apocalypse: next is given the number of books, ΟΜΟΥ ΒΙΒΛΙΑ, the numerals
being now illegible; and after this, as if distinct from Scripture, the
eighteen Psalms of Solomon. Such uncanonical works (ἰδιωτικοὶ ψαλμοὶ ...
ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία) were forbidden to be read in churches by the 59th canon
of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363?); whose 60th canon, which seems to
have been added a little later, enumerates the books of the N. T. in the
precise order seen in Cod. A, only that the Apocalypse and Clement’s
Epistles do not stand on the list.
This manuscript is in quarto, 12-¾ inches high and 10-¼ broad, and
consists of 773 leaves (of which 639 contain the Old Testament), each page
being divided into two columns of fifty or fifty-one lines each, having
about twenty letters or upwards in a line. These letters are written
continuously in uncial characters, without any space between the words,
the uncials being of an elegant yet simple form, in a firm and uniform
hand, though in some places larger than in others. Specimens of both
styles may be seen in our facsimiles (Plate v, Nos. 12, 13)(127), the
first, Gen. i. 1, 2, being written in vermilion, the second, Acts xx. 28,
in the once black, but now yellowish-brown ink of the body of the Codex.
The punctuation, which no later hand has meddled with, consists merely of
a point placed at the end of a sentence, usually on a level with the top
of the preceding letter, but not always; and a vacant space follows the
point at the end of a paragraph, the space being proportioned to the break
in the sense. Capital letters of various sizes abound at the beginning of
books and sections, not painted as in later copies, but written by the
original scribe in common ink. As these capitals stand entirely outside
the column in the margin (excepting in such rare cases as Gen. i. 1), if
the section begins in the middle of a line, the capital is necessarily
postponed till the beginning of the next line, whose first letter is
always the capital, even though it be in the middle of a word (_see_ p.
51). Vermilion is freely used in the initial lines of books, and has stood
the test of time much better than the black ink: the first four lines of
each column on the first page of Genesis are in this colour, accompanied
with the only breathings and accents in the manuscript (_see above_, pp.
45, 46). The first line of St. Mark, the first three of St. Luke, the
first verse of St. John, the opening of the Acts down to δι, and so on for
other books, are in vermilion. At the end of each book are neat and unique
ornaments in the ink of the first hand: see especially those at the end of
St. Mark and the Acts. As we have before stated this codex is the earliest
which has the κεφάλαια proper, the so-called Ammonian sections, and the
Eusebian canons complete. Lists of the κεφάλαια precede each Gospel,
except the first, where they are lost. Their titles stand or have stood at
the top of the pages, but the binder has often ruthlessly cut them short,
and committed other yet more serious mutilation at the edges. The places
at which they begin are indicated throughout, and their numbers are
moreover set in the margin of Luke and John. The sections and Eusebian
canons are conspicuous in the margin, and at the beginning of each of
these sections a capital letter is found. The rest of the New Testament
has no division into κεφάλαια, as was usual in later times, but paragraphs
and capitals occur as the sense requires.
The palaeographic reasons for assigning this manuscript to the beginning
or middle of the fifth century (the date now very generally acquiesced in,
though it may be referred even to the end of the fourth century, and is
certainly not much later) depend in part on the general style of the
writing, which is at once firm, elegant and simple; partly on the
formation of certain letters, in which respect it holds a middle place
between copies of the fourth and sixth centuries. The reader will recall
what we have already said (pp. 33-40) as to the shape of _alpha_, _delta_,
_epsilon_, _pi_, _sigma_, _phi_, and _omega_ in the Codex Alexandrinus.
Woide, who edited the New Testament, believes that two hands were employed
in that volume, changing in the page containing 1 Cor. v-vii, the vellum
of the latter portion being thinner and the ink more thick, so that it has
peeled off or eaten through the vellum in many places. This, however, is a
point on which those who know manuscripts best will most hesitate to speak
decidedly(128).
The external arguments for fixing the date are less weighty, but all point
to the same conclusion. On the evidence for its being written by St.
Thecla, indeed, no one has cared to lay much stress, though some have
thought that the scribe might belong to a monastery dedicated to that holy
martyr(129), whether the contemporary of St. Paul be meant, or her
namesake who suffered in the second year of Diocletian, A.D. 286 (Eusebius
de Martyr. Palaestin. c. iii). Tregelles explains the origin of the Arabic
inscription, on which Cyril’s statement appears to rest, by remarking that
the New Testament in our manuscript at present commences with Matt. xxv.
6, this lesson (Matt. xxv. 1-13) _being that appointed by the Greek Church
for the festival of St. Thecla_ (_see above_, Menology, p. 87, Sept. 24).
Thus the Egyptian who wrote this Arabic note, observing the name of Thecla
in the now mutilated upper margin of the Codex, where such rubrical notes
are commonly placed by later hands, may have hastily concluded that she
wrote the book, and so perplexed our Biblical critics. It seems a fatal
objection to this shrewd conjecture, as Mr. E. Maunde Thompson points out,
that the Arabic numeration of the leaf, set in the _verso_ of the lower
margin, itself posterior in date to the Arabic note relating to Thecla, is
26(130); so that the twenty-five leaves now lost must have been still
extant when that note was written.
Other more trustworthy reasons for assigning Cod. A to the fifth century
may be summed up very briefly. The presence of the canons of Eusebius
[A.D. 268-340?], and of the epistle to Marcellinus by the great
Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria [300?-373], standing before the
Psalms, place a limit in one direction, while the absence of the Euthalian
divisions of the Acts and Epistles (_see above_, p. 64), which came into
vogue very soon after A.D. 458, and the shortness of the ὑπογραφαί
(_above_, p. 65), appear tolerably decisive against a later date than A.D.
450. The insertion of the Epistles of Clement, like that of the treatises
of Barnabas and Hermas in the Cod. Sinaiticus (p. 92), recalls us to a
period when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars a little
unsettled, that is, about the age of the Councils of Laodicea (363?) and
of Carthage (397). Other arguments have been urged both for an earlier and
a later date, but they scarcely deserve discussion. Wetstein’s objection
to the name Θεοτόκος as applied to the Blessed Virgin in the title to her
song, added to the Psalms, is quite groundless: that appellation was given
to her by both the Gregories in the middle of the fourth century (_vid._
Suicer, Thesaur. Eccles. i. p. 1387), as habitually as it was a century
after: nor should we insist much on the contrary upon Woide’s or Schulz’s
persuasion that the τρισάγιον (ἅγιος ὁ θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος
ἀθάνατος) would have been found in the ὕμνος ἑωθινός after the Psalms, had
the manuscript been written as late as the fifth century.
Partial and inaccurate collations of the New Testament portion of this
manuscript were made by Patrick Young, Librarian to Charles I(131), who
first published from it the Epistles of Clement in 1633: then by Alexander
Huish, Prebendary of Wells, for Walton’s Polyglott, and by some
others(132). The Old Testament portion was edited in 1707-20, after a not
very happy plan, but with learned Prolegomena and notes, by the Prussian
J. E. Grabe, the second and third of his four volumes being posthumous.
In 1786, Charles Godfrey Woide, preacher at the Dutch Chapel Royal and
Assistant Librarian in the British Museum, a distinguished Coptic scholar
[d. 1790], published, by the aid of 456 subscribers, a noble folio edition
of the New Testament from this manuscript, with valuable Prolegomena, a
copy of the text which, so far as it has been tested, has been found
reasonably accurate, together with notes on the changes made in the codex
by later hands, and a minute collation of its readings with the common
text as presented in Kuster’s edition of Mill’s N. T. (1710). In this last
point Woide has not been taken as a model by subsequent editors of
manuscripts, much to the inconvenience of the student. In 1816-28 the Old
Testament portion of the Codex Alexandrinus was published in three folio
volumes at the national expense, by the Rev. Henry Hervey Baber, also of
the British Museum, the Prolegomena to whose magnificent work are very
inferior to Woide’s, but contain some additional information. Both these
performances, and many others like them which we shall have to describe,
are printed in an uncial type, bearing some general resemblance to that of
their respective originals, but which must not be supposed to convey any
adequate notion of their actual appearance. Such quasi-facsimiles (for
they are nothing more), while they add to the cost of the book, seem to
answer no useful purpose whatever; and, if taken by an incautious reader
for more than they profess to be, will seriously mislead him. In 1860 Mr.
B. H. Cowper put forth an octavo edition of the New Testament pages in
common type, but burdened with modern breathings and accents, the lacunae
of the manuscript being unwisely supplied by means of Kuster’s edition of
Mill, and the original paragraphs departed from, wheresoever they were
judged to be inconvenient. These obvious faults are the more to be
regretted, inasmuch as Mr. Cowper has not shrunk from the labour of
revising Woide’s edition by a comparison with the Codex itself, thus
giving to his book a distinctive value of its own. An admirable autotype
facsimile of the New Testament was published in 1879, and afterwards of
the Old Testament, by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, then the Principal Keeper of
Manuscripts, now the Principal Librarian, of the British Museum.
The Codex Alexandrinus has been judged to be carelessly written; many
errors of transcription no doubt exist, but not so many as in some copies
(e.g. Cod. א), nor more than in others (as Cod. B). None other than the
ordinary abridgements are found in it (_see_ pp. 49-50): numerals are not
expressed by letters except in Apoc. vii. 4; xxi. 17: ι and υ have usually
the dots over them at the beginning of a syllable. Of itacisms it may be
doubted whether it contains more than others of the same date: the
interchange of ι and ει, η and ι, ε, αι, are the most frequent; but these
mutations are too common to prove anything touching the country of the
manuscript. Its external history renders it very likely that it was
written at Alexandria, that great manufactory of correct and elegant
copies, while Egypt was yet a Christian land: but such forms as λήμψομαι,
ἐλάβαμεν, ἦλθαν, ἔνατος, ἐκαθερίσθη, and others named by Woide, are
peculiar to no single nation, but are found repeatedly in Greek-Latin
codices which unquestionably originated in Western Europe. This manuscript
is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as it exhibits
(especially in the Gospels) a text more nearly approaching that found in
later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity, although some
of its errors are portentous enough, e.g. θ_υ_ for _ιυ_ in John xix. 40.
This topic, however, will be discussed at length in another place, and we
shall elsewhere consider the testimony Codex A bears in the celebrated
passage 1 Tim. iii. 16.
B. CODEX VATICANUS 1209 is probably the oldest large vellum manuscript in
existence, and is the glory of the great Vatican Library at Rome. To this
legitimate source of deep interest must be added the almost romantic
curiosity which was once excited by the jealous watchfulness of its
official guardians. But now that an acquaintance with it has been placed
within the reach of scholars through the magnificent autotype edition
issued by the authorities of the Vatican, it may be hoped that all such
mystic glamour will soon be left with the past. This book seems to have
been brought into the Vatican Library shortly after its establishment by
Pope Nicolas V in 1448, but nothing is known of its previous history(133).
It is entered in the earliest catalogue of that Library, made in 1475.
Since the missing portions at the end of the New Testament are believed to
have been supplied in the fifteenth century from a manuscript belonging to
Cardinal Bessarion, we may be allowed to conjecture, if we please, that
this learned Greek brought the Codex into the west of Europe. It was taken
to Paris by Napoleon I, where it was studied by Hug in 1809. Although this
book has not even yet been as thoroughly collated, or rendered as
available as it might be to the critical student, its general character
and appearance are sufficiently well known. It is a quarto volume,
arranged in quires of five sheets or ten leaves each, like Codex
Marchalianus of the Prophets written in the sixth or seventh century and
Cod. Rossanensis of the Gospels to be described hereafter, not of four or
three sheets as Cod. א, the ancient, perhaps the original, numbering of
the quires being often found in the margin. The New Testament fills 142
out of its 759 thin and delicate vellum leaves, said to be made of the
skins of antelopes: it is bound in red morocco, being 10-½ inches high, 10
broad, 4-½ thick. It once contained the whole Bible in Greek, the Old
Testament of the Septuagint version (a tolerably fair representation of
which was exhibited in the Roman edition as early as 1587(134)), except
the books of the Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. The first forty-six
chapters of Genesis (the manuscript begins at πολιν, Gen. xlvi. 28) and
Psalms cv-cxxxvii, also the books of the Maccabees, are wanting. The New
Testament is complete down to Heb. ix. 14 καθα: the rest of the Epistle to
the Hebrews (the Catholic Epistles had followed the Acts, _see_ p. 74),
and the Apocalypse, being written in the later hand alluded to above. The
peculiar arrangement of three columns on a page, or six on the opened leaf
of the volume, is described by eye-witnesses as very striking: in the
poetical books of the Old Testament (since they are written στιχηρῶς) only
two columns fill a page. Our facsimile (Plate viii, No. 20) comprises Mark
xvi. 3 μιν τον λιθον to the end of verse 8, where the Gospel ends
abruptly; both the arabesque ornament and the subscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
being in a later hand (for M _see_ p. 37). All who have inspected the
Codex are loud in their praises of the fine thin vellum, the clear and
elegant hand of the first penman, the simplicity of the whole style of the
work: capital letters, so frequent in the Codex Alexandrinus, were totally
wanting in this document for some centuries. In several of these
particulars our manuscript resembles the Herculanean rolls, and thus
asserts a just claim to high antiquity, which the absence of the divisions
into κεφάλαια, of the sections and canons, and the substitution in their
room of another scheme of chapters of its own (described above, p. 56),
beyond question tend very powerfully to confirm. Each column contains
ordinarily forty-two lines(135), each line from sixteen to eighteen
letters, of a size somewhat less than in Cod. A, much less than in Cod. א
(though they all vary a little in this respect), with no intervals between
words, a space of the breadth of half a letter being left at the end of a
sentence, and a little more at the conclusion of a paragraph; the first
letter of the new sentence occasionally standing a little out of the line
(_see_ pp. 51, 93). It has been doubted whether any of the stops are
_primâ manu_, and (contrary to the judgement of Birch and others) the
breathings and accents are now universally allowed to have been added by a
later hand. This hand, referred by some to the eighth century (although
Tischendorf, with Dr. Hort’s approval, assigns it to the tenth or
eleventh(136)), retraced, with as much care as such an operation would
permit, the faint lines of the original writing (the ink whereof was
perhaps never quite black), the remains of which can even now be seen by a
keen-sighted reader by the side of the thicker and more modern strokes;
and, anxious at the same time to represent a critical revision of the
text, the writer left untouched such words or letters as he wished to
reject. In these last places, _where no breathings or accents and scarcely
any stops_(137)_ have ever been detected_, we have an opportunity of
seeing the manuscript in its primitive condition, before it had been
tampered with by the later scribe. There are occasional breaks in the
continuity of the writing, every descent in the genealogies of our Lord
(Matt. i, Luke iii(138)), each of the beatitudes (Matt. v), of the
parables in Matt. xiii, and the salutations of Rom. xvi, forming a
separate paragraph; but such a case will oftentimes not occur for several
consecutive pages. The writer’s plan was to proceed regularly with a book
until it was finished: then to break off from the column he was writing,
and to begin the next book on the very next column. Thus only _one_ column
perfectly blank is found in the whole New Testament(139), that which
follows ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ in Mark xvi. 8: and since Cod. B is the only one yet
known, except Cod. א, that actually omits the last twelve verses of that
Gospel, by leaving such a space the scribe has intimated that he was fully
aware of their existence, or even found them in the copy from which he
wrote. The capital letters at the beginning of each book are likewise due
to the corrector, who sometimes erased, sometimes merely touched slightly,
the original initial letter, which (as in the Herculanean rolls) is no
larger than any other. The _paragraph_ marks (usually straight lines, but
sometimes [symbol](140)) are seen quite frequently in some parts; whether
from the first hand is very doubtful. The note of citation > is perpetual,
not occasional as in Cod. א. Fewer abridgements than usual occur in this
venerable copy. The formation of _delta_, _pi_, _chi_; the loop-like curve
on the left side of _alpha_; the absence of points at the extremities of
_sigma_ or _epsilon_; the length and size of _rho_, _upsilon_, _phi_, all
point to the FOURTH century as the date of this manuscript. The smaller
letters so often found at the end of lines preserve the same firm and
simple character as the rest; of the use of the apostrophus, so frequent
in Codd. א, A and some others, Tischendorf enumerates ten instances in the
New Testament (N. T. Vatican. Proleg. p. xxi), whereof four are
represented in the Roman edition of 1868, with two more which Tischendorf
considers as simple points (Acts vii. 13, 14).
Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be
written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable
history it would be. The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it
does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglott(141))
through Sepulveda, to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been
seasonably recalled by Tregelles. Writing in 1533, he says, “Est enim
Graecum exemplar antiquissimum in Bibliothecâ Vaticanâ, in quo
diligentissimè et accuratissimè literis majusculis conscriptum utrumque
Testamentum continetur longè diversum a vulgatis exemplaribus”: and, after
noticing as a weighty proof of excellence its agreement with the Latin
version (multum convenit cum vetere nostrâ translatione) against the
common Greek text (vulgatam Graecorum editionem), he furnishes Erasmus
with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements.
It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts,
published in 1535, Erasmus cites the reading καῦδα, ch. xxvii. 16 (“quidam
admonent” is the expression he uses), from a Greek codex in the Pontifical
Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known _Greek_ witness,
except a corrector of Cod. א. It seems, however, that he had obtained some
account of this manuscript from the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius as
early as 1521 (_see_ Wetstein’s Proleg. N. T., vol. i. p. 23). Lucas
Brugensis, who published his Notationes in S. Biblia in 1580, and his
Commentary on the Four Gospels (dedicated to Cardinal Bellarmine) in 1606,
made known some twenty extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimeguen;
that most imperfect collection being the only source from which Mill and
even Wetstein had any acquaintance with the contents of this first-rate
document. More indeed might have been gleaned from the Barberini readings
gathered in or about 1625 (of which we shall speak in the next section),
but their real value and character were not known in the lifetime of
Wetstein. In 1698 Lorenzo Alexander Zacagni, Librarian of the Vatican, in
his Preface to the Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Eccles., describes
Cod. B, and especially its peculiar division into sections, in a passage
cited by Mill (Proleg. § 1480). In 1669 indeed the first real collation of
the manuscript with the Aldine edition (1518) had been attempted by
Bartolocci, then Librarian of the Vatican; from some accident, however, it
was never published, though a transcript under the feigned name of Giulio
a Sta. Anastasia yet remains in the Imperial Library of Paris (MSS. Gr.
Supplem. 53), where it was first discovered and used by Scholz in 1819,
and subsequently by Tischendorf and Muralt, the latter of whom (apparently
on but slender grounds) regards it as the best hitherto made; others have
declared it to be very imperfect, and quite inferior to those of Bentley
and Birch. The collation which bears Bentley’s name (Trin. Coll. B. xvii.
3, in Cephalaeus’ N. T. 1524) was procured about 1720 by his money and the
labour of the Abbate Mico, for the purpose of his projected Greek
Testament. When he had found out its defects, by means of an examination
of the original by his nephew Thomas Bentley in 1726, our great critic
engaged the Abbate Rulotta in 1729 for forty scudi (Bentley’s
Correspondence, p. 706) to revise Mico’s sheets, and especially to note
the changes made by the second hand. Rulotta’s papers came to light in
1855 among the Bentley manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College,
Cambridge (B. xvii. 20), and have lately proved of signal value(142);
Mico’s were published in 1799 at Oxford, by Henry Ford, Lord Almoner’s
Reader in Arabic there (1783-1813), together with some Thebaic fragments
of the New Testament, in a volume which (since it was chiefly drawn from
Woide’s posthumous papers) he was pleased to call an Appendix to the Codex
Alexandrinus. A fourth collation of the Vatican MS. was made about 1780 by
Andrew Birch of Copenhagen, and is included in the notes to the first
volume of his Greek Testament 1788, or published separately in three
volumes which were issued successively 1798 (Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul.),
1800 (Apoc.), and 1801 (Evans). Birch’s collation does not extend to the
Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, and on the whole is less full and exact
than Mico’s. In 1810, however, when, with the other best treasures of the
Vatican, Codex B was at Paris, the celebrated critic J. L. Hug sent forth
his treatise “de Antiquitate Vaticani Codicis Commentatio,” and though
even he did not perceive the need of a new and full collation when he
examined it in 1809, he has the merit of first placing it in the paramount
rank it still holds as one of the oldest and most venerable of extant
monuments of sacred antiquity. His conclusion respecting its date, that it
is not later than the middle of the fourth century, has been acquiesced in
with little opposition, though Tischendorf declares rather pithily that he
holds this belief “non propter Hugium sed cum Hugio” (Cod. Ephraem.
Proleg. p. 19). Some of his reasons, no doubt, are weak enough(143); but
the strength of his position depends on an accumulation of minute
particulars, against which there seems nothing to set up which would
suggest a lower period. On its return to Rome, this volume was no longer
available for the free use and reference of critics. In 1843 Tischendorf,
after long and anxious expectation during a visit to Rome that lasted some
months, obtained a sight of it for two days of three hours each(144). In
1844 Edward de Muralt was admitted to the higher privilege of three days
or nine hours enjoyment of this treasure, and on the strength of the
favour published an edition of the New Testament, _ad fidem codicis
principis Vaticani_, in 1846. Tregelles, who went to Rome in 1845 for the
special purpose of consulting it, was treated even worse. He had forearmed
himself (as he fondly imagined) with recommendatory letters from Cardinal
Wiseman, and was often allowed to _see_ the manuscript, but hindered from
transcribing any of its readings(145).
What the Papal authorities would not entrust to others, they had at least
the merit of attempting and at length accomplishing themselves. As early
as 1836 Bishop Wiseman announced in his Lectures on the Connection between
Science and Revelation, vol. ii. pp. 187-191, that Cardinal Mai, whose
services to classical and ecclesiastical literature were renowned
throughout Europe, was engaged on an edition of the Codex Vaticanus,
commenced under the immediate sanction of Pope Leo XII (1823-29). As years
passed by and no such work appeared, adverse reports and evil surmises
began to take the place of hope, although the Cardinal often spoke of his
work as already finished, only that he desired to write full Prolegomena
before it should appear. In September 1854 he died, honoured and ripe in
years; and at length, when no more seemed to be looked for in that
quarter, five quarto volumes issued from the Roman press in 1857, the New
Testament comprising the fifth volume, with a slight and meagre preface by
the Cardinal, and a letter to the reader by “Carolus Vercellone, Sodalis
Barnabites,” which told in a few frank manly words how little accuracy we
had to expect in a work, by the publication of which he still persuaded
himself he was decorating Mai’s memory “novâ usque gloriâ atque
splendidiore coronâ” (tom. i. p. iii). The cause of that long delay now
required no explanation. In fact so long as Mai lived the edition never
would have appeared; for though he had not patience or special skill
enough to accomplish his task well, he was too good a scholar not to know
that he had done it very ill. The text is broken up into paragraphs, the
numbers of the modern chapters and verses being placed in the margin; the
peculiar divisions of the Codex Vaticanus (_see_ p. 56) sometimes omitted,
sometimes tampered with. The Greek type employed is not an imitation of
the uncials in the manuscript (of which circumstance we do not complain),
but has modern stops, breathings, accents, ι _subscript_, &c., as if the
venerable document were written yesterday. As regards the orthography it
is partially, and only partially, modernized; clauses or whole passages
omitted in the manuscript are supplied from other sources, although the
fact is duly notified(146); sometimes the readings of the first hand are
put in the margin, while those of the second stand in the text, sometimes
the contrary: in a word, the plan of the work exhibits all the faults such
a performance well can have. Nor is the execution at all less
objectionable. Although the five volumes were ten years in printing
(1828-38), Mai devoted to their superintendence only his scanty spare
hours, and even then worked so carelessly that after cancelling a hundred
pages for their incurable want of exactness, he was reduced to the shift
of making _manual_ corrections with moveable types, and projected huge
tables of errata, which Vercellone has in some measure tried to supply.
When once it is stated that the type was set up from the common Elzevir or
from some other printed Greek Testament, the readings of the Codex itself
being inserted as corrections, and the whole revised by means of an
assistant who read the proof-sheets to the Cardinal while he inspected the
manuscript; no one will look for accuracy from a method which could not
possibly lead to it. Accordingly, when Mai’s text came to be compared with
the collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, or with
the scattered readings which had been extracted by others, it was soon
discovered that while this edition added very considerably to our
knowledge of the Codex Vaticanus, and often enabled us to form a decision
on its readings when the others were at variance; it was in its turn
convicted by them of so many errors, oversights, and inconsistencies, that
its single evidence could never be used with confidence, especially when
it agreed with the commonly received Greek text. Immediately after the
appearance of Mai’s expensive quartos, an octavo reprint of the New
Testament was struck off at Leipsic for certain London booksellers, which
proved but a hasty, slovenly, unscholarlike performance, and was put aside
in 1859 by a cheap Roman edition in octavo, prepared, as was the quarto,
by Mai, prefaced by another graceful and sensible epistle of
Vercellone(147). This last edition was undertaken by the Cardinal, after
sad experience had taught him the defects of his larger work, and he took
good care to avoid some of the worst of them: the readings of the second
hand are usually, though not always, banished to the margin, their number
on the whole is increased, gross errors are corrected, omissions supplied,
and the Vatican chapters are given faithfully and in full. But Mai’s whole
procedure in this matter is so truly unfortunate, that in a person whose
fame was less solidly grounded, we should impute it to mere helpless
incapacity(148). Not only did he split up the paragraphs of his quarto
into the modern chapters and verses (in itself a most undesirable change,
_see above_, p. 70), but by omitting some things and altering others, he
introduced almost as many errors as he removed. When Dean Burgon was
permitted to examine the Codex for an hour and a half in 1860, on
consulting it for sixteen passages out of hundreds wherein the two are
utterly at variance, he discovered that the quarto was right in seven of
them, the octavo in nine: as if Mai were determined that neither of his
editions should supersede the use of the other. Dean Alford also collated
numerous passages in 1861(149), and his secretary Mr. Cure in 1862,
especially with reference to the several correcting hands: “in errorem
quidem et ipse haud raro inductus,” is Tischendorf’s verdict on his
labours. Thus critics of every shade of opinion became unanimous on one
point, that a new edition of the Codex Vaticanus was as imperatively
needed as ever; one which should preserve with accuracy all that the first
hand has written (transcriptural errors included), should note in every
instance the corrections made by the second hand, and, wherever any one of
the previous collators might be found in error, should expressly state the
true reading.
It would have been a grievous reproach had no efforts been made to supply
so great and acknowledged a want. Early in 1866, Tischendorf again visited
Rome, and when admitted into the presence of Pope Pius IX, boldly sought
permission to edit at his own cost such an edition of Cod. B as he had
already published of Cod. א. The request was denied by his Holiness, who
obscurely hinted his intention of carrying out the same design on his own
account. Tischendorf, however, obtained permission to use the manuscript
so far as to consult it in such parts of the New Testament as presented
any special difficulty, or respecting which previous collators were at
variance. He commenced his task February 28, and in the course of it could
not refrain from copying at length twenty pages of the great
Codex—nineteen from the New Testament, and one from the Old. This licence
was not unnaturally regarded as a breach of his contract, so that, after
he had used the manuscript for eight days, it was abruptly withdrawn from
him on March 12. An appeal to the generosity of Vercellone, who had been
entrusted with the care of the forthcoming edition, procured for him the
sight of this coveted treasure for six days longer between March 20 and
26, the Italian being always present on these latter occasions, and
receiving instruction for the preparation of his own work by watching the
processes of a master hand. Thus fourteen days of three hours each, used
zealously and skilfully, enabled Tischendorf to put forth an edition of
Cod. B far superior to any that preceded it(150). The Prolegomena are full
of matter from which we have drawn freely in the foregoing description,
the text is in cursive type, the nineteen pages which cost him so dearly
being arranged in their proper lines, the remainder according to columns.
Much that ought to have been noted was doubtless passed over by
Tischendorf for mere pressure of time; but he takes great pains to
distinguish the readings of the original writer or his διορθωτής (_see_ p.
55)(151), both of whom supplied words or letters here and there in the
margin or between the lines(152), from the corrections of a second yet
ancient scribe (B2), and those of the person (B3) who retraced the faded
writing at a later period(153). One notion, taken up by Tischendorf in the
course of his collation in 1866, was received at first with general
incredulity by other scholars. He has pronounced a decided opinion, not
only that Codd. א and B are documents of the same age, but that the scribe
who wrote the latter is one of the four [D] to whose diligence we owe the
former. That there should be a general similarity in the style of the two
great codices is probable enough, although the letters in Cod. א are about
half as large again as those of its fellow, but such as are aware of the
difficulty of arriving at a safe conclusion as to identity of penmanship
after close and repeated comparison of one document with another, will
hardly attach much weight to the impression of any person, however large
his experience, who has nothing but memory to trust to. Tregelles, who has
also seen both copies, states that Cod. א looks much the fresher and
clearer of the two. Yet the reasons alleged above, which are quite
independent of the appearance of the handwriting, leave scarcely a doubt
that Tischendorf’s judgement was correct.
The Roman edition, projected by Vercellone and Cozza under the auspices of
Pius IX, was designed to consist of six volumes, four containing the Old
Testament, one the New, another being devoted to the notes and
discrimination of corrections by later hands. The New Testament appeared
in 1868(154), a second volume in 1869, containing the text from Genesis to
Joshua; three more have since completed the Old Testament (1870, 1871,
1872). The learned, genial, and modest Vercellone (b. 1814) died early in
1869, so that the later volumes bear on their title-page the mournful
inscription “Carolum Vercellone excepit Caietanus Sergio Sodalis
Barnabites” as Cozza’s associate. These editors fared but ill whether as
Biblical critics or as general scholars, under the rough handling of
Tischendorf, whom the wiser policy of Vercellone had kept in good humour,
but whose powers his successors greatly undervalued. There seems, however,
to be no great cause, in spite of their adversary’s minute diligence in
fault-finding (Appendix N. T. Vatic. 1869, p. xi, &c.)(155), for doubting
their general correctness, although they persist in placing on the page
with the rest of their text readings which are known or credibly stated to
be of decidedly later date, in spite of the incongruousness of the mixture
of what was original with matter plainly adscititious(156). Thus in the
Roman edition αδελφων μου των Matt. xxv. 40, imputed by Tischendorf to B2
and B3, stands in the margin just in the same way as ο γαμος Matt. xxii.
10, which he refers to the first hand. But this is only one instance of a
lack of judgement which deforms every page of their performance: e.g.
Matt. xix. 12; xxiii. 26; 37; xxv. 16; xxvii. 12; 13; 45; xxviii. 15; Acts
xv. 1: all which places exhibit, undistinguished from emendations of the
original scribe or his “corrector,” readings in the margin or between the
lines which Tischendorf asserts to belong mostly to B3, a few to B2.(157)
At length, after baffling delays only too readily accounted for by the
public calamities of the Papal state, the concluding volume of this
sumptuous and important work was published late in 1881. Sergius had now
retired through failing eyesight, and his place was taken by “Henricus
Canonicus Fabiani,” Cozza (who is now Abbot of the Grotta Ferrata at
Tusculum near Frascati, the chief seat of the monks of the Greek order of
St. Basil) still holding the second place. From the laudatory tone in
which the latter is spoken of (p. xiv), it would seem that the Preface was
written by his new colleague, who acknowledges the help of U. Ubaldi and
the Basilian monk Ant. Rocchi, all three “adjutoribus et administris
miratis equidem se tantis viris adjutores et successores datos” (p. xv).
This Preface consists of twenty-two pages, and contains almost nothing
that is interesting to the critic, much that displays superficial and
newly-acquired acquaintance with the whole subject. Fabiani assigns the
end of the fourth century as the date of the manuscript, regarding it as
only a few years older than the Sinaitic copy(158), whose discovery he
hails without a vestige of ungenerous jealousy: “Quorum tale est demum
par, ut potius liber Vaticanus gaudere debeat quod tam sui similem
invenerit fratrem, quam expavescere quod aemulum” (p. viii). Since that
time a splendid edition has been issued of the New Testament in 1889, and
the Old in 1890, under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi, in which the
whole is beautifully exhibited in photograph: so that all students can now
examine for themselves the readings and characteristics of this celebrated
manuscript with all but the advantage which is given in an examination of
the original vellum itself (Novum Testamentum e Codd. Vat. 1209, &c. Rom.
1889, 4to): and gratitude is due from all textual scholars to the
authorities of the Vatican.
Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of the Codex
Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical value. By some it
has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if probable in
themselves, and supported (or even though not supported) by two or three
other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united
testimony of all authorities besides: while others, admitting the interest
due to age, have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant.
Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter we may say at once,
that, while we accord to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any single
document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one out of
many, several of them being nearly (and one quite) as old, and in other
respects not less worthy of confidence than itself. One marked feature,
characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which
has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting “an abbreviated text
of the New Testament:” and certainly the facts he states on this point are
startling enough(159). He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or
whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke,
357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556
times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the
scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has
repeatedly written words and clauses _twice over_, a class of mistakes
which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as
the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by
no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this
venerable record of primitive Christianity(160). Hug and others have
referred the origin of Codex B to Egypt, but (unlike in this respect to
Codex A) its history does not confirm their conjecture, and the argument
derived from orthography or grammatical forms, is now well understood to
be but slight and ambiguous(161). Dr. Hort, on no very substantial
grounds, is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the
West, probably at Rome” (Introduction, pp. 265-7).
C. CODEX EPHRAEMI, No. 9, in the Royal Library of Paris, is a most
valuable palimpsest containing portions of the Septuagint version of the
Old Testament on sixty-four leaves, and fragments of every part of the New
on 145 leaves, amounting on the whole to less than two-thirds of the
volume(162). This manuscript seems to have been brought from the East by
Andrew John Lascar [d. 1535], a learned Greek patronized by Lorenzo de’
Medici; it once belonged to Cardinal Nicolas Ridolphi of that family, was
brought into France by Queen Catherine de’ Medici of evil memory, and so
passed into the Royal Library at Paris(163). The ancient writing is barely
legible, having been almost removed about the twelfth century to receive
some Greek works of St. Ephraem, the great Syrian Father [299-378]. A
chemical preparation applied at the instance of Fleck in 1834, though it
revived much that was before illegible, has defaced the vellum with stains
of various colours, from green and blue to black and brown. The older
writing was first noticed by Peter Allix nearly two centuries ago; various
readings extracted from it were communicated by Boivin to Kuster, who
published them (under the notation of Paris 9) in his edition of Mill’s N.
T., 1710. A complete collation of the New Testament was first made in 1716
by Wetstein, then very young, for Bentley’s projected edition, for which
labour (as he records the fact himself) he paid Wetstein £50. This
collation Wetstein of course used for his own Greek Testament of 1751-2,
and though several persons subsequently examined the manuscript, and so
became aware that more might be gathered from it, it was not until 1843
that Tischendorf brought out at Leipsic his full and noble edition of the
New Testament portion; the Old Testament he published in 1845. Although
Tischendorf complains of the typographical errors made in his absence in
the former of these two volumes, and has corrected them in the other, they
probably comprise by far the most masterly production of this nature up to
that date published; it is said too that none but those who have seen
Codex C can appreciate the difficulty of deciphering some parts of
it(164), in fact, whatever is not patent at first sight. The Prolegomena
are especially valuable; the uncial type does not aim at being an
imitation, but the facsimile faithfully represents the original, even to
the present colour of the ink. In shape Codex C is about the size of Cod.
A, but not quite so tall; its vellum is hardly so fine as that of Cod. A
and a few others, yet sufficiently good. In this copy there is but one
column in a page, which contains from forty to forty-six lines (usually
forty-one), the characters being a little larger than those of either A or
B, and somewhat more elaborate(165). Thus the points at the ends of
_sigma_, _epsilon_, and especially of the horizontal line of _tau_ are
more decided than in Codex A; _delta_, though not so fully formed as in
later books, is less simple than in A, the strokes being of less equal
thickness, and the base more ornamented. On the other hand, _alpha_ and
_pi_ are nearer the model of Codex B. _Iota_ and _upsilon_, which in Cod.
A and many other copies have two dots over them when they commence a
syllable, and are sometimes found with one dot, have here a small straight
line in their place (_see_ p. 36). There are no breathings or accents by
the first hand: the apostrophus is found but rarely, chiefly with Proper
names, as _δαδ᾽_ The uncial writing is continuous; the punctuation of Cod.
C, like that of A and B, consisting only of a single point, mostly but not
always put level with the top of the preceding letter; wherever such a
point was employed, a space of one letter broad was usually left vacant:
these points are most common in the later books of the N. T. The κεφάλαια
are not placed in the upper margin of the page as in Cod. A, but a list of
their τίτλοι preceded each Gospel: the so-called Ammonian sections stand
in the margin, but not at present the Eusebian canons; though, since lines
of the text written in vermilion have been thoroughly washed out, the
canons (for which that colour was commonly employed) may easily have
shared the same fate (_see_ p. 61). There is no trace of chapters in the
Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse, and both the titles and subscriptions to
the various books are very simple. Capital letters are used quite as
freely as in Cod. A, both at the commencement of the (Ammonian) sections,
and in many other places. All these circumstances taken together indicate
for Cod. C as early a date as the fifth century, though there is no
sufficient cause for deeming it at all older than Cod. A. Alexandria has
been assigned as its native country, for the very insufficient reasons
stated when we were describing A and B. It is carefully transcribed, and
of its great critical value there is no doubt; its text seems to stand
nearly midway between A and B, somewhat inclining to the latter. Two
correctors have been very busily at work on Cod. C, greatly to the
perplexity of the critical collator: they are respectively indicated by
Tischendorf as C**, C***. The earliest, or the second hand, may have been
of the sixth century, and his corrections are for some cause regarded by
Dr. Hort as almost equally valuable for critical purposes with the
manuscript itself: the second corrector, or the third hand, is perhaps of
the ninth century, and he revised such portions as were adapted to
ecclesiastical use, inserting many accents, the _rough_ breathing, and
some vocal notes. By him or more probably by a fourth hand (who did not
change the text, but added some liturgical directions in the margin) small
crosses were interpolated as stops, agreeably to the fashion of their
times.
D OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS, CODEX BEZAE GRAECO-LATINUS, belongs to the
University Library at Cambridge, where the open volume is conspicuously
exhibited to visitors in the New Building (Nn. ii. 41). It was presented
to the University in 1581 by Theodore Beza, for whom and his master Calvin
the heads of that learned body then cherished a veneration which already
boded ill for the peace of the English Church(166). Between the Gospels
(whose order was spoken of above, pp. 72-4) and the Acts, the Catholic
Epistles once stood, of which only a few verses remain in the Latin
translation (3 John ver. 11-15), followed by the words “epistulae Johannis
III explicit, incipit actus apostolorum,” as if St. Jude’s Epistle were
displaced or wanting. There are not a few hiatus both in the Greek and
Latin texts(167). The contents of this remarkable document were partially
made known by numerous extracts from it, under the designation of β´ in
the margin of Robert Stephen’s Greek Testament of 1550, whose account of
it is that it was collated for him in Italy by his friends (τὸ δὲ β´ ἐστὶ
τὸ ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀντιβληθὲν φίλων. Epistle to the
Reader)(168). It is not very easy to reconcile this statement with Beza’s
account prefixed to the manuscript and still extant in his own cramped
handwriting, wherein he alleges that he obtained the volume in 1562 from
the monastery of St. Irenaeus at Lyons (“oriente ibi civili bello”), where
it had long lain buried (“postquam ibi in pulvere diu jacuisset”). This
great city, it must be remembered, was sacked in that very year by the
infamous Des Adrets, whom it suited to espouse for a while the cause of
the Huguenots; and we can hardly doubt that some one who had shared in the
plunder of the abbey(169) conveyed this portion of it to Beza, whose
influence at that juncture was paramount among the French Reformed(170).
Beza in his editions of the Greek Testament published in 1582, 1589, and
1598, made some occasional references to the readings of his manuscript.
Archbishop Whitgift borrowed it from Cambridge in 1583, and caused a poor
transcript to be made of its Greek text, which he bequeathed to Trinity
College (whereof he had been Master), in whose Library it still remains
(B. x. 3).
Patrick Young, of whom we have heard in connexion with Cod. A (p. 103 and
note 1), sent extracts from Cod. D to the brothers Dupuy at Paris, through
whom they reached Morinus and Steph. Curcellaeus. An unusually full
collation was made for Walton’s Polyglott (Tom. vi, Num. xvi, 1657) by
pious Archbishop Ussher, who devoted to these studies the doleful leisure
of his latter years. Mill collated and Wetstein transcribed (1716) this
document for their great editions of the Greek Testament, but they both
did their work carelessly; and though Bentley was allowed to keep it at
home for seven years, his notices of its readings, as represented by Mr.
Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 2-26), or preserved in Stephen’s N. T.
of 1549 (Trin. Coll. B. xvii. 4), were put to no practical use. The best
collation by far was made about 1732 by John Dickinson of St. John’s
College for John Jackson of Leicester, with whose other books it came into
Jesus College Library (O. θ. 2), where it has lain neglected. But a
manuscript replete as this is with variations from the sacred text beyond
all other example could be adequately represented only by being published
in full; a design entrusted by the University of Cambridge to Dr. Thomas
Kipling, Senior Wrangler in 1768 and afterwards Dean of Peterborough [d.
1822], whose “Codex Theodori Bezae Cantabrigiensis” 1793, 2 vols. fol. (in
type imitating the original handwriting much more closely than in Cod. A
and the rest), is a not unfaithful transcript of the text(171), though the
Prolegomena too plainly testify to the editor’s pitiable ignorance of
sacred criticism, while his habit of placing the readings of the several
later hands (very loosely distinguished from each other) in the text, and
those of the first hand in the notes (a defect we have also noted in the
Roman editions of Cod. B), renders his volumes very inconvenient for use.
Let Kipling be praised for the care and exact diligence his work evinces,
but Herbert Marsh [1757-1839] was of all Cambridge men of that period the
only one known to be competent for such a task. In 1864 the present writer
was aided by the Syndics of the Cambridge Press in publishing an edition
of Codex Bezae in common type, illustrated by a copious Introduction and
critical notes, to which work the reader is referred for fuller
information respecting this manuscript.
The Codex Bezae is a quarto volume 10 inches high by 8 broad, with one
column on a page, the Greek text and its Latin version being parallel, the
Greek on the left, or _verso_ of each leaf, and the Latin on the right,
opposite to it, on the _recto_ of the next. Notwithstanding the
Alexandrian forms that abound in it as much as in any other copy, and
which have been held by some to prove the Egyptian origin of Codd. ABC,
the fact of its having a Latin version sufficiently attests its Western
origin. The vellum is not quite equal in fineness to that of a few others.
There are thirty-three lines in every page, and these of unequal length,
as this manuscript is arranged in στίχοι, being the earliest in date that
is so (_see_ p. 53). The Latin is placed in the same line and as nearly as
possible in the same order as the corresponding Greek. It has not the
larger κεφάλαια or Eusebian canons, but only the so-called Ammonian
sections, often incorrectly placed, and obviously in a later hand of about
the ninth century. The original absence of these divisions is no proof
that the book was not at first intended for ecclesiastical use (as some
have stated), inasmuch as the sections and canons were constructed for a
very different purpose (_see above_, pp. 59-63), but is another argument
for its being copied in the West, perhaps not far from the place where it
rested so long. Other proofs of its Occidental, perhaps of its Gallican
origin, especially that derived from the style of the Latin version, are
collected in Scrivener’s edition (Introd. pp. xxxi, xl-xlv). The
characters are of the same size as in C, larger on the whole than in AB,
but betray a later age than any of these, although the Latin as well as
the Greek is written continuously, excepting that in the titles and
subscriptions of the several books (as in Codd. DH of St. Paul) the words
are separated. This copy has paragraph divisions of unequal length
peculiar to itself(172). They are indicated by placing the initial letter
out in the margin, that letter being usually of the same size with the
rest, though sometimes a little larger. Cod. D appears to be the earliest
which exhibits larger letters after a pause in the middle of a line; but
these are not very frequent. Instances of each case may be noticed in our
facsimile (No. 42), wherein the shapes of _kappa_, _rho_ and _phi_, as
indicated before (pp. 32, note 1, 37, 39), are very observable. The Greek
and Latin writing on the opposite pages are much like each other in
appearance, the Latin letters being round and flowing, not square as in
codices a little earlier in date, such as the Medicean and Vatican
fragments of Virgil. This manuscript has been corrected, first by the
original penman with a light stroke made by a pen nearly empty; after him
by not less than eight or nine different revisers, some nearly coeval with
the Codex itself, others not many centuries old. The changes they have
made, especially when they employed a knife to scrape away the primitive
reading, render too many places almost illegible. The first scribe often
used a sponge to wash out his error before the ink was well dried in
(_see_ p. 27). In addition to the single point about three-fourths of the
height of a letter up, which often subdivides the στίχοι in both languages
(facsimile, No. 42, l. 9) the coarse late hand which inserted the Ammonian
sections placed double dots (:) after the numerals, and often inserted
similar points in the text, before or over the first letter of a section.
Each member of the genealogy in Luke iii forms a separate στίχος, as in
Cod. B: quotations are indicated by throwing the commencement of the lines
which contain them, both Greek and Latin, about an inch back or less (e.g.
Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark i. 2, 3; Acts ii. 34, 35; iv. 25, 26). The first
three lines of each book, in both languages, were written in bright red
ink, which was also employed in the alternate lines of the subscriptions,
and in other slight ornaments. The traces of the scribe’s needle and lines
(_see_ p. 27) are very visible, the margin ample, and the volume on the
whole in good keeping, though its first extant page (Latin) is much
decayed, and it is stained in parts by some chemical mixture that has been
applied to it. The portions supplied by a later hand are of course in the
uncial Greek and cursive Latin characters usual at the dates assigned to
them. The liturgical notes in the margin of the Saturday and Sunday
lessons (ανναγνοσμα is the form often used) are in thick letters, of a yet
later date than the Ammonian sections. A few others for the great Feasts
and Fast days occur; and, in a hand of about the twelfth century, lessons
for the Festivals of St. George and St. Dionysius, the patron saints of
England and France, as may be seen in the table of Menology.
The vellum employed for Codex Bezae is arranged in quires of four sheets
(or eight leaves) each even throughout(173), the numeral signatures of
which are set _primâ manu_ so low down in the margin at the foot of the
last page of each, that they are mostly cut off, in whole or partly, by
the binder. Assuming that it ended with the Acts of the Apostles, it
originally consisted of upwards of sixty-four (probably of sixty-seven)
quires, of which the first, forty-fourth, and sixty-fourth, have each lost
some leaves, the thirty-fourth is entire though containing but six leaves,
while those signed Γ (3), ΙΔ (14), ΚΒ (22), ΜΕ (45), down to ΝΒ (52), ΝΖ
(57), and all after ΞΔ (64), are wholly wanting. The result is that out of
the 534 leaves it originally contained, only 406 now survive, about twelve
of them being more or less mutilated. It is not easy to surmise what may
have been written on the sixty-seven leaves that intervened between ΜΔ 5
and ΝΓ 1; the gap ends with 3 John ver. 11 (Greek), but the space is
apparently too great for the Catholic Epistles alone, even though we
suppose that Jude was inserted (as appears in some catalogues) otherwise
than in the last place. The leaves added by later hands are nine in
number. The Greek portion of the supplement to St. John (xviii. 14-xx. 13)
much resembles in text the style of the original manuscript, and is often
supported by Codd. אAB(C). The Latin of this portion is taken from the
Vulgate version.
The internal character of the Codex Bezae is a most difficult and indeed
an almost inexhaustible theme. No known manuscript contains so many bold
and extensive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone),
countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the
Old Latin and the Curetonian version: its own parallel Latin translation
is too servilely accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an
independent authority, save where the corresponding Greek is lost.
This passage was penned by Dr. Scrivener before the publication of the
highly ingenious treatise by Mr. Rendel Harris, entitled “A Study of the
Codex Bezae” (1891), being the beginning of the second volume of the
Cambridge “Texts and Studies.” Mr. Harris from curious internal evidence,
such as the existence in the text of a vitiated rendering of a verse of
Homer which bears signs of having been retranslated from a Latin
translation, infers that the Greek has been made up from the Latin, and
traces the latter to the second century. He shows its affinity with the
text of Irenaeus, and discovers traces in it of Montanism. He opens up
many points of interest for any one who would examine this “singular
Codex”: but injustice must not be done to the fertile author by supposing
that in what is evidently ’a Study’ he concludes that he has settled all
the numerous questions which he broaches. No one however can really
investigate the Codex Bezae without studying this work, which will be
found both instructive in the highest degree and amusing.
CHAPTER V. UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GOSPELS.
Of the manuscripts hitherto described, Codd. אABC for their presumed
critical value, Cod. D for its numberless and strange deviations from
other authorities, and all five for their high antiquity, demanded a full
description. Of those which follow many contain but a few fragments of the
Gospels, and others are so recent in date that they hardly exceed in
importance some of the best cursive copies (e.g. FGHS)(174). None of these
need detain us long.
E. CODEX BASILIENSIS (B vi. 21, now A. N. iii. 12) (κεφ. τ., κεφ., _Am.,
Eus._ at foot of the pages) contains the four Gospels, excepting Luke iii.
4-15; xxiv. 47-53, and was written about the middle of the eighth century,
unless (with Dean Burgon) we refer it to the seventh. It measures 9 x 6-½
inches, and contains 318 folios. There are 247 folios _verso_, and 71
_recto_(175). Three leaves (160, 207, 214) on which are Luke i. 69-ii. 4;
xii. 58-xiii. 12; xv. 8-20 are in a cursive and later hand, above the
obliterated fragments of a homily as old as the main body of the
manuscript. There is a “liber praedicatorum” on the first folio. This copy
is one of the most notable of the later uncials, and might well have been
published at length. It was given to a religious house in Basle by
Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a mission to the Greeks by the
Council of Basle (1431), and probably brought it from Constantinople.
Erasmus much overlooked it for later books when preparing his Greek
Testament at Basle; indeed it was not brought into the Public Library
there before 1559. A collation was sent to Mill by John Battier, Greek
Professor at Basle: Mill named it B. I, and truly declared it to be
“probatae fidei et bonae notae.” Bengal (who obtained a few extracts from
it) calls it Basil. _a_: but its first real collator was Wetstein, whose
native town it adorns. Since his time, Tischendorf in 1843, Professor
Müller of Basle and Tregelles in 1846, have independently collated it
throughout. Judging from the specimen sent to him, Mill (N. T. Proleg. §
1118) thought the hand much like that of Cod. A; the uncial letters
(though not so regular or neat) are firm, round, and simple: indeed “the
penmanship is exceedingly tasteful and delicate throughout. The employment
of green, blue, and vermilion in the capitals I do not remember to have
met with elsewhere” (Burgon, _Guardian_, Jan. 29, 1873). There is but one
column of about twenty-four lines on the page; it has breathings and
accents pretty uniformly, and not ill placed; otherwise, from the shape of
most of the letters (e.g. _pi_, facsimile No. 27, lines 1, 3), it might be
judged of earlier date: observe, however, the oblong form of _omicron_
where the space is crowded in the last line of the facsimile, when the
older scribes would have retained the circular shape and made the letter
very small (_see_ facsimile No. 11 b. l. 6): _delta_ also and _xi_ betray
a less ancient scribe. The single stop in Cod. E, as was stated above (p.
48), changes its place according to the variation of its power, as in
other copies of about the same age. The capitals at the beginning of
sections stand out in the margin as in Codd. AC. The lists of the larger
κεφάλαια together with the numbers of the sections in the margin and the
Eusebian canons beneath them, as well as harmonizing references to the
other Gospels at the foot of the page, names of Feast days with their
Proper lessons, and other liturgical notices, have been inserted (as some
think, but erroneously in Burgon’s judgement) by a later hand. Under the
text (Mark i. 5, 6) are placed the harmonizing references, in the order
(varying in each Gospel) Mark, Luke, John, Matthew. Ιω (John) furnishes no
parallel on this page. The first section (α) of Μρ (Mark i. 1, 2)
corresponds to the seventieth (ο) of Λο (Luke vii. 27), and to the 103rd
(ργ) of M (Matt. xi. 10). Again the second (β) of Mark (i. 3) is parallel
to the seventh (ζ) of Luke (iii. 3), and to the eighth (η) of Matt. (iii.
3). The passage given in our facsimile (No. 27) is part of the third (γ)
of Mark (i. 4-6), and answers to nothing in Luke, but to the ninth (θ) of
Matt. (iii. 4-6). See p. 60, note 4. The value of this codex, as supplying
materials for criticism, is considerable. It approaches more nearly than
some others of its date to the text now commonly received, and is an
excellent witness for it. The asterisk is much used to indicate disputed
passages: e.g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3: Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 34: John viii.
2-11. (For the fragments attached to this Codex, _see_ Apoc. 15.)
F. CODEX BOREELI, now in the Public Library at Utrecht, once belonged to
John Boreel [d. 1629], Dutch ambassador at the court of King James I.
Wetstein obtained some readings from it in 1730, as far as Luke xi, but
stated that he knew not where it then was. In 1830 Professor Heringa of
Utrecht discovered it in private hands at Arnheim, and procured it for his
University Library, where in 1850 Tregelles found it, though with some
difficulty, the leaves being torn and all loose in a box, and he then made
a facsimile; Tischendorf had looked through it in 1841. In 1843, after
Heringa’s death, H. E. Vinke published that scholar’s “Disputatio de
Codice Boreeliano,” which includes a full and exact collation of the text.
Cod. F contains the Four Gospels with many defects, some of which have
been caused since the collation was made which Wetstein published: hence
the codex must still sometimes be cited on his authority as Fw. In fact
there are but 204 leaves and a few fragments remaining, written with two
columns of about nineteen lines each on the page, in a tall, oblong,
upright form; it was referred by Mr. H. Deane in 1876 to the eighth, by
Tischendorf to the ninth, by Tregelles to the tenth century. In St. Luke
there are no less than twenty-four gaps: in Wetstein’s collation it began
at Matt. vii. 6, but now at Matt. ix. 1. Other hiatus are Matt. xii. 1-44;
xiii. 55-xiv. 9; xv. 20-31; xx. 18-xxi. 5: Mark i. 43-ii. 8; ii. 23-iii.
5; xi. 6-26; xiv. 54-xv. 5; xv. 39-xvi. 19: John iii. 5-14; iv. 23-38; v.
18-38; vi. 39-63; vii. 28-viii. 10; x. 32-xi. 3; xi. 40-xii. 3; xii.
14-25: it ends at John xiii. 34. Few manuscripts have fallen into such
unworthy hands. The Eusebian canons are wanting, the sections standing
without them in the margin. Thus in Mark x. 13 (see facsimile No. 28) the
section ρϛ (106) has not under it the proper canon β (2). The letters
_delta_, _epsilon_, _theta_, _omicron_, and especially the cross-like
_psi_ (_see_ p. 40), are of the most recent uncial form, _phi_ is large
and bevelled at both ends; the breathings and accents are fully and not
incorrectly given.
Fa. CODEX COISLIN. I is that great copy of the Septuagint Octateuch, the
glory of the Coislin Library, first made known by Montfaucon (Biblioth.
Coislin., 1715), and illustrated by a facsimile in Silvestre’s Paléogr.
Univ. No. 65. It contains 227 leaves in two columns, 13 inches by 9: the
fine massive uncials of the sixth or seventh century are much like Cod.
A’s in general appearance. In the margin _primâ manu_ Wetstein found Acts
ix. 24, 25, and so inserted this as Cod. F in his list of MSS. of the
Acts. In 1842 Tischendorf observed nineteen other passages of the New
Testament, which he published in his Monumenta sacra inedita (1846, p.
400, &c.) with a facsimile. The texts are Matt. v. 48; xii. 48; xxvii. 25:
Luke i. 42; ii. 24; xxiii. 21: John v. 35; vi. 53, 55: Acts iv. 33, 34;
ix. 24, 25; x. 13, 15; xxii. 22: 1 Cor. vii. 39; xi. 29: 1 Cor. iii. 13;
ix. 7; xi. 33: Gal. iv. 21, 22: Col. ii. 16, 17; Heb. x. 26.
G. COD. HARLEIAN. 5684 or WOLFII A; H. COD. WOLFII B. These two copies
were brought from the East by Andrew Erasmus Seidel, purchased by La
Croze, and by him presented to J. C. Wolff, who published loose extracts
from them both in his “Anecdota Graeca” (vol. iii. 1723), and barbarously
mutilated them in 1721 in order to send pieces to Bentley, among whose
papers in Trinity College Library (B. XVII. 20) Tregelles found the
fragments in 1845 (Account of the Printed Text, p. 160). Subsequently Cod.
G came with the rest of the Harleian collection into the British Museum;
Cod. H, which had long been missing, was brought to light in the Public
Library of Hamburg, through Petersen the Librarian, in 1838. Codd. GH have
now been thoroughly collated both by Tischendorf and Tregelles. Cod. G
appears to be of the tenth, Cod. H of the ninth century, and is stated to
be of higher critical value. Besides the mutilated fragments at Trinity
College (Matt. v. 29-31; 39-43 of Cod. G; Luke i. 3-6; 13-15 of Cod. H),
many parts of both have perished: viz. in Cod. G 372 verses; Matt. i.
1-vi. 6; vii. 25-viii. 9; viii. 23-ix. 2; xxviii. 18-Mark i. 13; xiv.
19-25: Luke i. 1-13; v. 4-vii. 3; viii. 46-ix. 5; xii. 27-41; xxiv. 41-53:
John xviii. 5-19; xix. 4-27 (of which one later hand supplies Matt,
xxviii. 18-Mark i. 8: John xviii. 5-19; another Luke xii. 27-41): in Cod.
H 679 verses; Matt. i. 1-xv. 30; xxv. 33-xxvi. 3; Mark i. 32-ii. 4; xv.
44-xvi. 14; Luke v. 18-32; vi. 8-22; x. 2-19: John ix. 30-x. 25; xviii.
2-18; xx. 12-25. Cod. G has some Church notes in the margin; Cod. H the
sections without the Eusebian canons; G however has both sections and
canons; its τίτλοι and larger κεφάλαια are in red (those of St. John being
lost), and the Church notes seem _primâ manu_. Each member of the
genealogy in Luke iii forms a separate line. Both G and H are written in a
somewhat rude style, with breathings and accents rather irregularly
placed, as was the fashion of their times; G in two columns of twenty-two
lines each on a page, H in one column of twenty-three lines. In each the
latest form of the uncial letters is very manifest (e.g. _delta_,
_theta_), but G is the neater of the two. In G the single point, in H a
kind of Maltese cross, are the prevailing marks of punctuation. Our
facsimiles (Nos. 29 of G, 31 of H) are due to Tregelles; that of G he took
from the fragment at Trinity College. Inasmuch as beside Matt. v. 30, 31
in Cod. G ΑΡ [with a χ between and above them] (ἀρχή) is conspicuous in
the margin, and ΤΕ Τ_Η_Σ _Λε_ (τέλος τῆς λέξεως) stands in the text
itself, good scholars may be excused for having mistaken it for a scrap of
some Evangelistarium.
I. COD. TISCHENDORFIAN. II at St. Petersburg, consists of palimpsest
fragments found by Tischendorf in 1853 “in the dust of an Eastern
library,” i.e. in the Convent of St. Saba near the Red Sea, and published
in his new series of “Monumenta sacra inedita,” vol. i, 1855. On the
twenty-eight vellum leaves (eight of them on four double leaves) Georgian
writing covers the partially obliterated Greek, which is for the most part
very hard to read. They compose portions of no less than seven different
manuscripts; the first two, of the fifth century, are as old as Codd. AC
(the first having scarcely any capital letters and those very slightly
larger than the rest); the third fragment seems of the sixth century,
nearly of the date of Cod. N (p. 139), about as old as Cod. P (_see_ p.
143); the fourth scarcely less ancient: all four, like other palimpsests,
have the pseudo-Ammonian sections without the Eusebian canons (_see_ p.
61). Of the Gospels we have 190 verses: viz. (_Frag._ 1 or Ia) John xi.
50-xii. 9; xv. 12-xvi. 2; xix. 11-24: (_Frag._ 2 or Ib) Matt. xiv. 13-16;
19-23; xxiv. 37-xxv. 1; xxv. 32-45; xxvi. 31-45: Mark ix. 14-22; xiv.
58-70: (_Frag._ 3 or Ic) Matt. xvii. 22-xviii. 3; xviii. 11-19; xix. 5-14:
Luke xviii. 14-25; John iv. 52-v. 8; xx. 17-26: (_Frag._ 4 or Id) Luke
vii. 39-49; xxiv. 10-19. The fifth fragment (Ie), containing portions of
the Acts and of St. Paul’s Epistles (1 Cor. xv. 53-xvi. 9; Tit. i. 1-13;
Acts xxviii. 8-17) is as old as the third, if not as the first. The sixth
and seventh fragments are of the seventh century: viz. (_Frag._ 6 or If,
_of two leaves_) Acts ii. 6-17; xxvi. 7-18: (_Frag._ 7 or Ig, _of one
leaf_) Acts xiii. 39-46. In all seven are 255 verses. All except _Frag._ 6
are in two columns of from twenty-nine to eighteen lines each, and
unaccentuated; _Frag._ 6 has but one column on a page, with some accents.
The first five fragments, so far as they extend, must be placed in the
highest rank as critical authorities. The first, as cited in Tischendorf’s
eighth edition of his Greek Testament, agrees with Cod. A thirty-four
times, four times with Cod. B, and twenty-three times with the two united;
it stands alone eleven times. The text of the second and third is more
mixed though they incline more to favour Codd. אB; not, however, so
decidedly as the first does Cod. A. Tischendorf gives us six facsimiles of
them in the “Monumenta sacra inedita,”. Nova Collect. vol. i (1885), a
seventh in “Anecdota sacra et profana,” 1855. From the same Armenian book,
as Tischendorf thinks (and he was very likely to _know_), are taken the
three palimpsest leaves of 2 and 3 Kings, and the six of Isaiah published
by him in the same volume of the “Monumenta.”
Ib. See Nb, below.
K. COD. CYPRIUS, or No. 63 of the Royal Library at Paris, shares only with
Codd. אBMSU the advantage of being a _complete_ uncial copy of the Four
Gospels. It was brought into the Colbert Library from Cyprus in 1673; Mill
inserted its readings from Simon; it was re-examined by Scholz, whose
inaccuracies (especially those committed when collating Cod. K for his
“Curae Criticae in Historiam textûs Evangeliorum,” Heidelberg, 1820) have
been strongly denounced by later editors, and it must be feared with too
good reason. The independent collations of Tischendorf and Tregelles have
now done all that can be needed for this copy. It is an oblong quarto, in
compressed uncials, of about the middle of the ninth century at the
latest, having one column of about twenty-one lines on each page, but the
handwriting is irregular and varies much in size. A single point being
often found where the sense does not require it, this codex has been
thought to have been copied from an older one arranged in στίχοι; the ends
of each στίχος may have been indicated in this manner by the scribe. The
subscriptions, τίτλοι, the sections, and indices of the κεφάλαια of the
last three Gospels are believed to be the work of a later hand: the
Eusebian canons are absent. The breathings and accents are _primâ manu_,
but often omitted or incorrectly placed. Itacisms and permutations of
consonants are very frequent, and the text is of an unusual and
interesting character. Scholz regards the directions for the Church
lessons, even the ἀρχαί and τέλη in the margin at the beginning and end of
lessons, as by the original scribe. He transcribes at length the
ἐκλογάδιον τῶν δ᾽ εὐαγγελιστῶν and the fragments of a menology prefixed to
Cod. K (N. T. vol. i, pp. 455-493), of which tables it affords the
earliest specimen. The second hand writes at the end προσδέξηται αὐτὴν
[τὴν δέλτον] ἡ παναγία θεοτόκος καὶ ὁ ἅγιος εὐτύχιος. The style of this
copy will be seen from our facsimile (No. 19) taken from John vi. 52, 53:
the number of the section (ξϛ´) or 66 stands in the margin, but the
ordinary place of the Eusebian canon (ι or 10) under it is filled by a
simple flourish. The stop in 1. 1 after λεγοντεσ illustrates the unusual
punctuation of this copy, as may that after ὁ _ισ_ in 1. 3.
L. COD. REGIUS, No. 62 in the Royal Library at Paris, is by far the most
remarkable document of its age and class. It contains the Four Gospels,
except the following passages, Matt. iv. 22-v. 14; xxviii. 17-20: Mark x.
16-30; xv. 2-20: John xxi. 15-25. It was written in about the eighth
century and consists of 257 leaves quarto, of thick vellum, 9 inches high
by 6-½ broad, with two columns of twenty-five lines each on a page,
regularly marked, as we so often see, by the _stilus_ and ruler (p. 27).
This is doubtless Stephen’s η´, though he cites it erroneously in Acts
xxiv. 7 bis; xxv. 14; xxvii. 1; xxviii. 11: it was even then in the Royal
Library, although “Roberto Stephano” is marked in the volume. Wetstein
collated Cod. L but loosely; Griesbach, who set a very high value on it,
studied it with peculiar care; Tischendorf published it in full in his
“Monumenta sacra inedita,” 1846. It is but carelessly written, and abounds
with errors of the ignorant scribe, who was more probably an Egyptian than
a native Greek. The breathings and accents are often deficient, often
added wrongly, and placed throughout without rule or propriety. The
apostrophus also is common, and frequently out of place; the points for
stops are quite irregular, as we have elsewhere stated (p. 48). Capitals
occur plentifully, often painted and in questionable taste (see facsimile
No. 21, column 2), and there is a tendency throughout to inelegant
ornament. This codex is in bad condition through damp, the ink brown or
pale, the uncial letters of a debased oblong shape: _phi_ is enormously
large and sometimes quite angular; other letters are such as might be
looked for from its date, and are neither neat nor remarkably clear. The
lessons for Sundays, festivals, &c. and the ἀρχαί and τέλη are marked
everywhere in the margin, especially in St. Matthew; there are also many
corrections and important critical notes (e.g. Mark xvi. 8) in the text or
margin, apparently _primâ manu_. Our facsimile is taken from a photograph
of its most important page, Mark xvi. 8, 9, with part of the note cited at
length below. Before each Gospel are indices of the κεφάλαια, now
imperfect: we find also the τίτλοι at the head and occasionally at the
foot of the several pages; the numbers of the κεφάλαια (usually pointed
out by the sign of the cross), the sections and Eusebian canons stand in
the inner margin(176) often ill put, as if only half understood. The
critical weight of this copy may best be discussed hereafter; it will here
suffice barely to mention its strong resemblance to Cod. B (less, however,
in St. John’s Gospel than elsewhere), to the citations of Origen
[186-253], and to the margin of the Harkleian Syriac version [A.D. 616].
Cod. L abounds in what are termed Alexandrian forms, beyond any other copy
of its date.
M. COD. CAMPIANUS, No. 48 in the Royal Library at Paris, contains the Four
Gospels complete in a small quarto form, written in very elegant and
minute uncials of the end of the ninth century, with two columns of
twenty-four lines each on a page. The Abbé François de Camps gave it to
Louis XIV, Jan. 1, 1707. This document is Kuster’s 2 (1710); it was
collated by Wetstein, Scholz, and Tregelles; transcribed in 1841 by
Tischendorf. Its synaxarion and menology have been published by Scholz in
the same place as those of Cod. K, and obviously with great carelessness.
Ἀναγνώσματα, i.e. notes of the Church Lessons, abound in the margin
(Tischendorf thinks them _primâ manu_) in a very small hand, like in style
to the Oxford Plato (Clarke 39, _above_, p. 42). We find too Hippolytus’
Chronology of the Gospels, Eusebius’ letter to Carpianus with his canons,
and some Arabic scrawl on the last leaf, of which the name of Jerusalem
alone has been read, a note in Slavonic, and others in a contemporaneous
cursive hand. Dean Burgon also observed at the foot of the several pages
the same kind of harmony as we described for Cod. E. It has breathings,
accents pretty fairly given, and a musical notation in red, so frequent in
Church manuscripts of the age. Its readings are very good; itacisms and ν
ἐφελκυστικόν are frequent. Tischendorf compares the form of its uncials to
those of Cod. V; which, judging from the facsimile given by Matthaei, we
should deem somewhat less beautiful. From our facsimile (No. 32) it will
be seen that the round letters are much narrowed, the later form of
_delta_ and _theta_ quite decided, while _alpha_ and _pi_ might look
earlier. Our specimen (John vii. 53-viii. 2) represents the celebrated
Pericope adulterae in one of its earliest forms.
N. CODEX PURPUREUS. Only twelve leaves of this beautiful copy were till
recently believed to survive, and some former possessor must have divided
them in order to obtain a better price from several purchasers than from
one. Four leaves are now in the British Museum (Cotton, Titus C. xv), six
in the Vatican (No. 3785), two at Vienna (Lambec. 2), at the end of a
fragment of Genesis in a different hand. The London fragments (Matt. xxvi.
57-65; xxvii. 26-34: John xiv. 2-10; xv. 15-22) were collated by Wetstein
on his first visit to England in 1715, and marked in his Greek Testament
by the letter J: Scrivener transcribed them in 1845, and announced that
they contained fifty-seven various readings, of which Wetstein had given
but five. The Vienna fragment (Luke xxiv. 13-21; 39-49) had long been
known by the descriptions of Lambecius: Wetstein had called it N; Treschow
in 1773 and Alter in 1787 had given imperfect collations of it. Scholz
first noticed the Vatican leaves (Matt. xix. 6-13; xx. 6-22; xx. 29-xxi.
19), denoted them by Γ, and used some readings extracted by Gaetano
Marini. It was reserved for Tischendorf (Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846) to
publish them all in full, and to determine by actual inspection that they
were portions of the same manuscript, of the date of about the end of the
sixth century. Besides these twelve leaves John Sakkelion the Librarian
saw in or about 1864 at the Monastery of St. John in Patmos thirty-three
other leaves containing portions of St. Mark’s Gospel (ch. vi. 53-xv.
23)(177), whose readings were communicated to Tischendorf, and are
included in his eighth edition of the N. T. The others were probably
stolen from the same place. This book is written on the thinnest vellum
(_see_ pp. 23, 25), dyed purple, and the silver letters (which have turned
quite black) were impressed in some way upon it, but are too varied in
shape, and at the end of the lines in size, to admit the supposition of
moveable type being used, as some have thought to be the case in the Codex
Argenteus of the Gothic Gospels. The abridgements _ΘΣ_, _ΧΣ_, &c. are in
gold; and some changes have been made by an ancient second hand. The
so-called Ammonian sections and the Eusebian canons are faithfully given
(_see_ p. 59), and the Vatican portion has the forty-first, forty-sixth,
and forty-seventh τίτλοι of St. Matthew at the head of the pages. Each
page has two columns of sixteen lines, and the letters (about ten or
twelve in a line) are firm, uniform, bold, and unornamented, though not
quite so much so as in a few older documents; their lower extremities are
bevelled. Their size is at least four times that of the letters in Cod. A,
the punctuation quite as simple, being a single point (and that usually
neglected) level with the top of the letter (see our facsimile, Plate v,
No. 14, l. 3), and there is no space left between words even after stops.
A few letters stand out as capitals at the beginning of lines; of the
breathings and accents, if such they be, we have spoken above (p. 47).
Letters diminished at the end of a line do not lose their ancient shape,
as in many later books: _compendia scribendi_ are rare, yet [symbol]
stands for Ν at the end of a line no less than twenty-nine times in the
London leaves alone, but [symbol] for αι only once. Ι at the beginning of
a syllable has two dots over it, Υ but one. We have discussed above (pp.
32-39) the shape of the alphabet in Ν (for by that single letter
Tischendorf denotes it), and compared it with others of nearly the same
date; _alpha_, _omega_, _lambda_ look more ancient than _delta_ or _xi_
(_see_ Plate ii. No. 4). It exhibits strong Alexandrian forms, e.g.
παραλήμψομε, ειχοσαν (the latter condemned _secundâ manu_), and not a few
such itacisms as the changes of ι and ει, αι and ε.
COD. Nb (Ib of Tischendorf’s N. T., eighth edition), MUSEI BRITANNICI
(Addit. 17136), is a 12mo volume containing the hymns of Severus in
Syriac, and is one of the books brought thither from the Nitrian desert.
It is a palimpsest, with a second Syriac work written below the first,
and, under both, _four_ leaves (117, 118, 127, 128) contain fragments of
seventeen verses of St. John (xiii. 16; 17; 19; 20; 23; 24; 26; 27; xvi.
7; 8; 9 although only one word—περί—is preserved; 12; 13; 15; 16; 18; 19).
These Tischendorf (and Tregelles about the same time) deciphered with
great difficulty, as every one who has examined the manuscript would
anticipate, and published in the second volume of his new collection of
“Monumenta sacra inedita.” Each page contained two columns. We meet with
the sections without the Eusebian canons, the earliest form of uncial
characters, no capital letters (_see_ p. 51, note 2), and only the
simplest kind of punctuation, although one rough breathing is legible.
Tischendorf hesitates whether he shall assign the fragment to the fourth
or fifth century. It agrees with Cod. A five or six times, with Cod. B
five, with the two together six, and is against them both thrice.
O. No less than nine small fragments have borne this mark. O of Wetstein
was given by Anselmo Banduri to Montfaucon, and contains only Luke xviii.
11-14: _this_ Tischendorf discards as taken from an Evangelistarium (of
the tenth century, as he judges from the writing) chiefly because it wants
the number of the section at ver. 14. In its room he puts for Cod. O
Moscow Synod. 120 (Matthaei, 15), a few leaves of about the ninth century
(containing the fifteen verses, John i. 1, 3, 4; xx. 10-13; 15-17; 20-24,
with some scholia), which had been used for binding a copy of Chrysostom’s
Homilies on Genesis, brought from the monastery of Dionysius at Mount
Athos, and published in Matthaei’s Greek Testament with a facsimile (_see_
ix. 257 &c., and facsimile in tom. xii). Further portions of this fragment
were seen at Athos in 1864 by Mr. Philip E. Pusey. Tregelles has also
appended it to his edition of Cod. Ξ. In this fragment we find the
cross-like _psi_, the interrogative “;” (John xx. 13), and the comma (ib.
ver. 12). Alford’s Frag. Ath. b=Tisch. We—p. 145—and Frag. Ath. a are
probably parts of O. The next five comprise N. T. hymns.
COD. Oa. _Magnificat_ and _Benedictus_ in Greek uncials of the eighth or
ninth century, in a Latin book at Wolfenbüttel, is published by
Tischendorf, Anecdota sacr. et prof. 1855; as is also Ob, which contains
these two and _Nunc Dimittis_, of the ninth century, and is at Oxford,
Bodleian, Misc. Gr. 5, ff. 313-4(178). Oc. _Magnificat_ in the Verona
Psalter of the sixth century (the Greek being written in Latin letters),
published by Bianchini (Vindiciae Canon. Script. 1740). Od, Oe, both
contain the three hymns, Od in the great purple and silver Zurich Psalter
of the seventh century (Tischendorf, Monum. sacra inedita, tom. iv,
1869)(179); Oe of the ninth century at St. Gall (Cod. 17), partly written
in Greek, partly in Latin. Of, also of the ninth century, is described by
Tischendorf (N. T., eighth edition) once as “Noroff. Petrop.,” once as
“Mosquensis.” Og (IX) in the Arsenal Library at Paris (MS. Gr. 2),
containing, besides the Psalms and Canticle of the Old Testament, the
_Magnificat_, _Benedictus_, and _Nunc Dimittis_, besides the _Lord’s
Prayer_, the _Sanctus_ and other such pieces. Oh. Taurinensis Reg. B. vii.
30 (viii or ix), 5-¾ × 4, ff. 303 (20)(180). Psalter with Luke i. 46-55;
ii. 29-31. See Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 441.
P. CODEX GUELPHERBYTANUS A, and Q. CODEX GUELPHERBYTANUS B. These are two
palimpsests discovered by F. A. Knittel, Archdeacon of Wolfenbüttel, in
the Ducal Library of that city, which (together with some fragments of
Ulphilas’ Gothic version) lie under the more modern writings of Isidore of
Seville. He published the whole in 1762(181), so far at least as he could
read them, though Tregelles believed more might be deciphered, and
Tischendorf, with his unconquerable energy, collating them both in 1854,
was able to re-edit them more accurately, Cod. Q in the third volume
(1860) and Cod. P in the sixth (1869) of his Monumenta sacra inedita. The
volume (called the Codex Carolinus) seems to have been once at Bobbio, and
has been traced from Weissenburg to Mayence and Prague, till it was bought
by a Duke of Brunswick in 1689. Codex P contains, on forty-three or
forty-four leaves, thirty-one fragments of 518 verses, taken from all the
four Evangelists(182); Codex Q, on thirteen leaves, twelve fragments of
247 verses from SS. Luke and John(183); but all can be traced only with
great difficulty. A few portions, once written in vermilion, have quite
departed, but Tischendorf has made material additions to Knittel’s
labours, both in extent and accuracy. He assigns P to the sixth, Q to the
fifth century. Both are written in two columns, the uncials being bold,
round or square, those of Q not a little the smaller. The letters in P,
however, are sometimes compressed at the end of a line. The capitals in P
are large and frequent, and both have the sections without the canons of
Eusebius (_see_ p. 59). The table of τίτλοι found in the volume is written
in oblong uncials of a lower date, as Knittel thought, possibly without
good reason. Itacisms, what are termed Alexandrian forms, and the usual
contractions (_ΙΣ_, _ΞΣ_, _ΚΣ_, _ΘΣ_, _ΥΣ_, _ΠΗΡ_, _ΠΝΑ_, _ΙΛΗΜ_, _ΑΝΟΣ_,
_ΔΑΔ_, Μ [with symbol above it]) occur in both copies. Breathings also are
seen here and there in Q. From Tischendorf’s beautiful facsimiles of Codd.
PQ we observe that while _delta_ is far more elaborate in P than in Q, the
precise contrary is the case with _pi_. _Epsilon_ and _sigma_ in P have
strong points at all the extremities; _nu_ in each is of the ancient form
exhibited in Codd. אNR (_see_ p. 37); while in P _alpha_ resembles in
shape that of our alphabet in Plate ii. No. 5, _eta_ that in Plate iii.
No. 7. As regards their text we observe that in the first hundred verses
of St. Luke which are contained in both copies, wherein P is cited for
various readings 216 times, and Q 182 times, P stands alone fourteen
times, Q not once. P agrees with other manuscripts against AB twenty-one
times, Q nineteen: P agrees with AB united fifty times, Q also fifty: P
sides with B against A twenty-nine times, Q thirty-eight: but P accords
with A against B in 102 places, Q in seventy-five.
R. This letter, like some that precede, has been used to represent
different books by various editors, a practice the inconvenience of which
is very manifest. (1) R of Griesbach and Scholz is a fragment of one
quarto leaf containing John i. 38-50, at Tübingen, with musical notes,
which from its thick vellum, from the want of the sections and Eusebian
canons, and the general resemblance of its uncials to those of late
Service Books, Tischendorf pronounces to be an Evangelistarium, and puts
in its room (2) in his N. T. of 1849, fourteen leaves of a palimpsest in
the Royal Library of Naples (Borbon. ii. C. 15) of the eighth century,
under a _Typicum_ (see Suicer, Thes. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 1335), or Ritual
of the Greek Church, of the fourteenth century. These are fragments from
the first three Evangelists, in oblong uncials, leaning to the right.
Tischendorf, by chemical applications, was able in 1843 to read one page,
in two columns of twenty-five lines each (Mark xiv. 32-39)(184), and saw
the sections in the margin; the Eusebian canons he thinks have been washed
out (_see_ p. 59): but in 1859 he calls this fragment Wb, reserving the
letter R for (3) CODEX NITRIENSIS, Brit. Museum, Additional 17211, the
very important palimpsest containing on forty-eight (53) leaves about 516
verses of St. Luke in twenty-five fragments(185), under the black, broad
Syriac writing, being a treatise of Severus of Antioch against Johannes
Grammaticus, of the eighth or ninth century. There are two columns of
about twenty-five lines each on a page; for their boldness and simplicity
the letters may be referred to the end of the sixth century; we have given
a facsimile of the manuscript (which cannot be read in parts but with the
utmost difficulty), and an alphabet collected from it (Nos. 5, 17). In
size and shape the letters are much like those of Codd. INP, only that
they are somewhat irregular and straggling: the punctuation is effected by
a single point almost level with the top of the letters, as in Cod. N. The
pseudo-Ammonian sections are there without the Eusebian canons, and the
first two leaves are devoted to the τίτλοι of St. Luke. This most
important palimpsest is one of the 550 manuscripts brought to England,
about 1847, from the Syrian convent of S. Mary Deipara, in the Nitrian
Desert, seventy miles N. W. of Cairo. When examined at the British Museum
by the late Canon Cureton, then one of the Librarians, he discovered in
the same volume, and published in 1851 (with six pages in facsimile), a
palimpsest of 4000 lines of Homer’s Iliad not in the same hand as St.
Luke, but quite as ancient. The fragments of St. Luke were independently
transcribed, with most laudable patience, both by Tregelles in 1854, and
by Tischendorf in 1855, who afterwards re-examined the places wherein he
differed from Tregelles (e.g. chh. viii. 5; xviii. 7, 10), and discovered
by the aid of Dr. Wright a few more fragments of chh. vi-viii. Tischendorf
published an edition of Cod. R in his “Monumenta sacra inedita,” vol. ii,
with a facsimile: the amended readings, together with the newly-discovered
variations in chh. vi. 31-36, 39, vii. 44, 46, 47, are inserted in the
eighth edition of his Greek Testament. In this palimpsest as at present
bound up in the Museum the fragments of St. Luke end on f. 48, and the
rest of the Greek in the volume is in later, smaller, sloping uncials, and
contains propositions from the tenth and thirteenth books of Euclid. On
the critical character of the readings of this precious fragment we shall
make some comments below.
S. CODEX VATICANUS 354 contains the four Gospels entire, and is amongst
the earliest dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament (p. 41, note 2).
This is a folio of 234 leaves, written in large oblong or compressed
uncials: the Epistle to Carpianus and Eusebian canons are prefixed, and it
contains many later corrections (e.g. Luke viii. 15) and marginal notes
(e.g. Matt. xxvii. 16, 17). Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 4; vii. 53-viii. 11
are obelized. At the end we read ἐγράφει ἡ τιμία δέλτος αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς
ἐμοῦ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μηνὶ μαρτίω α´. ἡμέρα ε´, ὡρα ϛ´, ἔτους
ςυνζ. ινδ. ζ´: i.e. A.D. 949. “Codicem bis diligenter contulimus,” says
Birch: but collators in his day (1781-3) seldom noticed orthographical
forms or stated where the readings _agree_ with the received text, so that
a more thorough examination was still required. Tregelles only inspected
it, but Tischendorf, when at Rome in 1866, carefully re-examined it, and
has inserted many of its readings in his eighth edition and its
supplementary leaves. He states that Birch’s facsimile (consisting of the
obelized John v. 4) is coarsely executed, while Bianchini’s is too
elegant; he made another for himself.
T. CODEX BORGIANUS I, now in the Propaganda at Rome (_see below_, Evan.
180), contains thirteen or more quarto leaves of SS. Luke and John, with a
Thebaic or Sahidic version at their side, but on the opposite and left
page. Each page consists of two columns: a single point indicates a break
in the sense, but there are no other divisions. The fragment contains Luke
xxii. 20-xxiii. 20; John vi. 28-67; vii. 6-viii. 31 (179 verses, since
John vii. 53-viii. 11 are wanting). The portion containing St. John, both
in Greek and Egyptian, was carefully edited at Rome in 1789 by A. A.
Giorgi, an Augustinian Eremite; his facsimile, however (ch. vii. 35),
seems somewhat rough, though Tischendorf (who has inspected the codex)
says that its uncials look as if written by a Copt, from their resemblance
to Coptic letters(186): the shapes of _alpha_ and _iota_ are specially
noticeable. Birch had previously collated the Greek text. Notwithstanding
the occasional presence of the rough and smooth breathing in this copy (p.
47)(187), Giorgi refers it to the fourth century, Tischendorf to the
fifth. The Greek fragment of St. Luke was first collated by Mr. Bradley H.
Alford, and inserted by his brother, Dean Alford, in the fourth edition of
his Greek Testament, vol. i (1859). Dr. Tregelles had drawn Mr. Alford’s
attention to it, from a hint thrown out by Zoega, in p. 184 of his
“Catalogus codd. Copt. MSS. qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur.”
Romae, 1810.
Ts or Twoi is used by Tischendorf to indicate a few leaves in Greek and
Thebaic, which once belonged to Woide, and were published with his other
Thebaic fragments in Ford’s Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus, Oxon.
1799. They contain Luke xii. 15-xiii. 32; John viii. 33-42 (eighty-five
verses). From the second fragment it plainly appears (what the similarity
of the facsimiles had suggested to Tregelles) that T and Ts are parts of
the same manuscript, for the page of Ts which contains John viii. 33 in
Greek exhibits on its reverse the Thebaic version of John viii. 23-32, of
which T affords us only the Greek text. This fact was first noted by
Tischendorf (N. T. 1859), who adds that the Coptic scribe blundered much
over the Greek: e.g. βαβουσα Luke xiii. 21; so δεκαι for δεκα και, ver.
16. He transcribed T and Twoi (as well as Tb, Tc, Td, which we proceed to
describe), for publication in the ninth volume of his “Monumenta sacra
inedita” (1870), but owing to his death they never appeared. But Bp.
Lightfoot gives reasons (_see below_, vol. ii. c. 2) for thinking that
this fragment was not originally a portion of T.
Tb at St. Petersburg much resembles the preceding in the Coptic-like style
of writing, but is not earlier than the sixth century. It contains on six
octavo leaves John i. 25-42; ii. 9-iv. 50, spaces left in the text
answering the purpose of stops. Tb has a harmony of the Gospels at the
foot of the page.
Tc is a fragment of about twenty-one verses between Matt. xiv. 19 and xv.
8, also of the sixth century, and at St. Petersburg, in the collection of
Bishop Porphyry. Its text in the twenty-nine places cited by Tischendorf
in his eighth edition accords with Cod. א twenty-four times, with Cod. B
twenty times, with Codd. C and D sixteen times each, with Cod. 33 nine
times. Cod. A is wanting here. Compared with these primary authorities
severally, it agrees with א alone once, with 33 alone twice, with אB
united against the rest four times: so that its critical character is very
decided.
Td is a fragment of a Lectionary, Greek and Sahidic, of about the seventh
century, found by Tischendorf in 1866 among the Borgian manuscripts at
Rome. It contains Matt. xvi. 13-20; Mark i. 3-8, xii. 35-37; John xix.
23-27; xx. 30-31: twenty-four verses only. This fragment and the next have
been brought into this place, rather than inserted in the list of
Evangelistaria, because they both contained fragments of the Thebaic
version.
Te is a fragment of St. Matthew at Cambridge (Univ. Libr. Addit. 1875).
Dr. Hort communicated its readings to Dr. C. R. Gregory, for his
Prolegomena to the eighth edition of Tischendorf’s N. T. It is “a tiny
morsel” of an uncial Lectionary of the sixth century, containing only
Matt. iii. 13-16, the parallel column probably in the Thebaic version
having perished. It was brought, among other Coptic fragments, from Upper
Egypt by Mr. Greville Chester. Dr. Hort kindly enables me to add to his
description of Te (Addenda to Tregelles’ N. T. p. 1070) that this “tiny
morsel” is irregular in shape, frequently less than four inches in width
and height, the uncial Greek letters being three-eighths of an inch high.
There seem to have been two columns of either eight or more probably of
twenty-four lines each on a page, but no Coptic portions survive. “If of
twenty-four lines the fragment might belong to the inner column of a
bilingual MS. with the two languages in parallel columns, or to the outer
column of a wholly Greek MS. or of a bilingual MS. with the section in the
two languages consecutively, as in Mr. Horner’s Graeco-Thebaic fragment
(Evst. 299: _see_ p. 398). In the latter case it might belong to the inner
column of a wholly Greek MS. or of a bilingual MS. with the section in two
consecutive languages. The size of the letters renders it improbable,
however, that the columns were of eight lines only.” (Hort.)
Tf Horner. See below under Thebaic or Sahidic MSS. at the end.
Tg Cairo, Cod. Papadopulus Kerameus [vi or vii], 9-½ x 8-¼, ff. 3 (27),
two cols., written in letters like Coptic. Matt. xx. 3-32; xxii. 4-16.
Facsimile by the Abbate Cozza-Luzi in “N. T. e Cod. Vat. 1209 nativi
textus Graeci primo omnium phototypice representatum”—Danesio, Rome, 1889.
See Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 450.
U. CODEX NANIANUS I, so called from a former possessor, is now in the
Library of St. Mark, Venice (I. viii). It contains the four Gospels
entire, carefully and luxuriously written in two columns of twenty-one
lines each on the quarto page, scarcely before the tenth century, although
the “letters are in general an imitation of those used before the
introduction of compressed uncials; but they do not belong to the age when
full and round writing was customary or natural, so that the stiffness and
want of ease is manifest” (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 202). It has _Carp._,
_Eus. t._, κεφ. τ. τίτλ., κεφ., _pict._, with much gold ornament. Thus
while the small ο in l. 1 of our facsimile (No. 22) is in the oldest
style, the oblong _omicrons_ creep in at the end of lines 2 and 4. Münter
sent some extracts from this copy to Birch, who used them for his edition,
and states that the book contains the Eusebian canons. Accordingly in Mark
v. 18, B (in error for H) stands under the proper section _μη_ (48).
Tischendorf in 1843 and Tregelles in 1846 collated Cod. U thoroughly and
independently, and compared their work at Leipsic for the purpose of
mutual correction.
V. CODEX MOSQUENSIS, of the Holy Synod, is known almost(188) exclusively
from Matthaei’s Greek Testament: he states, no doubt most truly, that he
collated it “bis diligentissimè,” and gives a facsimile of it, assigning
it to the eighth century. Judging from Matthaei’s plate, it is hard to say
why others have dated it in the ninth. It contained in 1779, when first
collated, the Four Gospels in 8vo with the sections and Eusebian canons,
in uncial letters down to John vii. 39, ουπω γαρ ην, and from that point
in cursive letters of the thirteenth century, Matt. v. 44-vi. 12; ix.
18-x. 1 being lost: when re-collated but four years later Matt. xxii.
44-xxiii. 35; John xxi. 10-25 had disappeared. Matthaei tells us that the
manuscript is written in a kind of stichometry by a diligent scribe: its
resemblance to Cod. M has been already mentioned. The cursive portion is
Matthaei’s V, Scholz’s Evan. 250.
Wa. COD. REG. PARIS 314 consists of but two leaves at the end of another
book, containing Luke ix. 34-47; x. 12-22 (twenty-three verses). Its date
is about the eighth century; the uncial letters are firmly written,
_delta_ and _theta_ being of the ordinary oblong shape of that period.
Accents and breathings are usually put; all the stops are expressed by a
single point, whose position makes no difference in its power. This copy
was adapted to Church use, but is not an Evangelistarium, inasmuch as it
exhibits the sections and Eusebian canons(189), and τίτλοι twice at the
head of the page. This fragment was brought to light by Scholz, and
published by Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, 1846.
Wb. Tischendorf considers the fragment at Naples he had formerly numbered
R (2) as another portion of the same copy, and therefore indicates it in
his seventh edition of the N. T. (1859) as Wb. It has seventy-nine leaves,
of which the fourteen last are palimpsest, is written in two columns, with
twenty-five lines in each page; has the Ammonian sections and lections,
and contains Matt. xix. 14-28; xx. 23-xxi. 2; xxvi. 52-xxvii. 1; Mark
xiii. 21-xiv. 67; Luke iii. 1-iv. 20. (Prolegomena to Tischendorf, p.
395.)
Wc is assigned by Tischendorf to three leaves containing Mark ii. 8-16;
Luke i. 20-32; 64-79 (thirty-five verses), which have been washed to make
a palimpsest, and the writing erased in parts by a knife. There are also
some traces of a Latin version, but all these were used up to bind other
books in the library of St. Gall. They are of the eighth century, or the
ninth according to Tischendorf, edd. 7 and 8, and have appeared in vol.
iii of “Monumenta sacra inedita,” with a facsimile, whose style closely
resembles that of Cod. Δ, and its kindred FG of St. Paul’s Epistles.
Wd was discovered in 1857 by Mr. W. White, sub-librarian of Trinity
College, Cambridge, in the College Library, and was afterwards observed,
and arranged by Mr. H. Bradshaw, University Librarian, its slips (about
twenty-seven in number) having been worked into the binding of a volume of
Gregory Nazianzen: they are now carefully arranged under glass (B. viii.
5). They comprise portions of four leaves, severally containing Mark vii.
3-4; 6-8; 30-36; 36-viii. 4; 4-10; 11-16; ix. 2; 7-9, in uncial letters of
the ninth century, if not rather earlier, slightly leaning to the right.
The sections are set in the margin without the Eusebian canons, with a
table of harmony at the foot of each page of twenty-four lines. The τίτλοι
are in red at the top and bottom of the pages, their corresponding
numerals in the margin. The breathings and accents are often very faint:
lessons and musical notes, crosses, &c. are in red, and sometimes cover
the original stops. In text it much resembles Codd. אBDLΔ: one reading
(Mark vii. 33) appears to be unique. Dr. Scrivener has included it in a
volume of fresh collations of manuscripts and editions which is shortly to
appear under the accomplished editorship of Mr. J. Rendel Harris.
We is a fragment containing John iv. 7-14, in three leaves, found by the
Very Rev. G. W. Kitchin, Dean of Winchester, in Christ Church Library,
when Tischendorf was at Oxford in 1865. It much resembles O at Moscow,
and, like it, had a commentary annexed, to which there are numeral
references set before each verse.
Wf is a palimpsest fragment of St. Matt. xxv. 31-36, and vi. 1-18
(containing the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer), of about the ninth
century, underlying Wake 13 at Christ Church, Oxford (Acts 192, Paul.
246), discovered by the late Mr. A. A. Vansittart (Journal of Philology,
vol. ii. no. 4, p. 241, note 1).
X. CODEX MONACENSIS, in the University Library at Munich (No. 1/26), is a
valuable folio manuscript of the end of the ninth or early in the tenth
century, containing the Four Gospels (in the order described above, with
serious omissions)(190), and a commentary (chiefly from Chrysostom)
surrounding and interspersed with the text of all but St. Mark, in early
cursive letters, not unlike (in Tischendorf’s judgement) the celebrated
Oxford Plato dated 895. The very elegant uncials of Cod. X “are small and
upright; though some of them are compressed, they seem as if they were
_partial_ imitations of those used in very early copies” (Tregelles’
Horne, p. 195). Each page has two columns of about forty-five lines each.
There are no divisions by κεφάλαια or sections, nor notes to serve for
ecclesiastical use. From a memorandum we find that it came from Rome to
Ingoldstadt, as a present from Gerard Vossius [1577-1649]; from
Ingoldstadt it was taken to Landshut in 1803, thence to Munich in 1827.
When it was at Ingoldstadt Griesbach obtained some extracts from it
through Dobrowsky; Scholz first collated it, but in his usual unhappy way;
Tischendorf in 1844, Tregelles in 1846. Dean Burgon examined it in 1872.
Y. CODEX BARBERINI 225 at Rome (in the Library founded by Cardinal
Barberini in the seventeenth century) contains on six large leaves the 137
verses John xvi. 3-xix. 41, of about the eighth century. Tischendorf
obtained access to it in 1843 for a few hours, after some difficulty with
the Prince Barberini, and published it in his first instalment of
“Monumenta sacra inedita,” 1846. Scholz had first noticed, and loosely
collated it. A later hand has coarsely retraced the letters, but the
ancient writing is plain and good. Accents and breathings are most often
neglected or placed wrongly: κ θ τ [each with a small symbol after and
below the character] are frequent at the end of lines. For punctuation
one, two, three or even four points are employed, the power of the single
point varying as in Codd. E Θa and B of the Apocalypse. The
pseudo-Ammonian sections are without the Eusebian canons: and such forms
as λήμψεται xvi. 14, λήμψεσθε ver. 24 occur. These few uncial leaves are
prefixed to a cursive copy of the Gospels with Theophylact’s commentary
(Evan. 392): the text is mixed, and lies about midway between that of Cod.
A and Cod. B.
Z. CODEX DUBLINENSIS RESCRIPTUS, one of the chief palimpsests extant,
contains 295 verses of St. Matthew’s Gospel in twenty-two fragments(191).
It is of a small quarto size, originally 10-½ inches by 8, now reduced to
8-¼ inches by 6, once containing 120 leaves arranged in quaternions, of
which the first that remains bears the _signature_ 13 (ΙΓ): fourteen
sheets or double leaves and four single leaves being all that survive. It
was discovered in 1787 by Dr. John Barrett, Senior Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin, under some cursive writing of the tenth century or later,
consisting of Chrysostom de Sacerdotio, extracts from Epiphanius, &c. In
the same volume are portions of Isaiah (eight leaves) and of Gregory
Nazianzen, in erased uncial letters, the latter not so ancient as the
fragment of St. Matthew. All the thirty-two leaves of this Gospel that
remain were engraved in copper-plate facsimile(192) at the expense of
Trinity College, and published by Barrett in 1801, furnished with
Prolegomena, and the contents of each facsimile plate in modern Greek
characters, on the opposite page. The facsimiles are not very accurate,
and the form of the letters is stated to be less free and symmetrical than
in the original: yet from these plates (for the want of a better guide)
our alphabet (No. 6) and specimen (No. 18) have been taken. The Greek type
on the opposite page was not very well revised, and a comparison with the
copper-plate will occasionally convict it of errors, which have been
animadverted upon more severely than was quite necessary. The Prolegomena
were encumbered with a discussion of our Lord’s genealogies quite foreign
to the subject, and the tone of scholarship is not very high; but
Barrett’s judgement on the manuscript is correct in the main, and his
conclusion, that it is as old as the sixth century, has been generally
received. Tregelles in 1853 was permitted to apply a chemical mixture to
the vellum, which was already miserably discoloured, apparently from the
purple dye: he was thus enabled to add a little (about 200 letters) to
what Barrett had read long since(193), but he found that in most places
which that editor had left blank, the vellum had been cut away or lost: it
would no doubt have been better for Barrett to have stated, in each
particular case, why he had been unable to give the text of the passage. A
far better edition of the manuscript, including the fragment of Isaiah,
and a newly-discovered leaf of the Latin Codex Palatinus (_e_), with
Prolegomena and two plates of real facsimiles, was published in 1880 by T.
K. Abbott, B.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
He has read 400 letters hitherto deemed illegible, and is inclined to
assign the fifth century as the date of the Codex. Codex Z, like many
others, and for the same orthographical reasons, has been referred to
Alexandria as its native country. It is written with a single column on
each page of twenty-one or twenty-three lines(194). The so-named Ammonian
sections are given, but not the Eusebian canons: the τίτλοι are written at
the top of the pages by a later hand according to Porter and Abbott,
though this may be questioned (Gebhardt and Harnack’s “Texte,” &c., I. iv.
p. xxiii ff., 1883), their numbers being set in the margin. The writing is
continuous, the _single_ point either rarely found or quite washed out:
the abbreviations are very few, and there are no breathings or accents.
Like Cod. B, this manuscript indicates citations by > in the margin, and
it represents N by —, but only at the end of a word and line. A space,
proportionate to the occasion, is usually left when there is a break in
the sense, and capitals extend into the margin when a new section begins.
The letters are in a plain, steady, beautiful hand: they yield in elegance
to none, and are never compressed at the end of a line. The shape of
_alpha_ (which varies a good deal), and especially that of _mu_, is very
peculiar: _phi_ is inordinately large: _delta_ has an upper curve which is
not usual: the same curves appear also in _zeta_, _lambda_, and _chi_. The
characters are less in size than in N, about equal to those in R, much
greater than in AB. In regard to the text, it agrees much with Codd. אBD:
with Cod. A it has only twenty-three verses in common: yet in them A and Z
vary fourteen times. Mr. Abbott adds that while אBZ stand together ten
times against other uncials, BZ are never alone, but אZ against B often.
It is freer than either of them from transcriptural errors. Codd. אBCZ
combine less often than אBDZ. On examining Cod. Z throughout twenty-six
pages, he finds it alone thirteen times, differing from א thirty times,
from B forty-four times, from Stephen’s text ninety-five times. Thus it
approaches nearer to א than to B.
Γ. CODEX TISCHENDORFIAN. IV was brought by Tischendorf from an “eastern
monastery” (he usually describes the locality of his manuscripts in such
like general terms), and was bought of him for the Bodleian Library (Misc.
Gr. 313) in 1855. It consists of 158 leaves, 12 inches x 9-¼, with one
column (of twenty-four not very straight or regular lines) on a page, in
uncials of the ninth century, leaning slightly back, but otherwise much
resembling Cod. K in style (facsimile No. 35). St. Luke’s Gospel is
complete; the last ten leaves are hurt by damp, though still legible. In
St. Mark only 105 verses are wanting (iii. 35-vi. 20); about 531 verses of
the other Gospels survive(195). Tischendorf, and Tregelles by his leave,
have independently collated this copy, of which Tischendorf gives a
facsimile in his “Anecdota sacra et profana,” 1855. Some of its peculiar
readings are very notable, and few uncials of its date deserve that more
careful study, which it has hardly yet received. In 1859 Tischendorf, on
his return from his third Eastern journey, took to St. Petersburg
ninety-nine additional leaves of this self-same manuscript, doubtless
procured from the same place as he had obtained the Bodleian portion six
years before (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 53). This copy of the Gospels,
though unfortunately in two distant libraries, is now nearly perfect(196),
and at the end of St. John’s Gospel, in the more recently discovered
portion, we find an inscription which seems to fix the date: ετελειωθη ἡ
δέλτος αὔτη μηνι νοεμβριω _κζ_, ινδ. _η_, ἡμερα _ε_, ωρα _β_. Tischendorf,
by the aid of Ant. Pilgrami’s “Calendarium chronologum medii potissimum
aevi monumentis accommodatum,” Vienn. 1781, pp. vii, 11, 105, states that
the only year between A.D. 800 and 950, on which the Indiction was eight,
and Nov. 27 fell on a Thursday, was 844(197). In the Oxford sheets we find
tables of κεφάλαια before the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Luke; the τίτλοι
at the heading of the pages; their numbers _rubro_ neatly set in the
margin; capitals in red at the commencement of these chapters; the ἀρχαὶ
καὶ τέλη of lections; the sections and Eusebian canons in their usual
places, and some liturgical directions. Over the original breathings and
accents some late scrawler has in many places put others, in a very
careless fashion.
Δ. CODEX SANGALLENSIS, was first inspected by Gerbert (1773), named by
Scholz (N. T. 1830), and made fully known to us by the admirable edition
in lithographed facsimile of every page, by H. Ch. M. Rettig [1799-1836],
published at Zurich, 1836(198), with copious and satisfactory Prolegomena.
It is preserved and was probably transcribed a thousand years since in the
great monastery of St. Gall in the north-east of Switzerland (Stifts
bibliothek, 48). It is rudely written on 197 leaves of coarse vellum
quarto, 8-7/8 inches by 7-1/8 in size, with from twenty to twenty-six
(usually twenty-one) lines on each page, in a very peculiar hand, with an
interlinear Latin version, and contains the four Gospels complete except
John xix. 17-35. Before St. Matthew’s Gospel are placed Prologues, Latin
verses, the Eusebian canons in Roman letters, tables of the κεφάλαια both
in Greek and Latin, &c. Rettig thinks he has traced several different
scribes and inks employed on it, which might happen easily enough in the
Scriptorium of a monastery; but, if so, their style of writing is very
nearly the same, and they doubtless copied from the same archetype, about
the same time. He has produced more convincing arguments to show that Cod.
Δ is part of the same book as the Codex Boernerianus, G of St. Paul’s
Epistles. Not only do they exactly resemble each other in their whole
arrangement and appearance, but marginal notes by the first hand are found
in each, of precisely the same character. Thus the predestinarian
doctrines of the heretic Godeschalk [d. 866] are pointed out for
refutation at the hard texts, Luke xiii. 24; John xii. 40 in Δ, and six
times in G(199). St. Mark’s Gospel represents a text different from that
of the other Evangelists, and the Latin version (which is clearly _primâ
manu_) seems a mixture of the Vulgate with the older Italic, so altered
and accommodated to the Greek as to be of little critical value. The
penmen seem to have known but little Greek, and to have copied from a
manuscript written continuously, for the divisions between the words are
sometimes absurdly wrong. There are scarcely any breathings or accents,
except about the opening of St. Mark, and once an aspirate to ἑπτα; what
we do find are often falsely given; and a dot is set in most places
regularly at the end of every _Greek_ word. The letters have but little
tendency to the oblong shape, but _delta_ and _theta_ are decidedly of the
latest uncial type. Here, as in Paul. Cod. G, the mark >>> is much used to
fill up vacant spaces. The text from which Δ was copied seems to have been
arranged in στίχοι, for almost every line has at least one Greek capital
letter, grotesquely ornamental in colours(200). We transcribe three lines,
taken almost at random, from pp. 80-1 (Matt. xx. 13-15), in order to
explain our meaning:
dixit uni eo_r_ amice non _ij_usto tibi _nn_e
ειπεν; μοναδι; αυτων; Εταιρε; ουκ; αδικω; σε; Ουχι
ex denario convenisti mecū tolle tuū et vade
δηναριου συνεφωνησασ; μοι; Αρον; το; σον και υπαγε
volo autē huic novissimo dare sicut et tibi antā non li
Θελω δε τουτω τω εσχατω δουναι ωσ και; σοι; Η; ουκ εξ
It will be observed that, while in Cod. Δ a line begins at any place, even
in the middle of a word; if the capital letters be assumed to commence the
lines, the text divides itself into regular στίχοι. See above, pp. 52-54.
Here are also the τίτλοι, the sections and canons. The letters Ν and ι, Ζ
and Ξ, Τ and Θ, Ρ and the Latin R are perpetually confounded. Facsimiles
of Luke i. 1-9 may be seen in Pal. Soc. xi. 179. As in the kindred Codd.
Augiensis and Boernerianus the Latin f is much like r. Tregelles has noted
ι ascript in Cod. Δ, but this is rare. There is no question that this
document was written by Latin (most probably by Irish) monks, in the west
of Europe, during the ninth century (or the tenth, Pal. Soc.). _See
below_, Paul. Cod. G.
Θa. CODEX TISCHENDORFIAN. I was brought from the East by Tischendorf in
1845, published by him in his “Monumenta sacra inedita,” 1846, with a few
supplements in vol. ii of his new collection (1857), and deposited in the
University Library at Leipsic. It consists of but four leaves (all
imperfect) quarto, of very thin vellum, almost too brittle to be touched,
so that each leaf is kept separately in glass. It contains about forty-two
verses; viz. Matt. xii. 17-19; 23-25; xiii. 46-55 (in mere shreds); xiv.
8-29; xv. 4-14, with the greater κεφάλαια in red; the sections and
Eusebian canons stand in the inner margin. A few breathings are _primâ
manu_, and many accents by two later correctors. The stops (which are
rather numerous) resemble those of Cod. Y, only that four points are not
found in Θa. Tischendorf places its date towards the end of the seventh
century, assigning Mount Sinai or lower Egypt for its country. The uncials
(especially ΕΘΟΣ) are somewhat oblong, leaning to the right (_see_ p. 41
note), but the writing is elegant and uniform; _delta_ keeps its ancient
shape, and the diameter of _theta_ does not extend beyond the curve. In
regard to the text, it much resembles אB, and stands alone with them in
ch. xiv. 12 (αὐτόν).
Seven other small fragments, of which four and part of another are from
the manuscripts of Bishop Porphyry at St. Petersburg, were intended to be
included in Tischendorf’s ninth volume of “Monumenta sacra inedita”
(1870), but owing to Tischendorf’s death they never appeared. That active
critic had brought two (Θb, d) and part of another (Θc) from the East, and
deposited them in the Library at St. Petersburg. They are described by him
as follows:
Θb, six leaves in large 8vo, of the sixth or seventh century, torn
piecemeal for binding and hard to decipher, contains Matt. xxii. 16-xxiii.
13; Mark iv. 24-35; v. 14-23.
Θc, one folio leaf, of the sixth century, much like Cod. N, contains Matt.
xxi. 19-24. Another leaf contains John xviii. 29-35.
Θd, half a leaf in two columns, of the seventh or eighth century, with
accents by a later hand, contains Luke xi. 37-41; 42-45.
Θe, containing fragments of Matt. xxvi. 2-4; 7-9: Θf, of Matt. xxvi.
59-70; xxvii. 44-56; Mark i. 34-ii. 12 (not continuously throughout): Θg
of John vi. 13, 14; 22-24; are all of about the sixth century.
Θh, consisting of three leaves, in Greek and Arabic of the ninth or tenth
centuries, contains imperfect portions of Matt. xiv. 6-13; xxv. 9-16;
41-xxvi. 1.
Λ. CODEX TISCHENDORFIAN. III(201), whose history, so far as we know it,
exactly resembles that of Cod. Γ, and like it is now in the Bodleian
(Auct. T. Infra I. 1). It contains 157 leaves, written in two columns of
twenty-three lines each, in small, oblong, clumsy, sloping uncials of the
eighth or rather of the ninth century (_see_ p. 41, note 1, and facsimile
No. 30). It has the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John complete, with the
subscription to St. Mark, each Gospel being preceded by tables of
κεφάλαια, with the τίτλοι at the heads of the pages; the numbers of the
κεφάλαια, of the sections, and of the Eusebian canons (these last _rubro_)
being set in the margin. There are also scholia interspersed, of some
critical value; a portion being in uncial characters. This copy also was
described (with a facsimile) by Tischendorf, Anecdota sacra et profana,
1855, and collated by himself and Tregelles. Its text is said to vary
greatly from that common in the later uncials, and to be very like
Scholz’s 262 (Paris 53). For ι _ascriptum_ see p. 44, note 2.
Here again the history of this manuscript curiously coincides with that of
Cod. Γ. In his Notitia Cod. Sinaitici, p. 58, Tischendorf describes an
early cursive copy of St. Matthew and St. Mark (_the subscription to the
latter being wanting_), which he took to St. Petersburg in 1859, so
exactly corresponding in general appearance with Cod. Λ (although that be
written in uncial characters), as well as in the style and character of
the marginal scholia, which are often in small uncials, that he pronounces
them part of the same codex. Very possibly he _might_ have added that he
procured the two from the same source: at any rate the subscription to St.
Matthew at St. Petersburg precisely resembles the other three
subscriptions at Oxford, and those in Paris 53 (Scholz’s 262)(202), with
which Tischendorf had previously compared Cod. Λ (N. T. Proleg. p.
clxxvii, seventh edition). These cursive leaves are preceded by Eusebius’
Epistle to Carpianus, his table of canons, and a table of the κεφάλαια of
St. Matthew. The τίτλοι in uncials head the pages, and their numbers stand
in the margin.
From the marginal scholia Tischendorf cites the following notices of the
Jewish Gospel, or that according to the Hebrews, which certainly have
their value as helping to inform us respecting its nature: Matt. iv. 5 το
ιουδαικον ουκ εχει εις την αγιαν πολιν αλλ εν _ιλημ_. xvi. 17 Βαριωνα; το
ιουδαικον υιε ιωαννου. xviii. 22 το ιουδαικον εξης εχει μετα το
ἑβδομηκοντακις ἑπτα; και γαρ εν τοις προφηταις μετα το χρισθηναι αυτους εν
_πνι_ ἁγιω εὑρισκετω (_sic_) εν αυτοις λογος ἁμαρτιας:—an addition which
Jerome (contra Pelag. III) expressly cites from the Gospel of the
Nazarenes. xxvi. 47 το ιουδαικον; και ηρνησατο και ωμοσεν και κατηρασατο.
It is plain that this whole matter requires careful discussion, but at
present it would seem that the first half of Cod. Λ was written in
cursive, the second in uncial letters; if not by the same person, yet on
the same plan and at the same place.