Hoskier 75, 604 (E)

Huet 366 (Evst.)

Hug B, p. 105

Huish A, p. 103

Huntingdon, Earl of 64 (E)

Huntington, Bp. 67 (E), 30 (A)

Iberian Monastery 243, 259 (E). 99, 103 (A). 50, 502 (Apoc.) 48 (Evst.) 13

(Apost.)

Ignatius (Metrop.) 282 (Evst.) Monk 86 (Evst.) Scribe 69 (Apost.)

Innocent VIII 246 (A)

Irene 210 (Evst.)

Iveron, _see_ Iberian

Jackson 69, 106, 573 (E)

James, monk 507 (E)

Janina 763, 771 (E), 266 (P), 89 (Apoc.)

Jeremias, Patr. 98 (A)

Jerusalem, Lib. 416 (A)

Joachim, monk 166 (A), 13 (Apost.)

Joasaph 410, 561 (E), 169 (A)

John 374 (E), 267 (Apost.) Monk 560 (E), 61 (A). Priest 245, 429 (E), 71,

170 (Evst.) Reader 592, 1311 (E). Rossan 325, 347 (Evst.) Scribe 180 (E),

64 (A), 567 (Evst.)

Johnson, T. 72 (E)

Jones, J. 64 (E)

Joseph, monk 422 (E), 537 (Evst.)

Junius, P. G (P)

Justinas, St. 200 (E)

Justinian, Aug.. 285 (E)

Knobelsdorf, W. E. de 433 (E)

Kuster C, p. 122

Lambeth, Lib. 514, 516 (E), 186 (A)

Lammens 527 (E)

Lampros, Sp. P. 269-272 (E), 592, 596, 597 (E). 107 (A), 418 (A), 269

(Evst.)

Landolina 113 (Apost.)

Landolini 421 (E)

Langer 97(A)

Larroque 27-33 (E)

Lascar, J. 12 (A)

Lascaris 210 (A)

Laud, Abp. E (A)

Laura, Monast. S (A), 20, 23 (P)

Leo (of Calabria) 124 (E). ——, scribe 164, 589 (E), 67 (A)

Leon 538, 541 (Evst.)

Leontius 186, 430 (E), 91, 215 (Evst.)

Lesoeuf 80 (E)

Loescher 32 (Apoc.), 57 (Evst.)

Louis, St. 38 (E)

Louis XIV M (E), 279 (E)

Lucas, P. 264 (E)

Lucas 289 (E)

Lucca, Lib. 452 (E)

Luke, monk 230 (E)

——, Prof. 21 (A)

Lyons, Jesuits’ Pub. Lib. 298(E)

——, Monast. of St. Iren. D, p. 125

Macarius 1283 (E)

Macdonald 581, 582 (E)

Maglorian, San, Oratory of 54 (A)

Mai, Card. B, p. 112

Maius 97 (E)

Mangey, Th. 483, 492, 496, 498, 503 (E). 26, 27 (Evst.)

Manuel 162, 293 (E)

Mare, P. de la 265 (E)

Maria, Jo. 285 (E)

——, Q. 40 (Evst.)

——, St. 367 (E)

Marini N (E)

Marsh, Abp. 118 (E)

Mary, St., Ben. Lib. 148 (A)

—— Deipara, St., Convent R (E)

——, empress 419 (A)

——, St., of Patirium ב (A, P)

Masieli, P. 12 (A)

Matthaei V (E), K (A). 89, 237-259, 605 (E). 98-107 (A). 76, 113-124

(P). 32 (Apoc.) 47 (Evst.) 5 (Apost.)

Matthew, monk 416, 418 (A)

——, scribe 1307 (E)

Maura 459, 460 (E)

Maurice 100 (Evst.)

Mauron 341 (E)

Maurus 427 (E)

Maximilian p. 213 note. 146 (E)

Mazarin, Card. 103, 278, 302, 305, 308, 311, 313, 324 (E). 51 (A),

74, 98 (Evst.)

Mead, Dr. 22 (A), 23 (Apoc.)

Medici 16, 19, 121, 196, C. (E), 317 (E) 12, 126 (A), 164 (P)

Meerman 122, 436, 562 (E), 178 (A), 153 (Evst.)

Meletius 248, 281 (E)

Mendham 562 (E)

Menon 230 (A), 262 (Evst.)

Merlin 601 (E)

Michael 30 (Apoc.), 531 (Evst.)

——, St., Monast. 253 (E)

——, monk S (E). 1156 (E)

——, priest 394 (E)

Michaelis 772 (E)

Mico B, p. 110. 91 (Apoc.)

Middeldorpf 42 (A)

Mieg F (P)

Mill D, p. 126. K (E), E (P), 51, 59, 69 (E), 18-22 (Evst.)

Missy, Caesar de 44, 449, 520, 521, 543 (E), 230, 231 (Evst.) 5, 45

(Apost.)

Moira, John, Earl of 64 (E)

Moldenhawer 226-233 (E), 35-40 (Evst.)

Molsheim, Jes. Coll. 431 (E)

Montagnana, P. de 217 (E)

Montfaucon O (E), 482 (Evst.)

Montfort, Dr. 61 (E)

Moore, Bp. 60, 622, 70 (E)

Morrian 288 (E)

Mould 116, 444 (E)

Müller, Prof. E (E)

Muller 736 (E)

Munich, Jes. Coll. 127 (P)

Münter U (E)

Muralt B, p. 110. 473-477 (E)

Nanianus U (E)

Nani family 405-418 (E)

Naples, Conv. of St. Jo. de Carbon 108 (E)

Napoleon I B, p. 105

Nathanael, N. 228 (E)

Neophytus 591 (E)

Nepho 439(E)

Nicephorus 276 (E), 25, 48, 573 (Evst.)

Nicetas 126 (P), 231 (Evst.)

Nicholas, St., Monast. 40 (E)

Nicolas 291 (E), 72 (Evst.)

——, Abp. 156 (A)

——, Card. 87 (E)

——, monk 97 (E)

——, priest 204 (Evst.)

Nicolas, scribe 268 (Apost.)

Nicolaus 306 (A), 185 (Evst.)

Nilus 305 (Evst.)

Noailles, G. de 59 (Apoc.)

Norfolk, Duke of 566 (E)

North, Hon. F. 471, 531, 532, 583 (E), 198 (A)

Ὁδηγῶν, τῶν, Monast. 86 (Evst.)

Odessa 198 (Evst.)

Onesimus 20 (Evst.)

Pachonius 241 (E)

Padua 139 (A)

——, St. John in Virid., Monast. 217 (E)

Palaeologus, Chr. 138, 288 (Evst.)

——, Emp. 80 (Apoc.)

Palatine, Elector’s Lib. p. 213 note 146 (E)

Panagiotes, M. 274 (E)

Pannonius 100 (E)

Panteleemon, Monast. 428 (Evst.)

Pantocrator, Monast. 74, 482, 493, 495, 507, 508 (E), 119 (P), 211

(Evst.)

Pappelbaum 400 (E)

Paradisi, Collis 414 (Evst.)

Parassoh 69 (Apost.)

Paris, City Lib. 288 (E)

——, Nat. Lib. 272 (E)

——, Sorbonne 290 (E)

Parodus of Smyrna Π (E)

Parrhasius 108 (E)

Parsons, D. 617 (E)

Parthenius, Patr. 19 (Evst.)

Passionei, Card. L (A), 611 (E), 723 (E)

Patmos 466 (E), 588 (E)

Patriarchal Chamber A, p. 98

Paul, Abp. 165 (E)

——, priest 26 (E)

Paulus 22 (A), 32 (Apoc.)

Payne 436, 562 (E)

——, E. 518, 529 (E), 153, 227-229 (Evst.)

——, T. (Archd.) 523 (E), 52 (Apost.)

Peckover, J. 560, 561 (E)

Perron, Card. 91 (E)

Petavius 38 (A)

Peter, monk 48 (Evst.)

Peter τοῦ Καραμανίτου 1149 (E)

Petra, Monast. 87 (E)

Philip, monk 414 (E)

Phillipps, Sir T. 526-533 (E), 178 (A)

Philotheus 235 (E)

Philotheou, Monast. 237, 240, 247 (E)

Phlebaris 489 (E)

Pickering 543 (E)

Picus 488 (E)

Pinelli 348 (E), 138 (A)

Pithaeus 42 (E)

Pius II 158 (E)

Polidore 137 (Evst.)

Porphyry א, p. 91, Q (P)

Pressburg, Lib. of the Lycaeum 86 (E)

Prusa, SS. Cosm. and Damian., Monast. 405 (E)

Puttick 598 (E)

Quaritch 560, 561, 885-887 (E)

Quirini B, p. 187

R., A. F. 207 (E)

Ragusio, J. de E (E)

Reggio 172 (P)

Reiche, J. G. 113, 114, 117, 127 (A) 139, 140, 153 (P), 54 (Apoc.)

Rettig Δ (E)

Ῥενδήνη, Monast. 322 (E)

Rhodes 737 (E), 125 (P)

Rhosen 205 (E)

Rhosus 448 (E)

Rich, C. J. 574 (E)

Ridolphi, Card. C, p. 121

Rinck 209 (E), 96 (A)

Rink 110-112 (P)

Rivet 155 (E)

Rocchi B, p. 118

Rodd, H. 585 (E)

——, T. 272, 584 (E)

Roe, Sir T. 49 (E)

Romana De Alteriis 690 (E)

Romanus, priest 247 (Evst.)

Rome, Barberini Lib. 159 (E)

Rose, W. F. 20, 22, 300, 346, 563, 564, 565 (E), 223 (A) 255, 281

(Evst.)

Rostgaard 234, 235 (E)

Roth I (E)

Royal Society 566 (E)

Rulotta B, p. 110

Rutgersius 155 (E)

Saba, St., Conv. I (E), Ie (A P), If (A)

——, Monast. 310, 535, 539-541, 275 (E) 191, 216, 416, 417 (A), 236

(Evst.)

Sakkelion N (E)

Salernium 196 (Evst.)

Salvador, St. 204 (E)

Salvator, S., de Sept., Conv. of 195 (E), 100 (P)

Salviati, Card. de 107 (A)

Sambuc 66 (A)

Sanderson, W. 184 (A)

Sanguntinianus 288 (E)

Scala, S. Maria della 162 (Evst.)

Schoenleben 105 (E)

Scholz B, p. 110. Wa, K, M, X, Y (E), H, L (A), 6, 20, 33-41, 75,

138-144, 146-157, 159, 160, 162, 164-171, 173-175, 177-180, 201, 260,

262, 270, 271, 277, 284, 285, 298-301, 324, 346, 352, 365, 382, 428 (E)

70-80, 82-92, 115, 120-123, 126, 127, 131, 133, 137, 160-163, 174 (A)

77-112 P (nearly), 157, 177-179 (P), 51, 68, 69, 82 (Apoc.) 7, 60, 81, 86

(Evst.) 12 (Apost.)

Scio 390 (E)

Scrivener Nc, Wd (E), G (P) 59, 66, 71, 201, 299, 300, 440, 492, 503,

507-517, 545-559, 566 (E), 61, 178, 182-188 (A), 252-261 (P), 87, 93-98

(Apoc.) 221, 233, 234 (Evst.)

Scultet, A. 96 (E)

Seguier 34-41 (E)

Seidel, A. E. G, H (E), 42 (A)

Sepulveda B. p. 109

Sergius B, p. 118

Simcox, W. H. 624 (E), 72 (Apoc.)

Simenus, Monast. 53 (Evst.)

Simeon 312 (P), 179 (Evst.)

Simon K (E)

Simonides, Const. 110, 589 (E), 229 (A)

Simopetra 218 (A)

Sinai, St. Cath., Mon. א, p. 90; 141, 413, 577, 581, 582 (E)

Sirlet, Card. 373 (E), 79 (Apoc.), 132 (Evst.)

Smalbroke, S. 484 (E)

Smyrna 444 (E)

Sophonius 1262 (E)

Sophronius 183 (Evst.)

Sotheby 265 (Evst.)

Sparvenfeldt 613 (E), 68 (A)

Statius, A. 69, 171 (E)

Steininger 179 (Evst.)

Stella, P. 284 (E)

Stephen, priest 102 (Evst.)

——, R. D, p. 122 L (E)

——, reader 90 (Evst.)

Stevens 268 (Evst.)

Stierzienbecher, A. F. 614 (E)

Stosch D (P), p. 175

Strangford 526 (E)

Strasburg 180 (A)

Stunica 52 (A)

Suchtelen 542 (E)

Sussex, Duke of 543 (E)

Swete, H. B. 736 (E)

Sylburg, F. 79 (Apoc.)

Symeon 76, 269 (Apost.)

Synesius 585 (E)

Syria 515 (E)

Taurinus, St., Monast. 91 (E)

Tauronesus 1261 (E)

Tayler, F. 222 (Evst.)

Teller of Rheims 119, 284, 285, 304 (E)

Tengnagel, S. 66 (A)

Teudatus 493 (E)

Thecla A, p. 98

Theocletus 988 (E)

Theodora 388, 473 (E)

Theodore, Abp. E (A) 74, 233, 412, 543, 571 (E) 156 (A)

Theodoret 97 (A), 122 (Evst.)

Theodosius 413 (E)

Theognostus 99 (A)

Theopemptus 131 (A)

Theophanes 416 (A)

Theophilus 570 (E)

Theophylact, priest 148 (A)

Thessaly 175, 288 (P)

Thevenot 272 (E)

Thomas 1262 (E)

Thorpe 528 (E)

Thou, de, Aug. 121 (A), 63 (Apoc.), 60 (Evst.)

Tiffin, W. 69 (E)

Timotheus 103 (P)

Tischendorf א, p. 90. B, p. 115. Γ, Θa, Θbd, Θe, Λ (E), Oa (P), C, p.

122. E, Fa, G, H, I, K, L, P, Q, R, S, Ts, Tc, U, X, Ξ, Π (E), E, H, L

(A), D, F, R (P), 620, 621 (E), 61 (A), 175, 295-297 (Evst.), 72

(Apost.)

Titoff 476 (E)

Torregiani 162 (Evst.)

Traheron, P. 71 (E)

Tregelles E, G, H, K, M, R, U, X, Γ, Δ, Λ, Ξ (E) H, L, P (A), D, F, M

(P) 1, 33, 69, 241 (E) 61 (A), 1 (Apoc.)

Treschow N (E), 77, 124 (E)

Trithemius, Jo. 96 (E)

Troyna, St. Michael de 96 (A)

Twycross 63 (E)

Tzutzuna 89 (A)

Ubaldi B, p. 118

Uffenbach M (P) 45 (A)

Urbino, Ducal Lib. 157 (E)

Uspensky, P. 481 (E)

Ussher, Abp. D, p. 126, 61, 63, 64 (E)

Vatablus 9 (A)

Vatopedi Monast. 245 (E), 106 (A), 124 (P), 54 (Evst.)

Velitrant Museum 180 (E)

Venice 613 (E)

——, St. Michael’s 419, 468 (E)

Vercellone B, p. 117

Vergecius 296 (E), 124 (A), 149, 151 (P)

Verschoyle, Bp. 64 (E)

Victor, St., on the Walls 120 (E)

Voscius, Gerard X (E)

——, Is. 38 (A)

Wagstaff 517 (E)

Wake, Abp. 73, 74 (E). _See_ Index I, Christ Church, Oxford

Walker, F. 422, 423, 495 (E), 191 (A), 218, 219, (Apoc.)

——, J. 3, 73, 74 (E), 2 (Apost.)

Walton 64 (E)

Wanley 484 (E)

Ward 81 (E)

Wepfer F (P)

Werner B, p. 109

Westermann 42 (A)

Westminster 20 (A)

Wetstein, C. 492, 503 (E), 6, 26-28 (Apoc.)

——, F. C, p. 122, E, F, Fa, L, M, N (E), D, E, F (P), 1, 2, 33, 41,

90, 92, 94 (E), 15, 21 (A), 25, 26 (P), 6, 7 (Evst.)

Wheeler 68 (E)

Wiedmann 405 (E)

Wigley 24 (A)

Williams 562 (E)

Winchelsea, Earl of 106 (E)

Woide Ts or Twol (E)

Wolff G, H (E), M (P), 90 (E)

Woodhouse 563-5 (E), 223 (A), 255 (Evst.)

Wordsworth, Bp. Chr. 542 (E)

Wright R (E) 53 (A)

Xenophon (Athos) 536 (E)

Zacagni 151 (Evst.)

Zittau, Senate of 605 (E)

Zomozerab 179 (A)

END OF VOL. I.

FOOTNOTES

1 Unfortunately, it did not occur to us till after the work was nearly

all in type to transfer the Lithographed Plates to places opposite

the pages which they chiefly illustrate, and that in consequence a

few expressions in the text ought to be altered. The advantage of

this arrangement appears to be so great as to overbalance the slight

inaccuracies alluded to, which cannot now be removed. The plates and

their references will, it is hoped, be found easily from the

explanations here given.

2 In later manuscripts Proper Names are often distinguished by a

horizontal line placed over them, but no such examples occur in

these Plates.

3 The reader will observe throughout these specimens that the

breathings and accents are usually attached to the _first_ vowel of

a diphthong.

4 “Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking by Phileleutherus

Lipsiensis,” Part i, Section 32.

5 I cite from the late Canon Cureton’s over-literal translation in his

“Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,”

in the Preface to which (pp. xxxv-xxxviii) is an elaborate

discussion of the evidence for this passage.

6 But see Dean Burgon’s “The Revision Revised,” pp. 358-361.

7 The word ἡτακισμός or ἰτακισμός is said to have been first used by

Cassiodorus (A.D. 468-560?). See Migne, Patr. Lat. t. 70, col. 1128.

8 To this list of examples from the Book of Common Prayer, Dean Burgon

(“The last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel Vindicated” p. 215)

adds the Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd Sunday after Easter, 9th,

12th, and 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip

and James, All Saints.

9 Dean Alford (see his critical notes on Luke ix. 56; xxiii. 17) is

reasonably unwilling to admit this source of corruption, where the

language of the several Evangelists bears no close resemblance

throughout the whole of the parallel passages.

10 The oldest manuscripts seem to elide the final syllable of ἀλλά

before nouns, but not before verbs: e.g. John vi. 32, 39. The common

text, therefore, seems wrong in Rom. i. 21; iv. 20; v. 14; viii. 15;

1 Cor. i. 17; vi. 11; ix. 27; xiv. 34; 1 Pet. ii. 25; Jude 9. Yet to

this rule there are many exceptions, e.g. Gal. iv. 7 ἀλλὰ υἱός is

found in nearly all good authorities.

11 Tischendorf indeed (Nov. Test. 1871), from a suggestion of Granville

Penn in loc., says, “ΚΥΡΙΩ omnino scribi solet _ΚΩ_,” and this no

doubt is the usual form, even in manuscripts which have _χρω ιηυ_,

as well as _χω ιυ_, for χριστῷ ἰησοῦ. Yet the Codex Augiensis (Paul.

F) has _κρν_ in 1 Cor. ix. 1.

12 Especially, yet not always, at the end of a line. Και in καιρός is

actually thus written in Cod. Sinaiticus (א), 1 Macc. ix. 7; xv. 33;

Matt. xxi. 34; Rom. iii. 26; Heb. xi. 11; Apoc. xi. 18. So Cod.

Sarravianus of the fourth century in Deut. ix. 20, Cod. Rossanensis

of the sixth (but only twice in the text), the Zurich Psalter of the

seventh century is Ps. xcvii. 11; cvi. 3; cxvi. 5, and the Bodleian

Genesis (ch. vi. 13) of about a century later. Similarly, καινήν is

written κνην in Cod. B. 2 John 5.

13 My departed friend, Dr. Tregelles, to whose persevering labours in

sacred criticism I am anxious, once for all, to express my deepest

obligations, ranged various readings under three general

heads:—_substitutions_; _additions_; _omissions_. Mr. C. E. Hammond,

in his scholarlike little work, “Outlines of Textual Criticism

applied to the N. T., 1876, 2nd edition,” divides their possible

sources into Unconscious or unintentional errors, (1) of _sight_;

(2) of _hearing_; (3) of _memory_: and those that are Conscious or

intentional, viz. (4) incorporation of marginal glosses; (5)

corrections of harsh or unusual forms of words, or expressions; (6)

alterations in the text to produce supposed harmony with another

passage, to complete a quotation, or to clear up a presumed

difficulty; (7) Liturgical insertions. While he enumerates (8)

alterations for dogmatic reasons, he adds that “there appears to be

no strong ground for the suggestion” that any such exist (Hammond,

p. 17). Professor Roberts (“Words of the New Testament” by Drs.

Milligan and Roberts, 1873) comprehends several of the foregoing

divisions under one head: “Again and again has a word or phrase been

slipped in by the transcriber which had no existence in his copy,

but which was due to the working of his own mind on the subject

before him.” His examples are ἔρχεται inserted in Matt. xxv. 6;

ἰδοῦσα in Luke i. 29; ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in Rom. viii. 26 (Part 1. Chap. 1.

pp. 5, 6).

14 This source of variations, though not easily discriminated from

others, must have suggested itself to many minds, and is well

touched upon by the late Isaac Taylor in his “History of the

Transmission of Antient Books to modern times,” 1827, p. 24. So Dr.

Hort, when perplexed by some of the textual problems which he fails

to solve, throws out as an hypothesis not in itself without

plausibility, the notion of “a first and a second edition of the

Gospels, both conceivably apostolic” (Gr. Test. Introduction, p.

177).

15 “Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici A.D. 1550 ... curante F. H. A.

Scrivener.” Cantabr. 1877 (Editio Major, 1887).

16 In this manner we propose to indicate the dates of the birth and

death of the person whose name immediately precedes.

17 “Greek and Latin Palaeography,” Chaps. II, III.

18 “Recent investigations have thrown doubts on the accuracy of this

view; and a careful analysis of many samples has proved that,

although cotton was occasionally used, no paper that has been

examined is entirely made of that substance, hemp or flax being the

more usual material.” Maunde Thompson, p. 44.

19 Tischendorf (Notitia Codicis Sinaitici, p. 54) carried to St.

Petersburg a fragment of a Lectionary which cannot well be assigned

to a later date than the ninth century, among whose parchment leaves

are inserted two of cotton paper, manifestly written on by the

original scribe.

20 “Ten Years Digging in Egypt,” pp. 120, &c.

21 “Greek and Latin Palaeography,” p. 35; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xiii. 11.

22 “Nam, quod in palimpsesto, laudo equidem parcimoniam,” Cicero, Ad

Diversos, vii. 18, though of a waxen tablet. Maunde Thompson, p. 75.

23 “Habeant qui volunt veteres libros, vel in membranis purpureis auro

argentoque descriptos.” Praef. in Job. “Inficiuntur membranae colore

purpureo, aurum liquescit in litteras.” Epist. ad Eustochium.

24 Miniatures are found even as early as in the Cod. Rossanensis (Σ) at

the beginning of the sixth century.

25 This paragraph which has been rewritten, has been abridged from Mr.

Maunde Thompson’s “Greek and Latin Palaeography,” pp. 50-52, to

which readers are referred for verification and amplification.

26 “Greek and Latin Palaeography,” p. 49.

27 Besides the Cod. Sinaiticus, the beautiful Psalter purchased by the

National Library from the Didot sale at Paris has four columns (Mr.

J. Rendel Harris), and besides the Cod. Vaticanus, the Vatican Dio

Cassius, the Milan fragment of Genesis, two copies of the Samaritan

Pentateuch at Nablous described by Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug.

Proleg. § 11), the last part of Cod. Monacensis 208 (Evan, 429), and

two Hebrew MSS. Cod. Mon. Heb. 422, and Cod. Reg. Heb. 17, are

arranged in _three_ columns. Tischendorf has more recently

discovered a similar arrangement in two palimpsest leaves of Wisdom

and Ecclesiasticus from which he gives extracts (Not. Cod. Sinait.

p. 49); in a Latin fragment of the Pentateuch, the same as the

Ashburnham manuscript below, seen by him at Lyons in 1843; in a

Greek Evangelistarium of the eighth century, and a Patristic

manuscript at Patmos of the ninth (ibid. p. 10); so that the

argument drawn from the _triple_ columns must not be pressed too

far. He adds also a Turin copy of the Minor Prophets in Greek

(Pasinus, Catalogue, 1749), and a Nitrian Syriac codex in the

British Museum “quem circa finem quarti saeculi scriptum esse

subscriptio testatur” (Monum. sacra inedita, vol. i, Proleg. p.

xxxi). To this not slender list Mr. E. Maunde Thompson enables us to

annex B. M. Addit. 24142, a Flemish Latin Bible of the eleventh

century. The late Lord Ashburnham in 1868 printed his Old Latin

fragments of Leviticus and Numbers, also in three columns, with a

facsimile page; and the famous Utrecht Psalter, assigned by some to

the sixth century, by others to the ninth or tenth, is written with

three columns on a page.

28 “Uncialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, literis, onera magis exarata, quam

codices,” Hieronymi Praef. in Job. From this passage the term

_uncial_ seems to be derived, _uncia_ (an inch) referring to the

size of the characters. Yet the conjectural reading “_initialibus_”

will most approve itself to those who are familiar with the small

Latin writing of the Middle Ages, in which _i_ is undotted, and _c_

much like _t_.

29 The Cotton fragment of the book of Genesis of the fifth century,

whose poor shrivelled remains from the fire of 1731 are still

preserved in the British Museum, while in common with all other

_manuscripts_ it exhibits the round shapes of Ο and Θ, substitutes a

lozenge [symbol] for the circle in _phi_, after the older fashion

([symbol somewhat like a squared Phi]). _Phi_ often has much the

same shape in Codex Bezae; e.g. Matt. xiii. 26, Fol. 42 _b_, 1. 13,

and once in Codex Z (Matt. xxi. 26, Plate xlviii).

30 Our facsimile is borrowed from the Neapolitan volumes, but Plate 57

in the Paléographie Universelle φιλοδημου περι μουσικη has the

advantage of _colours_ for giving a lively idea of the present

charred appearance of these papyri.

31 Cicero de Finibus, Lib. ii. c. 35. The same person is apparently

meant in Orat. in Pisonem, cc. 28, 29.

32 We prefer citing Cod. Frid.-August., because our examples have been

actually taken from its exquisitely lithographed pages; but the

facsimile of part of a page from Luke xxiv represented in

Tischendorf’s Cod. Sinaiticus, from which we have borrowed six lines

(No. 11 b), will be seen to resemble exactly the portion published

in 1846.

33 Cod. A is found in the simpler form in the Old Testament, but mostly

with the horizontal line produced in the New.

34 See Maunde Thompson’s “Greek and Latin Palaeography.”

35 Codd. B of Apocalypse, Θa Λ (No. 30) of the Gospels, and Silvestre’s

No. 68, all of about the eighth century, slope more or less to the

right; Cod. Γ (No. 35) of the ninth century, a very little to the

left. Tischendorf assigns to the seventh century the fragments

comprising Leipzig II. (see p. 39), though they lean much to the

right (Monum. sacra ined. tom. i, pp. xxx-xxxiv, 141-176), and those

of Isaiah (ibid. pp. xxxvi, xxxvii, 187-199).

36 The earliest cursive Biblical manuscript formerly alleged, i.e.

Evan. 14, on examination proves to have no inscription whatever. “On

folio 392, in a comparatively modern hand, is rather uncouthly

written ἐγράφη νικηφόρου βασιλεύοντος A. Z. What the initials A. Z.

stand for I do not know.” (Dean Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 15, 1873.)

The claim of priority for Cod. 14 being thus disposed of (though it

must be noted that Dr. C. R. Gregory refers it without doubt to the

tenth century), we may note that Cod. 429 of the Gospels is dated

978, Cod. 148 of the Acts 984, Cod. 5pe 994, and Λ, written partly

in cursives, and partly in uncials is of the ninth century. But the

date May 7, 835 A.D. is plainly visible on Cod. 481, which is

therefore indisputably the earliest.

37 See Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeology, chap. x. pp. 130,

&c., and chap. viii. pp. 107, &c; Notices et Extracts des MSS. de la

Bibliothèque Imperiale, Paris, plate xxiv. no. 21, pl. xlviii. no.

21 _ter_, xlvi. no. 69, _e_, xxi. no. 17, xiii. no. 5, xl. no. 62,

xviii. 2, pl. xliv; Cat. Gr. Papyri in Brit. Mus. Palaeograph. Soc.

ii. pl. 143, 144, Mahaffy, Petrie Papyri, pl. xiv, xxix. &c.

(Cunningham Memoirs of R. Irish Academy).

38 At the end of the Euclid we read εγραφη χειρι στεφανου κληρικου μηνι

σεπτεμβριωι ινδ. _ζ_ ετει κοσμου _ς_ _τ_ _ω_ _ζ_ εκτησαμην αρεθας

πατρευς την παρουσαν βιβλιον: of the Plato, εγραφη χειρι ιω

καλλιγραφου; ευτυχως αρεθη διακονωι πατρει; νομισματων βυζαντϊεων

δεκα και τριων; μηνι νοεμβριωι ινδικτιωνος _ιδ_; ετει κοσμου _ςυδ_

βαςιλειας λεοντος του φιλοχυ υιου βασιλειου του αειμνιστου. It

should be stated that these very curious books, both written by

monks, and indeed _all the dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament

we have seen_ except Canonici 34 in the Bodleian (which reckons from

the Christian era, A.D. 1515-6), calculate from the Greek era of the

Creation, September 1, B.C. 5508. To obtain the year A.D.,

therefore, from January 1 to August 31 in any year, subtract 5508

from the given year; from September 1 to December 31 subtract 5509.

The indiction which usually accompanies this date is a useful check

in case of any corruption or want of legibility in the letters

employed as numerals. Both dates are given in Evan. 558, viz. A.M.

6938, and A.D. 1430.

39 The writer of Burney 21 (rscr) A.D. 1292 (Evan. 571), ὁ ταπεινος

Θεοδωρος ἁγιωπετριτης ταχα και καλλιγραφος as he calls himself (that

is, as I once supposed, monk of the Convent of Sancta Petra at

Constantinople, short-hand and fair writer), was the scribe of at

least _five_ more copies of Scripture now extant: Birch’s Havn. 1,

A.D. 1278 (Evan. 234); Evan. 90, A.D. 1293; Evan. 543, A.D. 1295;

Scholz’s Evan. 412, A.D. 1301; Evan. 74, _undated_. To this list

Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1863, ii,

Abhandlungen, pp. 217, 218) adds from Matthaei, Synaxarion in Mosc.

Syn. Typograph. xxvi. A.D. 1295, and recognizes _Hagios Petros_, the

country of Theodoros, as a town in the Morea, on the borders of

Arcadia, from whose school students have attended his own lectures

at Erlangen.

40 Hence in the later uncials, some of which must therefore have been

copied from earlier cursives, Β and Υ (which might seem to have no

resemblance) are sometimes confounded: e.g. in Parham 18 (A.D. 980),

υ for β, Luke vi. 34; β for υ, John x. 1, especially where β begins

or ends a line: e.g. Evan. 59, John vii. 35. Evan. 59 has β for υ

very often, yet there is no extra trace that it was copied from an

uncial.

41 The full signature not easily deciphered is ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν ἅγιον

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τὴν _κ_ζ τοῦ ἰαννουαρίου μηνὸς τῆς [?] _ω_ _κ_ ζ

ἐγχρονίας. Presuming that _ς_ is suppressed before _ω_ _κ_ ζ this is

6827 of the Greeks, A.D. 1319.

42 Compare also Buttmann’s Greek Grammar (Robinson’s translation) p.

467; Bast in (Schaefer’s Gregorius Corinthius) tabb. ad fin.;

Gardthausen, Palaeographie, p. 248, &c.

43 Thus the type cast for the Royal Printing Office at Paris, and used

by Robert Stephen, is said to have been modelled on the style of the

calligrapher Angelus Vergecius, from whose skill arose the

expression “he writes like an angel.” Codd. 296 of the Gospels, 124

of the Acts, 151 of St. Paul are in his hand.

44 Yet Tischendorf (N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. cxxxiii) cites ηιδισαν from

Cod. Bezae (Mark i. 34), ξυλωι (Luke xxiii. 31) from Cod. Cyprius,

ωι from Cod. U (Matt. xxv. 15) and Cod. Λ (Luke vii. 4). Add Cod.

Bezae πατρωιου Acts xxii. 3, Scrivener’s edition, Introd. p. xix.

Bentley’s nephew speaks of ι _ascript_ as in the first hand of Cod.

B, but he seems to have been mistaken.

45 In B-C iii. 10 (_dated_ 1430), the whole manuscript being written by

the same hand, we have ι _ascript_ twenty-five times up to Luke i.

75, then on the same page ι _subscript_ in Luke i. 77 and

eighty-five times afterwards: the two usages are nowhere mixed. In

Evan. 558, _subscript_ and _ascript_ are mixed in the same page,

Luc. i. 75, 77.

46 The invention of breathings, accents, and stops is attributed to

Aristophanes of Byzantium, 260 B.C.

47 See below vol. ii. c. ix. 9. note, end. Dr. Scrivener appears not to

have formed a positive opinion, which indeed in some of these cases

is hardly possible.

48 He is speaking (Quaestion. super Genes. clxii) of the difference

between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31. “Fallit enim

eos verbum Graecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur, sive _ejus_, sive

_suae_: sed accentus [he must mean the breathings] dispares sunt, et

ab eis, qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur” (Opera,

Tom. iv. p. 53, ed. 1586, Lugdun.); adding that “suae” _might_ be

expressed by ἑαυτοῦ.

49 In the Gale Evangelistarium (Trin. Coll. Camb. O. 4. 22) the

interrogative clause is set between two such marks in red. Hence it

seems not so much a stop as a vocal note. In the Armenian and

Spanish languages the note of interrogation is set before the

interrogative clause, and very conveniently too.

50 The earliest known example of the use of two dots occurs in the

Artemisia papyrus at Vienna (Maunde Thompson, p. 69), and other

early instances are found in a letter of Dionysius to Ptolemy about

B.C. 160, published by the French Institute, 1865, in “Papyrus grecs

du Musée du Louvre,” &c. tom. xviii. 2e ptie, pl. xxxiv, pap. 49,

and in fragments of the Phaedo of Plato discovered at Gurob. The

same double points are also occasionally set in the larger spaces of

Codd. Sinaiticus, Sarravianus, and Bezae, but in the last-named copy

for the most part in a later hand.

51 Abbot, ubi supra.

52 Hoskier, Cod. 604, p. xiii.

53 Even Codex Sinaiticus has _ιηυ_ and _ιυ_ in consecutive lines (Apoc.

xxii. 20, 21), and _χρυ_ Rom. vii. 4.

54 See below p. 64, note 4.

55 “Fragmenta pauca evangelii Johannis palimpsesta Londinensia [Evan.

Ib or Nb]. In ceteris haec fere tria: Dionis Cassii fragmenta

Vaticana—vix enim qui in his videntur speciem majorum litterarum

habere revera differunt—item fragmenta palimpsesta [Phaëthontis]

Euripidis Claromontana et fragmenta Menandri Porphiriana”

(Tischendorf, Cod. Vatic. Proleg. p. xviii, 1867).

56 The English word _paragraph_ is derived from the παραγραφαί, which

are often straight lines, placed in the margin to indicate a pause

in the sense. Professor Abbot, ubi supra, p. 195, alleges not a few

instances where these dashes are thus employed. A specimen is given

in Scrivener’s Cod. Sinaiticus, facsimile 3: see his Cod. Sin.,

Introduction, p. xl and note. Thus also they appear in Cod.

Sarravianus (Tischendorf, Mon. sacra ined. vol. iii. pp. xiv, xx).

In Cod Bezae [symbol] is set in the margin forty-nine times by a

later hand, and must be designed for the same purpose, though the

mark sometimes occurs where we should hardly look for it (Scrivener,

Cod. Bezae, Introduction, p. xxviii and note). In Cod. Marchalianus

the dash stands over the capital at the beginning of a line, or over

the first letter where there is no capital. Lastly, in Codd. Vatic.

and Sinait. [symbol] is sometimes set in the middle of a line to

indicate a paragraph break, followed by [symbol] in the margin of

the next line.

57 Many other examples of the use of στίχοι and _versus_ in this sense

will be found in that admirable monument of exact learning, now so

little read, Prideaux Connections, An. 446. Stichometry can be

traced back to nearly a century before Callimachus, who (B.C. 260)

has been credited with the invention (Palaeography, p. 79). The term

στίχοι, like the Latin _versus_, originally referring whether to

rows of trees, or to the oars in the trireme (Virg. Aen. v. 119),

would naturally come to be applied to lines of poetry, and in this

sense it is used by Pindar (ἐπέων στίχες Pyth. iv. 100) and also by

Theocritus (γράψον καὶ τόδε γράμμα, τό σοι στίχοισι χαράξω Idyl,

xxiii. 46), if the common reading be correct.

58 That we have rightly understood Epiphanius’ notion of the στίχοι is

evident from his own language respecting Psalm cxli. 1, wherein he

prefers the addition made by the Septuagint to the second clause,

because by so doing its authors ἀχώλωτον ἐποίησαν τὸν στίχον: so

that the passage should run “O Lord, I cry unto Thee, make haste

unto me || Give ear to the voice of my request,” τῆς δεήσεώς μου to

complete the rhythm. This whole subject is admirably worked out in

Suicer, Thesaur. Eccles. tom. ii. pp. 1025-37.

59 In the Epistles of St. Paul, Euthalius seems to have followed a

Syrian writer. Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 113; Zacagnius, Collectanea

Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae, Rome, A.D. 1698, pp. 404, 409.

60 At the end of 2 Thess., in a hand which Tischendorf states to be

very ancient, but not that of the original scribe, the Codex

Sinaiticus has στιχων ρπ [180; the usual number is 106]: at the end

of Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Thess., and the Catholic Epistles, there is no

such note; but in all the other Pauline Epistles the στίχοι are

numbered.

61 So the margin of Gale’s Evan. 66 contains readings cited by Mill and

his followers, which a hand of the sixteenth century took, some of

them from the Leicester manuscript, others from early editions.

62 The following subscription to the book of Ezra (and a very similar

one follows Esther) in the Cod. Frid.-August, (fol. 13. 1), though

in a hand of the seventh century, will show the care bestowed on the

most ancient copies of the Septuagint: Αντεβληθη προσ παλαιωτατον

λιαν αντιγραφον δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του αγιου μαρτυροσ Παμφιλου;

ὁπερ αντιγραφον προσ τω τελει υποσημειωσισ τισ ϊδιοχειροσ αυτου

ϋπεκειτο εχουσα ουτωσ; μετελημφθη και διορθωθη προσ τα εξαπλα

ωριγενουσ; Αντωνινοσ αντεβαλεν; Παμφιλοσ διορθωσα. Tregelles

suggests that the work of the διορθωτὴς or _corrector_ was probably

of a critical character, the office of the ἀντιβάλλων or _comparer_

being rather to eliminate mere clerical errors (Treg. Horne’s

Introd., vol. iv. p. 85). Compare Tischendorf, Cod. Sinait. Proleg.

p. xxii.

63 “Simile aliquid invenitur in codice Arabico epp. Pauli anno 892, p.

Chr., quem ex oriente Petropolin pertulimus.” Tischendorf, Cod. Vat.

Prolog. p. xxx. n. 3.

64 Lat. _breves_, or τίτλοι: but τίτλος means properly the brief

summary of the contents of a κεφάλαιον placed at the top or bottom

of a page, or with the κεφάλαια in a table to each Gospel. The κεφ.

_minora_ = Ammonian Sections.

65 This full explanation of a seeming difficulty was communicated to me

independently by Mr. P. W. Pennefather of Dublin, and Mr. G. A. King

of Oxford.

66 And this too in spite of the lexicographer Suidas: Τίτλος διαφέρει

κεφαλαίου; καὶ ὁ Ματθαῖος τίτλους ἔχει ξή, κεφάλαια δὲ τνέ. And of

Suicer, s. v.

67 Ὁ Τατιανός, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν

εὐαγγελίων συνθείς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν; ὃ καὶ παρά

τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29.

68 Ambros. in Prooem. Luc. seems to aim at Tatian when he says

“Plerique etiam ex quatuor Evangelii libris in unum ea quae

venenatis putaverunt assertionibus convenientia referserunt.”

Eusebius H. E. iv. 29 charges him on report with _improving_ not the

Gospels, but the Epistles: τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας

αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνάς, ὡς ἐπιδιορφούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως

σύνταξιν. Dr. Westcott’s verdict is rather less favourable than

might have been anticipated: “The heretical character of the

Diatessaron was not evident on the surface of it, and consisted

rather of faults of defect than of erroneous teaching” (History of

the Canon, p. 354). From the Armenian version of Ephraem the

Syrian’s Exposition of Tatian’s Harmony, printed in 1836, translated

in 1841 by Aucher of the Melchitarist Monastery at Venice, but

buried until it was published with notes by Moesinger in 1876, a

flood of light is thrown upon this question, and it is now clear

“that Tatian habitually abridged the language of the passages which

he combined” (Hort, Gk. Test. Introduction, p. 283); and that

apparently in perfect good faith.

69 Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, πολλήν, ὡς εἰκός, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν

εἰσαγηοχώς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ

Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθείς,

ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν

διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ

τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς

οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν

ἠνέχθησαν φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς

εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς (taking the hint from Ammonius’ as Dean Burgon

rightly understands the expression), καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας

δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. Epist. ad

Carpian. initio. I have thankfully availed myself on this subject of

Burgon’s elaborate studies in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,

pp. 125-132; 295-312.

70 This is the number given for St. Mark by Suidas and Stephen. It is

an uncertain point: thirty-four manuscripts give 233, reckoning only

to xvi. 8; while thirty-six give 341. See Burgon Twelve Last Verses,

p. 311.

71 I subjoin Eusebius’ own words (Epist. ad Carpian.) from which no one

would infer that the _sections_ were not his, as well as the

_canons_. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις; ἡ δὲ

σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων

ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα

δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους

τοῦ βιβλίου [the sections]. Καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ

κινναβάρεως πρόκειται [the canons], δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων

κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

72 Something of this kind, however, must be the plan adopted in Codex E

(see Plate xi. No. 27) of the Gospels, as described by Tregelles,

who himself collated it. “[It has] the Ammonian sections; but

instead of the Eusebian canons there is a kind of harmony of the

Gospels noted at the foot of each page, by a reference to the

parallel sections of the other Evangelists.” Horne’s Introd. vol.

iv. p. 200. Yet the canons _also_ stand in the margin of this copy

under the so-called Ammonian sections: only the _table_ of Eusebian

canons is wanting. The same kind of harmony at the foot of the page

appears in Cod. Wd at Trinity College, Cambridge, but in this latter

the sections in the margin are not accompanied by the canons.

Tischendorf states that the same arrangement prevails in the small

fragment Tb at St. Petersburg; Dean Burgon adds to the list Codd. M.

262, 264 at Paris, and conceives that this method of harmonizing,

which he regards as far simpler than the tedious and cumbersome

process of resorting to the Eusebian canons (ubi supra, p. 304), was

in principle, though not in details, derived to the Greek Church

from early Syriac copies of the Gospels, some of which still survive

(p. 306).

73 To this list of manuscripts of the Gospels which have the Ammonian

sections without the Eusebian canons add Codd. 38, 54, 60, 68, 117;

Brit. Mus. Addit. 16184, 18211, 19389; Milan Ambros. M. 48 _sup._;

E. 63 _sup._; Burdett-Coutts I. 4; II. 18; 262; III. 9. Now that

attention has been specially directed to the matter, it is

remarkable how many copies have the Ammonian sections without the

corresponding Eusebian canons under them, sometimes even when (as in

Codd. 572, 595, 597) the letter to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables

stand at the beginning of the volume. To the list here given must

now be added Codd. O, Υ, 185, 187, 190, 193, 194, 207, 209, 214,

217, 367, 406, 409, 410, 414, 418, 419, 456, 457, 494, 497, 501,

503, 504, 506, 508, 518, 544, 548, 550, 555, 558, 559, 564, 573,

575, 584, 586, 591, 592, 601, 602, 620: in all seventy-one

manuscripts.

74 No doubt they do serve, in the manuscripts which contain them and

omit the canons, for marks of reference, like in kind to our modern

chapters and verses; but in consequence of their having been

constructed for a wholly different purpose, they are so unequal in

length (as Burgon sees very clearly, pp. 297, 303), that they answer

that end as ill as any the most arbitrary divisions of the text well

could do.

75 Sulci in Sardinia is the only Bishop’s see of the name I can find in

Carol. a Sancto Paulo’s Geographia Sacra (1703), or in Bingham’s

Antiquities, Bk. ix. Chapp. II, VII. Horne and even Tregelles speak

of Sulca in Egypt, but I have searched in vain for any such town or

see. Euthalius is called Bishop of Sulce both in Wake 12 (infra,

note 4), and in the title to his works as edited by L. A. Zacagni

(Collectanea Monument. Veter. Eccles. Graec. ac Latin., Rom. 1698,

p. 402). But one of Zacagni’s manuscripts reads Σούλκης once, and he

guesses Ψέλχη near Syene, which appears in no list of Episcopal

sees.

76 Καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιστολὴν προτάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, ἑνὶ τῶν

σοφωτάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχρίστων πατέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην.

77 Αὐτίκα δῆτα is his own expression.

78 E.g. in Wake 12, of the eleventh century, at Christ Church, the

title at the head of the list of chapters in the Acts is as follows:

Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σουλκῆς ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων τῶν Πράξεων σταλῆσα

(-εῖσα) πρὸς Ἀθανάσιον ἐπίσκοπον Ἀλεξανδρείας.

79 In Wake 12 certain of the longer κεφάλαια are subdivided into

μερικαὶ ὑποδιαιρέσεις in the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Romans, 1, 2

Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews only.

For a similar subdivision in the Gospels, see Evan. 443 in the list

of cursive MSS. given below.

80 Διὰ τὴν τριμερῆ τῶν εἴκοσι τεσσάρων πρεσβυτέρων ὑπόστασιν, σώματος

καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. See Matthaei, N. T. Gr. et Lat. vii. 276,

note 4.

81 Many manuscripts indicate passages of the Old Testament cited in the

New by placing > (as in Codd. Vatican. Wd, &c., but in Sinait. more

rarely), or [symbol with two greater-than marks], or some such mark

in the margin before every line. Our quotation-marks are probably

derived from this sign, the angle being rounded into a curve.

Compare the use of [symbol like right double quotation mark] in the

margin of the Greek Testament of Colinaeus, 1534, and Stephen’s

editions of 1546, -49, -50, &c. Evan. 348 and others have [symbol].

In Codd. Bezae, as will appear hereafter, the words cited are merely

thrown a letter or two back in each line.

82 The whole mystery is thus unfolded (apparently by Cosmas) in Lamb.

1178, p. 159: Καὶ γὰρ τὰ χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα; καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν

εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ

ἔμπρακτον καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν [John i. 1-3] χαρακτηρίζει;

τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον μόσχωι, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν [Luke i. 8]

ἐμφανίζει; τὸ δὲ ἀνθρωποειδές, τὴν σάρκωσιν [Matt. i. 18] διαγράφει.

τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον ἀετῶι, τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [Mark i. 2]

ἐμφανίζει. More usually the lion is regarded as the emblem of St.

Mark, the eagle of St. John.

83 N. B. The στίχοι of the Acts and of all the Epistles except Hebr.

are taken from the Codex Passionei (G or L), an uncial of the ninth

century.

84 The numbers of the Gospel στίχοι in our Table are taken from the

uncial copies Codd. GS and twenty-seven cursives named by Scholz:

those of the ῥήματα from Codd. 9, 13, 124 and seven others. In the

ῥήματα he cites no other variation than that Cod. 339 has 2822 for

St. Matthew: but Mill states that Cod. 48 (Bodl. 7) has 1676 for

Mark, 2507 for Luke (Proleg. N. T. § 1429). In Cod. 56 (Lincoln

Coll.) the ἀναγνώσματα of St. Matthew are 127, of St. Mark 74, of

St. Luke 130 (Mill).

In the στίχοι, a few straggling manuscripts fluctuate between 3897?

and 1474 for Matthew; 2006 and 1000 for Mark; 3827 and 2000 for

Luke; 2300 and 1300 for John. But the great mass of authorities

stand as we have represented.

85 Our English version divides 2 Cor. xiii. 12 of the Greek into two,

and unites John i. 38, 39 of the Greek. The English and Greek verses

begin differently in Luke i. 73, 74; vii. 18, 19. Acts ix. 28, 29;

xi. 25, 26; xiii. 32, 33; xix. 40, 41; xxiv. 2, 3. 2 Cor. ii. 12,

13; v. 14, 15; xi. 8, 9. Eph. i. 10, 11; iii. 17, 18. Phil. iii. 13,

14. 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12. Heb. vii. 20, 21; x. 22, 23. 1 Jo. ii.

13,14. 3 Jo. 14, 15. Apoc. xii. 18 or xiii. 1; xviii. 16, 17. In a

few of these places editions of the Greek vary a little. The whole

subject of the verses is discussed in Dr. Ezra Abbot’s tract “De

Editionibus Novi Testamenti Graece in versuum quos dicunt

distinctione inter se discrepantibus” 1882, included in the

Prolegomena for Tischendorf’s N. T., eighth edition, pp. 167, &c.

86 “I think it would have been better done on one’s knees in the

closet,” is Mr. Kelly’s quaint and not unfair comment (Lectures on

the Minor Prophets, p. 324), unless, as is not unlikely, he copied

what was done before.

87 Novum Testamentum Graecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bengelio. Tubingae

1734. 4to. The practice of the oldest Greek manuscripts in regard to

paragraphs has been stated above (p. 49, note 2), and will be

further explained in the next section under our descriptions of

Codd. אBD.

88 Coislin. 199 (Evan. 85); Vatic. 2080 (Evan. 175); Palat. Vat. 171

(Evan. 149); Lambec. 1 at Vienna (Evan. 218); Vatic. 1160 (Evan.

141); Venet. 5 (Evan. 205); its alleged duplicate Venet. 10 (Evan.

209); Matthaei k (Evan. 241); Moscow Synod. 380 (Evan. 242); Paris,

Reg. 47 (Evan. 18); Reg. 61 (Evan. 263); Vat. Ottob. 66 (Evan. 386);

Vat. Ottob. 381 (Evan. 390); Taurin. 302 (Evan. 339); S. Saba, 10

and 20 (Evan. 462 and 466); Laurent. 53 (Evan. 367); Vallicel. F. 17

(Evan. 394); Phillipps 7682 (Evan. 531); perhaps Scholz ought to

have added Venet. 6 (Evan. 206) which he states to contain the whole

New Testament, Proleg. N. T. vol. i. p. lxxii. In Evan. 180 all

except the Gospels are by a later hand. Add (Evan. 622) also copies

at Poictiers, Ferrara, and Toledo. Lagarde (Genesis, pp. 7, 8)

describes another copy at Zittau, collated by Matthaei in 1801-2,

apparently unpublished.

89 I presume that the same order is found in Evan. 393, whereof Scholz

states “sec. xvi. continet epist. cath. paul. ev.” Proleg. N. T.

vol. i. p. xc.

90 Hartwell Horne in the second volume of his Introduction tells us

that in some of the few manuscripts which contain the whole of the

New Testament the books are arranged thus: Gospels, Acts, Catholic

Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles (p. 92, ed. 1834). This

statement may be true of some of the foreign MSS. named in p. 69

note, but of the English it can refer to none, although Wake 34 at

Christ Church commences with the Acts and Catholic Epistles,

followed by the Apocalypse beginning on the same page as Jude ends,

and the Pauline Epistles on the same page as the Apocalypse ends.

The Gospels, which come last, may have been misplaced by an early

binder.

91 This is the true _Western_ order (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introd. p.

xxx and note), and will be found in the copies of the Old Latin

_a_1, _a_2, _b_, _e_, _f_1, _ff_2, _i_, _n_, _g_, _r_ to be

described in vol. ii, and in the Gothic version. In Burdett-Coutts

II. 7, p. 4, also, prefixed to the Gospels, we read the following

rubric-title to certain verses of Gregory Nazianzen: _χυ_ θαύματα;

παρὰ ματθαίω ῒωάννῃ τὲ καὶ λουκᾶ καὶ μάρκω; κ.τ.λ.

92 Tischendorf cites the following copies in which the Epistle to the

Hebrews stands in the same order as in Codd. אABC, “H [Coislin.

202], 17, 23, 47, 57, 71, 73 aliique.” Add 77, 80, 166, 189, 196,

264, 265, 266 (Burdett-Coutts II. 4). So in Zoega’s Thebaic version.

Epiphanius (adv. Haer. i. 42) says: ἄλλα δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἔχει τὴν πρὸς

ἑβραίους δεκάτην, πρὸ τῶν δύο τῶν πρὸς Τιμόθεον καὶ Τίτον. So Paul

166, 281, and also Bp. Lightfoot’s MSS. of the Memphitic except 7

and 16. In the Thebaic it follows 2 Cor. See below.

93 They are also termed Εὐαγγέλια—evidently a popular, as well as a

misleading name.

94 Suicer, s. v.

95 This was the word for a lection or lesson, and Suicer tells us that

ἀνάγνωσις and ἀνάγνωσμα were employed as equivalents. But in modern

textual criticism, ἀναγνώσματα is used to signify the marks

indicating lections, which are found in the margin or at the head or

foot of pages, or the computation of their number which is often

appended at the end of a book. See pp. 67, note 1, 69.

96 Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. x κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἢ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον.

Traces of these Church-lessons occur in manuscripts as early as the

fifth and sixth centuries. Thus Cod. Alexandrinus reads Rom. xvi.

25-27 not only in its proper place, but also at the end of ch. xiv

where the Lectionaries place it (see p. 84). Codex Bezae prefixes to

Luke xvi. 19 εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἐτέραν παραβολήν, the proper introduction

to the Gospel for the 5th Sunday in St. Luke. To John xiv. 1 the

same manuscript prefixes καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, as does our

English Prayer Book in the Gospel for May 1. Even τέλος or τὸ τέλος,

which follows ἀπέχει in Mark xiv. 41 in the same manuscript and

other authorities, probably has the same origin.

97 See the passages from Augustine Tract. VI. in Joan.; and Chrysost.

Hom. VII ad Antioch.; Hom. LXIII, XLVII in Act. in Bingham’s

Antiquities, Book XIV, Chap. III. Sect. 3. Chrysostom even calls the

arrangement τῶν πατέρων ὁ νόμος. The strong passage cited from Cyril

of Jerusalem by Dean Burgon (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 195)

shows the confirmed practice as already settled in A.D. 348.

98 August. Serm. CXLIII de Tempore. The few verses Luke xxiii. 39-43,

John xix. 31-37 are merely wrought into one narrative with Matt.

xxvii, each in its proper place. See p. 85.

99 Besides this special meaning, Synaxarion was also employed in a

general sense for any catalogue of Church-lessons, both for daily

use and for Saints’ days.

100 This was naturally even more the case in countries where the Liturgy

was not in Greek. Thus in the “Calendar of the Coptic Church”

translated from the Arabic by Dr. S. C. Malan (1873), the only

Feast-days identical with those given below (pp. 87-89) are Sept.

14; Oct. 8; Nov. 8, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30; Dec. 20, 24, 25, 29; Jan. 1,

6 (the Lord’s Baptism), 22; Feb. 2, 24; March 25; April 25; May 2;

June 19, 24, 29; July 22; Aug. 6, 25. Elsewhere the day is altered,

even if the festival be the same; e.g. St. Thomas’ Day is Oct. 6

with the Greeks, Oct. 23 with the Copts; St. Luke’s Day (Oct. 18),

and the Beheading of the Baptist (Aug. 29), are kept by the Copts a

day later than by the Greeks, since Aug. 29 is their New Year’s Day.

101 This system was introduced by Wetstein (N. T. 1751-52). Mill used to

cite copies by abridgements of their names, e.g. Alex. Cant. Mont.

&c.

102 The _pericope adulterae_ John vii. 53-viii. 11 is omitted in all the

copies we know on the feast of Pentecost. Whenever read it was on

some Saint’s Day (_vid. infra_, p. 87, _notes_ 2, 3).

103 Lessons for the week in B-C. III. 24 are (2) 2 Cor. iii. 4-12. (3)

iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6) 15-21.

104 In B-C. III. 42 all the Gospels for this day run into each other

without break, e.g. John xiii. 3-17 being read _uno tenore_. Just so

in the same manuscript stands the mixed lesson for Good Friday

evening.

105 The more usual indiction, which dates from Sept. 1, is manifestly

excluded by the following rubric (Burney, 22, p. 191, and in other

copies): Δέοό γινώσκζιν ὅτι ἄρχδται ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς

Κυριακῆς μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν; τότε γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἰσυμερία [i.e. ἰσημερία]

γίνεται, ὃ καλεῖται νέον ἔτος. Ἤ ὅτι ἀπὸ τὰς [τῆς] κγ´ τοῦ

σεπτευβρίου ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσαι.

106 The lesson for the Sunday after Sept. 14 is the same as that for the

3rd Sunday in Lent.

107 The ordinary lessons for week days stand thus in B-C. III. 24. Week

ι´. (2) 2 Cor. iii, 4-12. (3) iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6)

15-21. ιζ´. (2) vi. 11-16. (3) vii. 1-11. (4) 10-16. (5) viii. 7-11.

(6) 10-21. ιη´. (2) viii. 20-ix. 1. (3) ix. 1-5. (4) 12-x. 5. (5)

4-12. (6) 13-18. ιθ´. (2) xi. 5-9. (3) 10-18. (4) xii. 10-14 (5)

14-19. (6) 19-xiii. 1. κ´. (2) xiii. 2-7. (3)7-11. (4) Gal. i.

18-ii. 5. (5) ii. 6-16. (6) ii. 20-iii. 7. κα´. (2) iii. 15-22. (3)

28-iv. 5. (4) iv. 9-14. (5) 13-26. (6) 28-v. 5. κβ´. (2) v. 4-14.

(3) 14-21. (4) vi. 2-10. (5) Eph. i. 9-17. (6) 16-23. κγ´. (2) ii.

18-iii. 5. (3) 5-12. (4) 13-21. (5) iv. 12-16. (6) 17-25. κδ´. (2)

v. 18-26. (3) 25-31. (4) 28-vi. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-21. κε´. (2)

Phil. i. 2. _Hiat codex usque ad’_ λ´. (1) 1 Thess. i. 6-10. (3)

9-ii. 4. (4) 4-8. (5) 9-14. (6) 14-20. λα´. (2) iii. 1-8. (3) 6-11.

(4) 11-iv. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-v. 5. λβ´. (2) v. 4-11. (3) 11-15.

(4) 15-23. (5) 2 Thess. i. 1-5. (6) 11-ii. 5. λγ´. (2) ii. 13-iii.

5. (3) 3-9. (4) 10-18. (5) 1 Tim. i. 1-8. (6) 8-14. λδ´. (2) 1 Tim.

ii. 5-15. (3) iii. 1-13. (4) iv. 4-9. (5) 14-v. 10. (6) 17-vi. 2.

λε´. (2) vi. 2-11. (3) 17-21. (4) 2 Tim. i. 8-14. (5) 14-ii. 2. (6)

22-26.

108 In the Menology, even Arund. 547 has μηνὶ σεπτεμβρίῳ _α_; ἀρχὴ τῆς

ἰνδίκτου. So Burn. 22 nearly.

_ 109 Theodosia_ in Codex Cyprius (_see_ p. 73), with the cognate lesson,

Luke vii. 36-50, which lesson is read in Gale for Sept. 16, Euphemia

and in Evst. 261 (B.M. Addit. 11,840). In Burdett-Coutts II. 7, John

viii. 3-11 is used εἰς μετανοοῦντας: B-C. II. 30 adds καὶ γυναικῶν.

110 So Cod. Cyprius, but the Christ’s Coll. Evst. removes Pelagia to

Aug. 31, and reads John viii. 1-11.

111 The Proto-martyr Stephen is commemorated on August 2 in Evst. 3

(Wheeler 3).

112 The same Saint is commemorated in the fragment of a Golden

Evangelistarium seen at Sinai by the Rev. E. M. Young in 1864, and

in B-C. III. 42 as μεγαλόμαρτυς ὁ τροπαιοφόρος; which (Evst. 286) is

described in its place below.

113 These fragments were published by Tischendorf in his Appendix Codd.

cel. Sin. Vat. Alex. 1867. They consist of Gen. xxiii. 19-xxiv. 4;

5-8; 10-14; 17, 18; 25-27; 30-33; 36-41; 43-46; Num. v. 26-30; vi.

5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18; 22-27; vii. 4, 5, 12, 13; 15-26. Another leaf

of the same manuscript, containing Lev. xxii. 3-xxiii. 22, was also

found at Sinai by Dr. H. Brügsch Bey, of Göttingen, and published by

him in his Neue Bruchstücke des Codex Sinaiticus aufgefunden in der

Bibliothek des Sinai Klosters, 1875, but is not, after all, part of

Cod. א. Another morsel, containing Gen. xxiv. 9, 10, and 41-43, now

at St. Petersburg, really belongs to it.

114 J. Rendel Harris, New Testament Autographs, Baltimore (without

date), an original and ingenious contribution to textual criticism;

as is the Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887) Camb. Synd. by the

same author, Fellow of Clare College, and Reader in Palaeography at

Cambridge. Curious results in Bradshaw’s spirit. Identity of hand

with Caius Psalter.

115 Abbot, Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican

Manuscripts, p. 195. Dean Burgon surrendered the position maintained

in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.

116 It has been suggested that this strange mode of division originated

in the reluctance of scribes to begin a new line with any

combination of letters which could not commence a Greek word, and to

end a line with any letter which is not a vowel, or a liquid, or σ,

or γ before another consonant, except in the case of Proper Names

(Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863, p. 8). Certainly the

general practice in Cod. א bears out the rule thus laid down, though

a few instances to the contrary occur here and there (Scrivener,

Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, Introd. p. xiv, note). Hort refers it

to a grammatical rule not to end a line with οὐκ or οὐχ, or a

consonant preceding an elided vowel, as ἀπ᾽, οὐδ᾽. New Testament in

Greek, p. 315.

117 But ΜΗ, ΝΗ, for μη, νη occur even in the Septuagint Cod.

Sarravianus, also of the fourth century, in which copy numerals are

quite constantly expressed by letters.

118 Tischendorf, however, describes אa as “et formis et atramento primam

manum tantum non adaequans,” and its writer has been regarded by

some as little inferior in value to the first scribe. Thus Dr. Hort

(Introd. p. 271), calling him the “corrector” proper, states that he

“made use of an excellent exemplar, and the readings which he

occasionally uses take high rank as authority.” Hort considers אb as

mixed, אc as still more so.

119 I am indebted for the following Memoranda on Cod. א to the kindness

of the Dean of Derry and Raphoe.

i. It is demonstrable that the Eusebian Sections and Canons on the

margin are contemporaneous with the text. For they are wanting from

leaves 10 and 15. Now these leaves are conjugate; and they have been

(on other grounds) noted by Tischendorf as written not by the scribe

of the body of the N. T., but by one of his colleagues (“D”) who

wrote part of the O. T. and acted as Diorthota of the N. T. It thus

appears that, after the marginal numbers had been inserted, the

sheet containing leaves 10 and 15 was cancelled, and rewritten by a

contemporary hand. The numbers must therefore have been written

before the MS. was completed and issued.

ii. The exemplar whence these numbers were derived, differed

considerably from that which the text follows. For, in some cases,

the sectional numbers indicate the presence of passages which are

absent from the text. E.g. St. Matt. xvi. 2, 3, which is sect. 162,

is wanting; and 162 is assigned to ver. 4, while the wrong canon (5

for 6) betrays the presence in the canonizer’s exemplar of the

passage omitted by the scribe. The same is true of St. Mark xv. 28

(in which case the scribe is “D”).

iii. The scribe who wrote the text was unacquainted with the

Eusebian sections. For the beginning of a section is not marked, as

in A and most subsequent MSS., by a division of the text and a

larger letter. On the contrary the text is divided into paragraphs

quite independent of the Eusebian divisions, which often begin in

the middle of a line, and are marked merely by two dots (:) in

vermilion, inserted no doubt by the rubricator as he entered the

numbers in the margin. The fact that the numbers of the sections as

well as of the canons (not as in other MSS. of the Canons only) are

in vermilion, points the same way.

iv. From the above it follows, (1) That while Cod. א proves the

absence from its exemplar of certain passages, its margin proves the

presence of some of them in a contemporaneous exemplar; (2) that

while on the one hand the Eusebian numbers, coeval with the text,

show that the MS. cannot be dated before the time of Eusebius, on

the other hand the form of the text, inasmuch as it is not arranged

so as to suit them, and as it differs from the text implied in them,

marks for it a date little, if at all, after his time—certainly many

years earlier than A.

v. As regards the omission of the verses of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, it

is not correct to assert that Cod. א betrays no sign of

consciousness of their existence. For the last line of ver. 8,

containing only the letters τογαρ, has the rest of the space (more

than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and

elaborate “arabesque” executed with the pen in ink and vermilion,

nothing like which occurs anywhere else in the whole MS. (O. T. or

N. T.), such spaces being elsewhere invariably left blank. By this

careful filling up of the blank, the scribe (who here is the

diorthota “D”), distinctly shows that the omission is not a case of

“non-interpolation,” but of deliberate excision. John Gwynn, May 21,

1883.

120 He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every

day. Compare the performance of that veritable Briareus, Nicodemus ὁ

ξένος, who transcribed the Octateuch (in cursive characters

certainly) now at Ferrara (Holmes, Cod. 107), beginning his task on

the 8th of June, and finishing it the 15th of July, A.D. 1334,

“working very hard”—as he must have done indeed (Burgon, _Guardian_,

Jan. 29, 1873).

121 This opinion, first put forth by Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum

1867, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxiii, was minutely discussed in the course of

a review of that book in the _Christian Remembrancer_, October 1867,

by the writer of these pages. Although Dr. Hort labours to show that

no critical inferences ought to be drawn from this identity of the

scribe of Cod. B with the writer of six conjugate leaves of Cod. א

(being three pairs in three distinct quires, one of them containing

the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel), he is constrained to admit

that “the fact appears to be sufficiently established by concurrent

peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, avoidance of

contractions, and some points of orthography” (Introduction, p.

213). The internal evidence indeed, though relating to minute

matters, is cumulative and irresistible, and does not seem to have

been noticed by Tischendorf, who drew his conclusions from the

handwriting only.

122 Prothero (Memoir of H. Bradshaw, pp. 92-118) reprints a letter of

Bradshaw from _Guardian_, Jan. 28, 1863, worth studying:—“Simonides

died hard, and to the very end was supported by a few dupes of his

ingenious mendacity.” (p. 99.)

123 A more favourable estimate of the ecclesiastical policy of Cyril

(who was murdered by order of the Sultan in 1638, aet. 80) is

maintained by Dr. Th. Smith, “Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario,

Patriarcha Constantinopolitano,” London 1707.

124 I.e. “Memorant hunc Librum scriptū fuisse ma-nu Theclae Martyris.”

On the page over against Cyril’s note the same hand writes

“videantur literae ejusdé Cyrill: Lucar: ad Georgium Episco Cant”

[Abbot]; _Harl_: 823, 2. quae extant in Clementis Epistolis ad

Corinthios editionis Colomesii Lond. 1687 8o page 354 &c.

125 Not to mention a few casual _lacunae_ here and there, especially in

the early leaves of the manuscript, the lower part of one leaf has

been cut out, so that Gen. xiv. 14-17; xv. 1-5; 16-20; xvi. 6-9 are

wanting. The leaf containing 1 Sam. xii. 20-xiv. 9, and the nine

leaves containing Ps. 1. 20-lxxx. 10 (Engl.) are lost.

126 Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the

Pericope Adulterae, John vii. 58-viii. 11. Taking the Elzevir N. T.

of 1624, which is printed without breaks for the verses, we count

286 lines of the Elzevir for the two leaves of Cod. A preceding its

defect, 288 lines for the two which follow it; but 317 lines for the

two missing leaves. Deduct the thirty lines containing John vii.

53-viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287.

127 An excellent facsimile of A is given in the Facsimiles of the

Palaeographical Society, Plate 106; others in Woide’s New Testament

from this MS. (1786), and in Baber’s Old Test. (1816). Two specimens

from the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Jacobson’s Patres

Apostolici, vol. i. p. 110, 1838 (1863); and one in Cassell’s Bible

Dict. vol. i. p. 49.

128 Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis

(Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 198), where the difference

of hand in the leaves removed from their proper place is much more

striking than any change in Cod. Alexandrinus. Yet even in that case

it is likely that one scribe only was engaged. It should be stated,

however, that Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, who, edits the autotype

edition, believes that the hand changed at the beginning of St.

Luke, and altered again at 1 Cor. x. 8. His reasons appear to us

precarious and insufficient, and he seems to cut away the ground

from under him when he admits (Praef. p. 9) that “sufficient

uniformity is maintained to make it difficult to decide the exact

place where a new hand begins.”

129 Tischendorf, Septuagint, Proleg. p. lxv, cites with some approval

Grabe’s references (Proleg. Cap. i. pp. 9-12) to Gregory Nazianzen

[d. 389], three of whose Epistles are written to a holy virgin of

that name (of course not the martyr), to whose παρθενών at Seleucia

he betook himself, the better to carry out his very sincere _nolo

episcopari_ on the death of his father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus:

Πρῶτον μὲν ἦλθον εἰς Σελεύκειαν φυγὰς | Τὸν παρθενῶνα τῆς ἀοιδίμου

κόρης | Θέκλας κ.τ.λ. “De vitâ suâ.”

130 The last Arabic numeral in the Old Testament is 641, the first in

the New Testament 667.

131 Very interesting is Whitelock’s notice of a design which was never

carried out, under the date of March 13, 1645. “The Assembly of

Divines desired by some of their brethren, sent to the House [of

Commons] that Mr. Patrick Young might be encouraged in the printing

of the Greek Testament much expected and desired by the learned,

especially beyond seas; and an ordinance was read for printing and

publishing the Old Testament of the Septuagint translation, wherein

Mr. Young had formerly taken pains and had in his hand, as library

keeper at St. James’s, an original _Teeta_ [sic] Bible of that

translation” (Memorials, p. 197, ed. 1732).

132 “MSm Alexandm accuratissime ipse contuli, A.D. 1716. Rich:

Bentleius.” Trin. Coll. Camb. B. xvii. 9, in a copy of Fell’s Greek

Testament, 1675, which contains his collation. Ellis, Bentleii

Critica Sacra, p. xxviii.

133 See Bibliothèque du Vatican au Xme siècle, par Eugène Müntz et Paul

Fabre, Paris. Thorn. 824 Lat., 400 Gr.

134 The “Epistle” of Cardinal Carafa to Sixtus V, and the Preface to the

Reader by the actual editor Peter Morinus, both of which Tischendorf

reprints in full (Septuagint, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxvii), display an

amount of critical skill and discernment quite beyond their age, and

in strange contrast with the signal mismanagement in regard to the

revision of the Latin Vulgate version under the auspices of the same

Pope.

135 In Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 1 Kings i. 1-xix. 11, there

are forty-four lines in a column; and in 2 Paralip. x. 16-xxvi. 13,

there are forty lines in a column.

136 The writer of the Preface to the sixth volume of the Roman edition

of 1881 (apparently Fabiani), is jubilant over his discovery of the

name of this retracer (“eruditissimi et patientissimi viri,” as he

is pleased to call him, p. xviii) in the person of Clement the Monk,

who has written his name twice in the book in a scrawl of the

fifteenth century. But mere resemblance in the ink is but a lame

proof of identity, and Fabiani recognizes some other correctors,

whom he designates as B4, posterior to the mischievous

“instaurator.”

137 Hug says _none_, but Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. p. 9)

himself detected two in a part that the second scribe had left

untouched; and not a very few elsewhere (N. T. Vatican. Proleg. pp.

xx, xxi, 1867); though a break often occurs with no stop by either

hand. In the much contested passage Rom. ix. 5, Dr. Vance Smith

(“Revised Texts and Margins,” p. 84, note), while confidently

claiming the stop after σαρκα in Cod. A as _primâ manu_, and

noticing the space after the word in Cod. Ephraemi (C), admits that

“in the Vatican the originality of the stops may be doubtful.” In

the judgement of Fabiani, “vix aliqua primo exscriptori tribuenda”

(Praef. N. T. Vat. 1881, p. xviii).

138 The publication of the Roman edition (1868-81) enables us to add

(Abbot, _ubi supra_, p. 193) that the blessings of the twelve

patriarchs in Gen. xlix are in separate paragraphs numbered from A

to IB, that the twenty-two names of the unclean birds Deut. xiv.

12-18, twenty-five kings in Josh. xii. 10-22, eleven dukes in 1 Chr.

i. 51-54, each stand in a separate line. In Cod. א, especially in

the New Testament, this arrangement στιχηρῶς is much more frequent

than in Cod. B, although the practice is in some measure common to

both.

139 The Roman edition (1868-81) also makes known to us that in the Old

Testament two columns are left blank between Nehemiah and the

Psalms, which could not have been otherwise, inasmuch as the Psalms

are written στιχηρῶς with but two columns on a page. Between Tobit

and Hosea (which book stands first of the Prophetical writings) a

column is very naturally left blank, and two columns at the end of

Daniel, with whose prophecy the Old Testament concludes. But these

peculiarities obviously bear no analogy to the case of the end of

St. Mark’s Gospel.

140 See above, pp. 49-51.

141 The writer of the Preface to the Roman edition (vol. vi. Praef. p.

9, 1881) vainly struggles to maintain the opposite view, because the

Cardinal, in his Preface to the Complutensian N. T., speaks about

“adhibitis Vaticanis libris,” as if there was but one there.

142 Rulotta’s labours are now printed in Bentleii Critica Sacra by Mr.

A. A. Ellis, 1862, pp. 121-154.

143 Thus the correspondence of Codex B with what St. Basil (c. Eunom.

ii. 19) states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς

παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων, in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without ἐν

Ἐφέσῳ, though now read only in this and the Sinaitic manuscript

_primâ manu_, and in one cursive copy (Cod. 67) _secundâ manu_,

seems in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been

raised is the position of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this

argument can apply only to the elder document from which the Vatican

MS. was taken, and wherein this book unquestionably followed that to

the Galatians. In Cod. B it _always_ stood in its present place,

after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p. 74, note.

144 Besides the twenty-five readings Tischendorf observed himself,

Cardinal Mai supplied him with thirty-four more for his N. T. of

1849. His seventh edition of 1859 was enriched by 230 other readings

furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855.

145 “They would not let me open it,” he adds, “without searching my

pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a

passage too long the two _prelati_ would snatch the book out from my

hand.” Tregelles, Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the N. T., p.

84.

146 The great gap in the Pauline Epistles is filled up from Vatic. 1761

(Act. 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century.

147 Other editions of the Vatican N. T. appeared at Ratisbon; at Leyden

(1860) by A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, with a masterly Preface by the

latter; and at Berlin (1862) by Philip Buttmann, furnished with an

Appendix containing the varying results of no less than nine

collations, eight of which we have described in the text, the ninth

being derived from Lachmann’s Greek Testament (1742, 1850), whose

readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much

commend the accuracy of Buttmann’s work.

148 “Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει

γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rectè mandari posset:”

Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Praef. p. 1. Tischendorf too, in his

over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is

not more than just in alleging “Angelum Maium in editionibus suis

Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se praebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei

palaeographicae scientiâ, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas

is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.” The defence set up for Mai

in the Preface to the Roman volume of 1881, was that he intended to

produce only a new edition of the “authentic” Septuagint of 1586-7,

chiefly for the use of Greek-speaking Catholics.

149 The Dean himself on Feb. 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days,

“went twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilized most of the

important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the

Librarian, who “insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it

ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing

the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp. 310, 315.)

150 “Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos

labores ex ipso codice edidit Ae. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsiae, 4to,

1867.

151 To his hand Tischendorf assigns seven readings, Matt. xiii. 52; xiv.

5; xvi. 4; xxii. 10; xxvii. 4. Luke iii. 1 (_bis_), 7. “For some six

centuries after it was written B appears to have undergone no

changes in its text except from the hand of the ‘corrector,’ the

‘second hand’ ” (Hort, Introd. p. 270). What then of B2?

152 It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers

when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the

case of B2 or B3: “In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia

continentur, et nihilo plus in primâ manu quam in secundâ inest

auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaquaeque lectio ex se ipsâ

spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hanc modo illam

animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum

est, non esse secundae manûs lectiones correctoris alicujus

suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive illae sunt acutiores sive

leviores, sed quidquid a secundâ manu correctum, mutatum, deletum

esse Maius referat, id omne haud secus atque id quod prior manus

dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (N. T. Vat.

Praef. p. xxvi.)

153 It may be mere oversight that in Matt. xxvii. 4 he does not say in

1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition

(1865) he adjudges it to B2. In Matt. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32

εκφύη he gives to B3 in 1867 what he had assigned to B2 in 1865. The

Roman Commentary gives no light in the other places, but assigns

πιστεύητε to B2, B3.

154 “Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX

Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis

Barnabitae, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Romae typis

et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide,” square folio,

1868.

155 The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by

Tischendorf’s Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which

pamphlet we cannot highly praise.

156 This practice is plainly confessed to in the Preface to the volume

of 1881 (p. xvi) without any consciousness of the fatal mistake

which it involves: “Facies libri Vaticani repraesentata est [ut] ea

primum omnia apparerent, quae a priore codicis notario profecta

adhuc manifesto perspiciuntur, tum ea tantum a posterioribus sive

emendatoribus, sive instauratoribus commutata adderentur, quae sine

scripturae confusione legi possent.”

157 In 1 Cor. vii. 29 Vercellone joins ἐστιν and το closely, but

Tischendorf leaves a space between them, with a middle point, which

he expressly states to be _primâ manu_. Again, in ver. 34 Vercellone

joins μεμερισται with the following και. Tischendorf in 1867 (but

not in his last edition of the N. T.) interposes a point and space.

In these _minutiae_ Vercellone, who was not working against time,

may be presumed to be the more accurate of the two. The editors of

the sixth volume have no note at either place. Tischendorf detects

an error of Vercellone, ειτε for ειχε Heb. ix. 1, but this has been

corrected by the hand in some copies of the Roman volume, as also in

the Commentary.

158 His reasons for regarding the Sinaitic manuscript as the younger

(_see_ p. 89, note 2) are valid enough so far as they go (Praef. p.

vi): its initial letters stand out more from the line of the

writing; abridgements of words are fewer and less simple; it

contains the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons instead of the

antiquated divisions of its rival, and the text is broken up into

smaller paragraphs. Tregelles, who had seen both copies, used to

plead the fresher appearance of the Sinaitic, contrasted with the

worn look of the Vatican MS.; but then its extensive hiatus proves

that the latter had been less carefully preserved.

Eusebius sent to Constantine’s new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. iv)

πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (c. 36) ... ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις

τεύχεσι τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (c. 37): on which last words Valesius

notes, “Codices enim membranacei ferè per quaterniones digerebantur,

hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria sunt folia

simul compacta. Et quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas,

terniones vero duodenas.” But now that we have come to know that

Cod. B is arranged in quires of five sheets (_see_ p. 105), that

manuscript will hardly answer to the description τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά

(see p. 27, note 1) as Cod. א does. Indeed Canon Cook (Revised

Version, &c., p. 162) objects to Valesius’ explanation altogether,

on the ground that his sense would rather require τριπλόα καὶ

τετραπλόα, and that the rare words τρισσά (“three by three”) and

τετρασσά (“four by four”) exactly describe the arrangement of three

columns on a page in Cod. B, and four on a page in Cod. א. The Canon

has since observed that the same view is maintained by O. von

Gebhardt (“Bibel-text” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, Leipsic 1878,

second edition). On the other hand Archdeacon Palmer, in an obliging

communication made to me, comparing the words πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν

διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις (c. 36) with ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις

τεύχεσιν τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων ἡμῶν, and interpreting

Eusebius’ compliance (c. 37) by means of Constantine’s directions

(c. 36), is inclined to refer τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά to σωμάτια, as if

it were “we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly

adorned cases, three or four in a case.” It will probably be thought

that the expression is on the whole too obscure to be depended on

for any controversial purposes. It is safer to argue that if the

sections and canons extant in Cod. א be by a contemporary hand

(_see_ p. 93, and Dean Gwynn’s _Memoranda_ in our _Addenda_ for that

page), that circumstance, the great antiquity of the manuscript

considered, will confirm the probability of Eusebius’ connexion with

it. Eusebius agrees also with א in omitting ἡ πύλη, Matt. vii. 13,

and knew of copies, not however the best or with his approval, which

inserted ἡσαΐου before τοῦ προφήτου in Matt. xiii. 35: א being the

only uncial which exhibits that reading. So again Eusebius after

Origen maintains the impossible number ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα of א and a

few others in Luke xxiv. 13. Dr. C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, pp.

347, 348, inclines to the belief that B and א were among the fifty

MSS. sent by Eusebius to Constantino about A.D. 331-2. Canon Cook’s

entire argument (Revised Version of the First Three Gospels (1882),

pp. 160-165) should be consulted.

159 Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620. Even Bishop

Lightfoot, a strong and consistent admirer of the manuscript, speaks

of its “impatience of apparently superfluous words” (Epistle to the

Colossians, p. 316). Dr. Hort (Introduction, p. 235) pleads that

such facts “have no bearing on either the merits or the demerits of

the scribe of B, except as regards the absolutely singular readings

of B,” whereas multitudes of these omissions are found in other good

documents.

160 Dean Burgon cites four specimens of such repetitions: Matt. xxi. 4,

five words written twice over; ib. xxvi. 56-7, six words; Luke i.

37, three words or one line; John xvii. 18, six words. These,

however, are but a few out of many. Nor is Tischendorf’s judgement

at variance with our own. Speaking of some supposed or possible

gross _errata_ of the recent Roman edition, he puts in the

significant proviso “tamen haec quoque satis cum universâ scripturae

Vaticanae vitiositate conveniunt” (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p.

xvii).

161 The latest Roman editors incline to an Egyptian origin, rather than

one suggested in Magna Graecia, but the only fresh reason they

allege can have very slight weight, namely, that two of the damaged

leaves have been repaired by pieces of papyrus. The learned Ceriani

of Milan believes that Cod. B was written in Italy, Cod. א in

Palestine or Syria (Quarterly Review, April, 1882, p. 355). The

supposed Eusebian origin of both has been already stated.

162 As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to

subjoin a full list of the passages it contains, that it may not be

cited _e silentio_ for what it does not exhibit: Matt. i. 2-v. 15;

vii. 5-xvii. 26; xviii. 28-xxii. 20; xxiii. 17-xxiv. 10; xxiv.

45-xxv. 30; xxvi. 22-xxvii. 11; xxvii. 47-xxviii. 14: Mark i. 17-vi.

31; viii. 5-xii. 29; xiii. 19-xvi. 20: Luke i. 2-ii. 5; ii. 42-iii.

21; iv. 25-vi. 4; vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17; viii. 28-xii. 3; xix. 42-xx.

27; xxi. 21-xxii. 19; xxiii. 25-xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46-53: John i. 1-41;

iii. 33-v. 16; vi. 38-vii. 3; viii. 34-ix. 11; xi. 8-46; xiii.

8-xiv. 7; xvi. 21-xviii. 36; xx. 26-xxi. 25: Acts i. 2-iv. 3; v.

35-x. 42; xiii. 1-xvi. 36; xx. 10-xxi. 30; xxii. 21-xxiii. 18; xxiv.

15-xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16-xxviii. 4: James i. 1-iv. 2: 1 Pet. i. 2-iv.

6: 2 Pet. i. 1-1 John iv. 2: 3 John 3-15: Jude 3-25: Rom. i. 1-ii.

5; iii. 21-ix. 6; x. 15-xi. 31; xiii. 10-1 Cor. vii. 18; ix. 6-xiii.

8; xv. 40-2 Cor. x. 8: Gal. i. 20-vi. 18: Eph. ii. 18-iv. 17: Phil.

i. 22-iii. 5: Col. i. 1-1 Thess. ii. 9: Heb. ii. 4-vii. 26; ix.

15-x. 24; xii. 15-xiii. 25: 1 Tim. iii. 9-v. 20; vi. 21-Philem. 25:

Apoc. i. 2-iii. 19; v. 14-vii. 14; vii. 17-viii. 4; ix. 17-x. 10;

xi. 3-xvi. 13; xviii. 2-xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2

Thess. are entirely lost; about thirty-seven chapters of the

Gospels, ten of the Acts, forty-two of the Epistles, eight of the

Apocalypse have perished. The order of the books is indicated, p.

74.

163 The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Royal

Library by the same means; Evan. 16, 19, 42, 317. Act. 12, 126.

Paul. 164. It appears therefore that Cod. C was not one of the

manuscripts bought of Marshal Strozzi (Pattison, Life of Is.

Casaubon, p. 202), which were only 800 out of the 4,500 which

belonged to the Queen (ibid. p. 204).

164 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. Part iv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein’s

statement (Bentley’s Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him

two hours to read one page; so that his £50 were not so easily

earned, after all. This collation is preserved in Trinity College

Library, B. xvii. 7, 9.

165 Dr. Hort, with his ever ready acuteness, draws certain inferences to

be discussed hereafter from the fact that a displacement in the

leaves of the exemplar wherefrom the Apocalypse in Cod. C was

copied, which the scribe of C did not notice, proves it to have been

a book of nearly 120 small leaves, and accordingly that it “formed a

volume either to itself or without considerable additions”

(Introduction, p. 268).

166 Very remarkable is the language of the University in returning

thanks for the gift: “Nam hoc scito, post unicae scripturae

sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni memoriâ temporum

scriptores extitisse, quos memorabili viro Johanni Calvino tibique

praeferamus.” Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, Introd. p. vi.

167 Matt. i. 1-20; vi. 20-ix. 2; xxvii. 2-12: John i. 16-iii. 26: Acts

viii. 29-x. 14; xxi. 2-10; 15-18 (though Ussher, Mill, Wetstein and

Dickinson cite several readings from these verses, which must have

been extant in their time); xxii. 10-20; 29-xxviii. 31 in the

_Greek_: Matt. i. 1-11; vi. 8-viii. 27; xxvi. 65-xxvii. 1: John i.

1-iii. 16: Acts viii. 20-x. 4; xx. 31-xxi. 2; 7-10; xxii. 2-10;

xxii. 20-xxviii. 31 in the _Latin_. The original writing has

perished in the following, which are supplied by a scribe of not

earlier than the ninth century: Matt. iii. 7-16: Mark xvi. 15-20:

John xviii. 14-xx. 13 in the _Greek_: Matt. ii. 21-iii. 7: Mark xvi.

6-20: John xviii. 2-xx. 1 in the _Latin_. A fragment, containing a

few words of Matt. xxvi. 65-67 (Latin) and xxvii. 2 (Greek), (Fol.

96, Scrivener), was overlooked by Kipling.

168 It is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of

Cod. D with Stephen’s β´. No other manuscript has been discovered

which agrees with β´ in the many singular readings and arbitrary

additions in support of which it is cited by Stephen. That he

omitted so many more than he inserted is no argument against their

identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his α´

(the Complutensian Polyglott) and η´ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great

inaccuracy of Stephen’s _margin_ (the text is much better revised)

is so visible from these and other well-ascertained instances that

no one ought to wonder if β´ is alleged occasionally (not often) for

readings which D does not contain. On a careful analysis of all the

variations imputed to β´ by Stephen, they will be found to amount to

389 in the parts written in the original hand, whereof 309 are

alleged quite correctly, forty-seven a little loosely, while in

eight instances corrected readings are regarded in error as from the

original scribe. Of the twenty-five places which remain, all but

three had been previously discovered in other copies used by

Stephen, so that β´ in their case has been substituted by mistake

for some other numeral. One of the three remaining has recently been

accounted for by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, who has found καὶ

περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται αὐτῷ (Luke viii. 18 from Matt.

xiii. 12) in Stephen’s θ´ or Coislin 200 at Paris (No. 38, of the

Gospels). I do not find β´ cited by Stephen after Acts xx. 24,

except indeed in Rom. iii. 10 (with α´), in manifest error, just as

in the Apocalypse xix. 14 ε´ (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not

contain this book, is cited instead of ιε´; or as ια´ is quoted in

xiii. 4, _but not elsewhere in the Apocalypse_, undoubtedly in the

place of ιϛ´; or as ιϛ´, which had broken off at xvii. 8, reappears

instead of ιε´ in xx. 3. In the various places named in the last

note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β´ is cited only at Matt.

xxvii. 3, beyond question instead of η´; and for _part_ of the

reading in Acts ix. 31, δ´ (to which the whole rightly belongs)

being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6, indeed, where the

original Greek is missing, β´ is cited, but it is for a reading

actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex

D’s defects.

169 “Ils s’emparèrent des portes et de tous les lieux forts ... non pas

sans leur impiétes et barbaries accoutumées envers les choses

saintes” (Mézeray, Hist. de France, tom. iii. p. 87, 1685).

Accordingly, travellers are shown to this day the bones of unclean

animals which the Huguenots, in wanton mockery, then mingled with

the presumed remains of St. Irenaeus and the martyrs of Lyons.

170 One cannot understand why Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. vol. i, 30) should

have supposed that Beza _prevaricated_ as to the means whereby he

procured his manuscript. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of

spoiling the Philistines, and the bare mention of Lyons in connexion

with the year 1562 would have been abundantly intelligible scarce

twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable that in the last

edition of his Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex

Lugdunensis, but _Claromontanus_ (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx.

3); for, though it might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of

age and after the lapse of so long a time, should confound the Lyons

copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul’s Epistles (D);

yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex Bezae being

collated in _Italy_ for Stephen, is by adopting Wetstein’s

suggestion that it was the actual copy (“antiquissimum codicem

Graecum”) taken to the Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato,

Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm the Latin reading in John

xxi. 22 “sic eum volo,” which D alone may seem to do. Some learned

man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son Henry) might

have sent to Robert Stephen from Tren the readings of a manuscript

to which attention had been thus specially directed.

171 Not more than eighty-three typographical errors have been detected

in Kipling throughout his difficult task, whereof sixteen are in his

Annotations, &c.

172 In St. Luke 136 (143 Lat.): in what remains of St. Matthew 583 (590

Lat.), of St. Mark 148, of St. John 165 (168 Lat.), of the Acts 235.

The later παραγραφαί, indicated by [symbol] (_see_ p. 51, note 3),

though forty-five out of the forty-nine are firmly and neatly made,

and often resemble in colour the ink of the original scribe, can be

shown to be full four centuries later (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae,

Introd. p. xxviii).

173 Bradshaw (Prothero’s Memoirs, p. 97) in a letter to the _Guardian_,

Jan. 28, 1863, writes thus:—“I saw Cod. א at Leipsig _per_

Tischendorf. I had been curious to know whether it was written in

even quaternions throughout, like the Cod. Bezae, or in a series of

fasciculi, each ending with a quire of varying size, like the Cod.

Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This,

by-the-bye, is sufficient to prove”—why, is not quite clear—“that it

cannot be the volume which Dr. Simonides speaks of having written at

Mount Athos.”

174 Yet Φ (Beratinus) and Σ (Rossanensis) contain St. Matthew and St.

Mark, and are probably a little older than D.

175 H. C. Hoskier, Collation of Cod. 604, &c. Appendix F. Mr. Hoskier

saw the MS. on May 18, 1886.

176 In our facsimile (No. 21), over against the beginning of Mark xvi.

8, is set the number of the section (ΣΛΓ or 233), above the

corresponding Eusebian canon (B or 2).

177 Dr. Hort more exactly reckons that these leaves apparently contain

Mark vi. 53-vii. 4; vii. 21-viii. 32; ix. 1-x. 43; xi. 7-xii. 19;

xiv. 25-xv. 22 (_Addenda and Corrigenda_ to Tregelles’s N. T., p.

1019), adding that Tischendorf had access also to a few verses

preserved in the collections of the Russian Bishop Porphyry. They

are published in Duchesne’s “Archives des Missions scientifiques et

littéraires” (Paris, 1877), 3e sér. tom. iii. pp. 386-419.

178 These songs, with thirteen others from the Old Testament and

Apocrypha, though _partially_ written in uncial letters, are

included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns, whose prevailing character

is early cursive.

179 From Tischendorf’s copy of Od Dr. Caspar René Gregory has gathered

readings in Heb. v. 8-vi. 10, and sent them to Dr. Hort.

180 I.e., twenty lines on a page, according to the form used in this

edition.

181 They had been previously described in a tract “Jac. Frid. Heusinger,

de quatuor Evan. Cod. Graec. quem antiqua manu membrana scriptum

Guelferbytana bibliotheca servat.” Guelf. 1752.

182 Codex P contains Matt. i. 11-21; iii. 13-iv. 19; x. 7-19; x. 42-xi.

11; xiii. 40-50; xiv. 15-xv. 3; xv. 29-39: Mark i. 1-11; iii. 5-17;

xiv. 13-24; 48-61; xv. 12-37; Luke i. 1-13; ii. 9-20; vi. 21-42;

vii. 32-viii. 2; viii. 31-50; ix. 26-36; x. 36-xi. 4; xii. 34-45;

xiv. 14-25; xv. 13-xvi. 22; xviii. 13-39; xx. 21-xxi. 3; xxii. 3-16;

xxiii. 20-33; 45-56; xxiv. 1, 14-37; John i. 29-41; ii. 13-25; xxi.

1-11.

183 Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34-v. 4; vi. 10-26; xii. 6-43; xv. 14-31;

xvii. 34-xviii. 15; xviii. 34-xix. 11; xix. 47-xx. 17; xx. 34-xxi.

8; xxii. 27-46; xxiii. 30-49: John xii. 3-20; xiv. 3-22.

184 Published in the Jahrbücher (Vienna) d. Lit. 1847.

185 Codex R contains Luke i. 1-13; i. 69-ii. 4; 16-27; iv. 38-v. 5; v.

25-vi. 8; 18-36, 39; vi. 49-vii. 22; 44, 46, 47; viii. 5-15; viii.

25-ix. 1; ix. 12-43; x. 3-16; xi. 5-27; xii. 4-15; 40-52; xiii.

26-xiv. 1; xiv. 12-xv. 1; xv. 13-xvi. 16; xvii. 21-xviii. 10; xviii.

22-xx. 20; xx. 33-47; xxi. 12-xxii. 15; 42-56; xxii. 71-xxiii. 11;

xxiii. 38-51. A second hand has supplied ch. xv. 19-21.

186 For the Coptic style of the letters Tischendorf compares a double

palimpsest leaf in the British Museum, containing 1 Kings viii.

58-ix. 1, which he assigns to the fifth century, although the

capital letters stand out a little, and are slightly larger than the

rest (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. ii. Proleg. p. xliv). But both Dr.

Wright and Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, from their great experience in

this style of writing, have come to suspect that it is usually

somewhat less ancient than from other indications might be supposed.

187 Tischendorf found breathings also in the palimpsest Numbers (Monum.

sac. ined. _ubi supra_, p. xxv).

188 I say _almost_, for Bengel’s description makes it plain that this is

the Moscow manuscript from which F. C. Gross sent him the extracts

that Wetstein copied and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states

that the cursive portion from John vii onwards bears the date of

6508 or A.D. 1000. Scholz was the first to notice this identity

(_see_ Evan. 250).

189 Notwithstanding, the Eusebian canons have been washed out of Wb, a

strong confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 61.

190 Codex X contains Matt. vi. 6, 10, 11; vii. 1-ix. 20; ix. 34-xi. 24;

xii. 9-xvi. 28; xvii. 14-xviii. 25; xix. 22-xxi. 13; 28-xxii. 22;

xxiii. 27-xxiv. 2; 23-35; xxv. 1-30; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 12; Mark vi.

47-Luke i. 37; ii. 19-iii. 38; iv. 21-x. 37; xi. 1-xviii. 43; xx.

46-John ii. 22; vii. 1-xiii. 5; xiii. 20-xv. 25; xvi. 23-xxi. 25.

The hiatus in John ii. 22-vii. 1 is supplied on paper in a hand of

the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61-64; xiv. 72-xv. 4; xv. 33-xvi. 6

are illegible in parts, and xvi. 6-8 have perished. Matt. v. 45

survives only in the commentary.

191 Codex Z contains Matt. i. 17-ii. 6; ii. 13-20; iv. 4-13; v. 45-vi.

15; vii. 16-viii. 6; x. 40-xi. 18; xii. 43-xiii. 11; 57-xiv. 19; xv.

13-23; xvii. 9-17; 26-xviii. 6; xix. 4-12; 21-28; xx. 7-xxi. 8;

23-30; xxii. 16-25; 37-xxiii. 3; 15-23; xxiv. 15-25; xxv. 1-11;

xxvi. 21-29; 62-71.

192 Not in moveable type, as a critic in the _Saturday Review_ (Aug. 20,

1881) seems to suppose.

193 Mr. E. H. Hansell prints in red these additional readings thus fresh

brought to light in the Appendix to his “Texts of the oldest

existing manuscripts of the New Testament,” Oxford, 1864.

194 “Barrett’s edition shows that of the sixty-four pages of the MS.

fifty had originally twenty-one lines to the page, and fourteen had

twenty-three.” Dr. Ezra Abbot.

195 These are Matt. vi. 16-29; vii. 26-viii. 27; xii. 18-xiv. 15; xx.

25-xxi. 19; xxii. 25-xxiii. 13; John vi. 14-viii. 3; xv. 24-xix. 6.

196 In the St. Petersburg portion are all the rest of St. John, and

Matt. i. 1-v. 31; ix. 6-xii. 18; xiv. 15-xx. 25; xxiii. 13-xxviii.

20; or all St. Matthew except 115 verses.

197 Dr. Gregory, Tisch. Prolegomena, p. 401, quotes Gardthausen,

Griechische Palaeogr., Lipsiae, 1879, pp. 159, 344, as assigning

A.D. 979 as the date.

198 The edition was posthumous, and has prefixed to it a touching “Life”

of two pages in length, by his brother and pupil, dwelling

especially on Rettig’s happy change in his later days from

rationalism to a higher and spiritual life.

199 Viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim.

ii. 15. Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited eight

times in Δ, about sixteen in G. This personage was Bishop of

Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who died A.D. 941; a fact

which does not hinder our assigning Cod. Δ to the ninth century, as

Rettig states that all notices of him are by a later hand. There is

the less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has

observed, a circumstance which demonstrates to a certainty the

identity of Cod. Δ and G. When he was at Dresden he found in Cod. G

twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same hand as several

that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to Cod.

Δ. “Thus,” he says, “these MSS. once formed one book; and when

separated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing

attached to the former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles’

Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 197).

200 The portion of this manuscript contained in Paul. G was divided into

στίχοι on the same principle by Hug (Introduction, vol. i. p. 283,

Wait’s translation).

201 Λ (1) is really an Evangelistary. See Evst. 493.

202 The subscription to St. Matthew stands in _both_: ευανγελιον κατα

ματθαιον. εγραφη και αντεβληθη εκ των [sic] ἱεροσολυμοις παλαιων

αντιγραφων; των εν τω ἁγιω ορει αποκειμενων; εν στιχοις _βφιδ_;

κεφφ. _τνε_. Very similar subscriptions occur in Codd. 20, 215, 300,

376, 428, 573.

203 Cod. Ξ contains Luke i. 1-9; 19-23; 27, 28; 30-32; 36-66; 77-ii. 19;

21, 22; 33-39; iii. 5-8; 11-20; iv. 1, 2; 6-20; 32-43; v. 17-36; vi.

21-vii. 6; 11-37; 39-47; viii. 4-21; 25-35; 43-50; ix. 1-28; 32, 33;

35; 41-x. 18; 21-40; xi. 1, 2; 3, 4; 24-30; 31; 32, 33.

204 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen

Literatur, 1. Bd. 4. Hft., 1883, Leipsig. Also see _Church

Quarterly_, Jan. 1884. Prof. Sanday in Studia Biblica, i. p. III.

“Would delight the heart of the Dean of Chichester.” _Athenaeum_,

No. 302, Sept. 19, 1885.

205 Dean. Gywnn of Raphoe is so good as to remind me that among the

other proper names enumerated by Wetstein and Semler as written on

the reverse of the last leaf of this manuscript, ΘΕΩΔΟΡΟΣ stands by

itself in a hand which may be as old as the seventh century. Common

as the name is, the fact is interesting and suggestive. For the

orthography compare κωλονια Acts xvi. 12 in Cod. E.

206 It is probable that Mill got this from “Nouvelles Observations sur

le Texte et les Versions du Nouveau Testament,” par R. Simon, Paris,

1695.

207 I see no force in Tischendorf’s objection, that if Theodore had

brought Cod. E to England, Bede would have used it before he came to

write his “Expositio Retractata.”

208 The names and order of the books of the New Testament in this most

curious and venerable list stand thus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke,

Romans, 1, 2 Corinth., Galat., Ephes., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Colos.,

_Filimon_, 1, 2 Pet., James, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Barnabas’ Ep.,

John’s Revelation, Act. Apost., Pastor [Hermas], Actus Paul.,

Revelatio Petri.

209 Facsimiles of this manuscript are given by Semler in his edition of

Wetstein’s Prolegomena (1764, Nos. 8, 9). Bianchini’s estimate of

its age (Evangeliarium Quadruples, tom. ii. fol. 591, 2), as of the

seventh century, is certainly too high.

210 Facsimile of 1 Tim. vi. 19-2 Tim. i. 5 is given in Pal. Soc. Pt. ix

(1879), Pl. 127.

211 So 1 Cor. xii. 2. For ἄφωνα, Vulg. _muta_, Cod. Aug. ἄμορφα. Rom.

viii. 26. For ἀσθενείαις, Vulg. _infirmitatem orationis nostrae_,

Cod. Aug. τῆς δεήσεως, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. Infinitives for

Imperatives.

212 He betrays his nationality by placing “waltet” _primâ manu_ over the

first εξουσειαζει, 1 Cor. vii. 4.

213 In 1 Tim. iv. 2 the Latin h is inserted _secundâ manu_ before

υποκρισι.

214 Boerner’s son tells the tale thirty years afterwards with amusing

querulousness in his Catalogus Bibl. Boern. Lips. 1754, p. 6, cited

by Matthaei Cod. Boern. p. xviii. But there must have been some

misunderstanding on both sides, for it appears from a manuscript

note in his copy of the Oxford N. T. of 1675 (Trin. Coll. B. xvii.

8), that Bentley considered Cod. G his own property; since after

describing Cod. F before the Epistle to the Romans as his own, and

as commencing at Rom. iii. 19, he adds “Variae lectiones ex altero

_nostro_ MSto, ejusdem veteris exemplaris apographo.”

215 viz. ημας for υμας, Rom. xvi. 17; μετρους for μερους, Eph. iv. 16;

εσκοτισμενος for -μενοι, iv. 18. Add to these στωμα for σωμα, 1 Cor.

ix, 27, as cited by Bentley (Ellis, Critica Sacra, p. 36).

216 By John O’Donovan, Editor of Irish Annals. I have been favoured with

corrections by the late Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, Dublin, and

recently by the Rev. Robert King of Ballymena, whose version I have

ventured to adopt.

Téicht do róim [téicht do róim]: To come to Rome, to come to Rome,

Mór saido becic torbai: Much of trouble, little of profit,

Inrí chondaigi hifoss: The thing thou seekest here,

Manimbera latt ni fog bai: If thou bring not with thee, thou findest

not.

Mór báis mór baile: Great folly, great madness,

Mór coll ceille mór mire: Great ruin of sense, great insanity,

Olais airchenn teicht dóecaib: Since thou hast set out for death,

Beith fó étoil maic Maire.: That thou shouldest be in disobedience

to the Son of Mary.

The second stanza intimates that as the pilgrimage to Rome is at the

risk of life, it is folly not to be at peace with Christ before we

set out. The opening words “To come to Rome” imply that the verses

were written there by some disappointed pilgrim. Since the

handwriting resembles that of the interlinear Latin, Mr. King

suggests that both may have been the work of the Scottish Bishop

Marcus, or of his nephew Moengal (Rettig, Cod. Δ, Prolegomena, p.

xx), who called at St. Gall on their return from Rome, whence Marcus

went homewards, leaving his books and Moengal behind him.

217 Here αου standing to represent _au_ shows that the Greek is derived

from the Latin, not _vice versâ_.

218 That Cod. G cannot have been taken from Cod. G appears both from

matters connected with their respective Latin versions, and because

F contains no trace of the vacant lines left in G at the end of Rom.

xiv to receive ch. xvi. 25-27. But Dr. Hort (Journal of Philology,

vol. iii. No. 5, pp. 67, 68 note) has come to think that F is a mere

transcript of G, the scribe of the former being by far the more

ignorant of the two. He meets our argument to the contrary stated

above in the text, by alleging that in respect to the division of

words F is free from no outrageous portent found in G, while it has

to answer for many of its own. But (to take our examples from one

open leaf) if the writer of F were so helplessly ignorant as Dr.

Hort represents, how could he have set right G’s error in 1 Tim. iv.

7, reading και · γραωδεις for G’s και αιγραωδεις? Again, if F had

before him an undivided manuscript, one can easily account for such

monsters as in 1 Tim. iv. 2 και · καυτη ριασ μενων· F (_photographed

page_), but no one could possibly have so written with G’s

κεκαυτηριασμενων before him. That the two copies were compared

together in after times seems evident from the fact stated in p.

179, that Latin renderings from G stand in eighty-six places above

the Greek of F. It was at the same time perhaps that some

ill-divided words in F were corrected by means of a loop from the

Greek of G: e.g. 2 Cor. i. 3 οικτιρμων G, οικ [symbol] τιρμων F; ii.

14 θριαμβευοντι G, θριαμ [symbol] βεὐοντι F; iv. 9

ενκαταλιμπαννομενοι G, εν · καταλιμπαν [symbol] νομενοι F; ver. 15

πλεονασασα G, πλεονα [symbol] σασα F. ’Mr. Hort’s view, that F was

copied directly from G’ (writes Bishop Lightfoot very gently,

Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 6, p. 210, note), “deserves

consideration, and may prove true, though his arguments do not seem

quite conclusive.” Lightfoot elsewhere pronounces that “the

divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts” seem unfavourable to Dr.

Hort’s hypothesis (Ep. to Coloss. p. 355, note 2). But the latter

still adheres to it with characteristic firmness: “we believe F to

be as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G [as E is of D];

if not, it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar”

(Introd. p. 150). Yet why “inferior”?

219 Epistularum Paulinarum codd. Gr. et Lat. scriptas Augiensem

Boernerianum Claromontanum examinavit, &c. Petrus Corssen, H.

Fienche Kiliensis, 1889.

_ 220 See_ p. 63, note 1.

221 Scholz describes Codd. 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as also written

in red ink. See too Evan. 254.

222 Dr. C. R. Gregory has read a few words more of this MS. Griesbach

and Scholz number the London part as 64, the Hamburg part as 53.

223 Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. vol. ii. p. 166) says that in the

Harleian fragment “Iota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel

postscribitur, plerumque omittitur,” overlooking the second ascript.

Scrivener repeats this statement about ι subscript (Cod. Augiens.

Introd. p. lxxii), believing he had verified it: but Tischendorf

cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting

Harl. 5613 for the purpose. Tregelles too says, “I have not seen a

_sub_scribed iota in any uncial document” (Printed Text, p. 158,

note).

224 Tregelles, wishing to reserve the letter B for the great Codex

Vaticanus 1209, called this copy first L (N. T. Part iv. p. iii),

and afterwards Q (N. T. Part vi. p. i). Surely Mr. Vansittart was

right (Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 41) in protesting

against a change so needless and inconvenient; nor has Tischendorf

adopted it in his eighth edition of the N. T.

225 Very many corrections have been made in the following Catalogue as

well from investigations of my own as from information kindly

furnished to me by Mr. H. Bradshaw, University Librarian at

Cambridge, by Professor Hort, by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, late Fellow

of Trinity College there [d. 1882], by Mr. W. Kelly, and especially

by Dean Burgon, to whom the present edition is more deeply indebted

than it would be possible to acknowledge in detail. His series of

Letters addressed to me in the _Guardian_ newspaper (1873) contains

but a part of the help he has afforded towards the preparation of

this and the second edition. Ed. iii.

226 For the Authorities chiefly consulted in the list of Cursive

Manuscripts given in this edition, see Appendix A to this volume;

and for a list of Facsimiles, see Appendix B.

227 Stephen’s margin cites ζ´ eighty-four times in the Gospels, usually

in company with several others, but alone in Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15;

Luke i. 37. Since Evan. 18 or Reg. 47 contains the whole N. T., and

Stephen cites ζ´ in the Acts once (ch. xvii. 5), in the Catholic

Epistles seven times, in the Pauline twenty-seven, in the Apocalypse

never; Reg. 47 has been suggested to have been Stephen’s ζ´, rather

than Cod. 8 or Reg. 49. On testing the two with Steph. ζ´ in eight

places, Mr. Vansittart found that they both agreed with it in five

(Matt. xx. 12; Mark vi. 20; x. 52; Luke vi. 37; John vi. 58), but

that in the remaining three (Mark xii. 31; Luke i. 37; John x. 32)

Reg. 49 agreed with ζ´, while Reg. 47 did not.

228 Stephen includes his θ᾽ among the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν

συνηθροίσαμεν, which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St.

Louis would have brought or sent it to France. Mr. Vansittart tested

Cod. 38 in Matt. xxvi. 45; Luke viii. 18; xix. 26; James v. 5; 2

Pet. ii. 18, and found it agree in all with Stephen’s θ᾽. What of

ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5? In Luke viii. 18 that most careless editor

misprints β᾽ when he means θ᾽. See above, p. 124, note 3.

229 “Textus ipse distinctus est in clausulas majores, seu Paragraphos;

ad initium notatos singulos literâ majusculâ miniatâ,” Mill (N. T.

Proleg. § 1445). Yet since Burgon testifies that its text “is not

broken up into Paragraphs after all,” Mill can only intend to

designate in a roundabout way the presence of the larger chapters

(p. 55) with their appropriate capitals.

230 On the death of Dr. John Moore, Bishop of Ely (whose honesty as a

book-collector is impeached, on no fair grounds, by Tew in Bridge’s

“Northamptonshire,” vol. ii. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I

was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at

Cambridge, amounting to 30,000 volumes, in acknowledgement of the

attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one

remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked. _See_ “Cap and

Gown,” p. 15.

231 “We often hear,” said a witty and most reverend Irish Prelate, “that

the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a _gloss_; and any one

that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.”

It was a little bold in Mr. Charles Forster (“A New Plea,” &c., pp.

119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the

truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr. Adam Clarke

for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather

since almost in the same breath, he stigmatizes the Wesleyan

minister for a “self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr. Clarke tells us

fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion

(Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, Manchester,

1805, pp. 8-10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails

authority, _quum res ipsa per se clamat_? The facsimile made for Dr.

Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne’s

Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt

about the date of Codex Montfortianus.

232 This Froy or Roy is believed by Mr. Rendel Harris (Origin of Cod.

Leic., p. 48) to be the forger of Cod. 61.

233 Another facsimile (Luke xxi. 36-John viii. 6) is given by Abbott in

his “Collation of Four Important Manuscripts” (_see_ Cod. 13). In

all four the _pericope adulterae_ follows Luke xxi. 38.

234 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 80-83;

Matthaei’s uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, described

below. So B.-C. ii. 13, to be described hereafter, reads in St.

Matthew only ἀρχ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Compare

also Codd. 211, 261, 357, and B.-C. iii. 5 in SS. Matthew and Mark.

235 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop

of Canterbury [1657-1737] to Christ Church (of which he had been a

Canon), no less than twenty-eight contain portions of the Greek

Testament. They are all described in this list from a comparison of

Dean Gaisford’s MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to

which Bp. Jacobson’s kindness gave me access in 1861. Corrected by

E. M., to whom similar kindness has been shown. See also “Account of

some MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford,” by the Rev. Charles H. Hoole,

Student.

236 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made

by the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of

Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders,

through Cardinal Hugo de St. Caro (_see_ above, p. 69), and adopted

by their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision

had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot

Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas

Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. vol. i. p. 85). Canon

Westcott calls attention to a _Correctorium_ in the British Museum,

King’s Library, 1 A. viii.

237 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (ἥδε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου |

τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ἀε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις

Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110,

305.

238 Noted “Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione

ejus Constantinopolitanâ collect. Anno Domini 1676.” See Evan. 68;

Evst. 3.

239 Cod. 101 better suits Bengel’s description of Uffen. 3 than 97: they

are written on different materials, and the description of their

respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same.

Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the

end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has

been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to

101.

240 Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi], 4to, 2 vols., on

parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been examined by

Wetstein, Griesbach, and by G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains

the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has

the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, 8. It is now, however, admitted

by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian

Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephen, and as such has

no independent authority.

241 (Wetstein.) THE VELESIAN READINGS. The Jesuit de la Cerda in his

“Adversaria Sacra,” cap. xci (Lyons, 1626), a collection of various

readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a _Greek_ Testament

(which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R.

Stephen’s of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard,

who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in

the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices

or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the

readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then

lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s

account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek.

These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by

Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate

and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical

authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own

better judgement) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however

(N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 59-61), and after him Michaelis and Bp.

Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have

been collected by Velez from _Latin_ manuscripts, and by him

translated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity

with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian

readings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek

text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by

Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the

possibility of doubt:

(For each of these, there is the reference, the Greek Text, the

Vulgate Text, the Vulgate various reading, and the Velesian

reading.)

Mark viii. 38; ἐπαισχυνθῇ; confusus fuerit; confessus fuerit;

ὁμολογήσῃ;

Heb. xii. 18; κεκαυμένῳ; accensibilem; accessibilem; προσίτῳ;

——xiii. 2; ἔλαθον; latuerunt; placuerunt; ἤρεσαν;

James v. 6; κατεδικάσατε; addixistis; adduxistis; ἠγάγετε;

Apoc. xix. 6; ὄχλου; turbae; tubae; σάλπιγγος;

——xxi. 12; ἀγγέλους; angelos; angelos; γωνίας.

242 (Wetstein.) THE BARBERINI READINGS must also be banished from our

list of critical authorities, though for a different reason. The

collection of various readings from twenty-two manuscripts (ten of

the Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the

Apocalypse), seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library

at Rome, was made about 1625, and first published in 1673 by Peter

Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at the end of a catena of St. Mark.

He alleged that the collations were made by John M. Caryophilus [d.

1635], a Cretan, while preparing an edition of the Greek Testament,

under the patronage of Paul V [d. 1621] and Urban VIII [d. 1644]. As

the Barberini readings often favour the Latin version, they fell

into the same suspicion as the Velesian: Wetstein especially (N. T.

Proleg. vol. i. pp. 61, 62), after pressing against them some

objections more ingenious than solid, declares “lis haec non aliter

quam ipsis libris Romae inventis et productis, _quod nunquam credo

fiet_, solvi potest.” The very papers Wetstein thus called for were

discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209) more than thirty years

later, and besides them Caryophilus’ petition for the loan of six

manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS, 127, 129, 141, 144), which

he doubtless obtained and used. The good faith of the collator being

thus happily vindicated, we have only to identify his eleven [Cod.

141 of the Gospels being also Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40. Another

of his manuscripts was Act. 73, Paul. 80.] remaining codices, most

of them probably being in that very Library, and may then dismiss

the Barberini readings as having done their work, and been fairly

superseded.

243 In Codd. 115 and 202 _Eus._ is usually, in Codd. 116, 117, 417, 422,

and B. M. Addit. 15,581 but rarely, written under _Am._: these

copies therefore were probably never quite finished. See p. 62, and

note 1.

244 Meerman’s other manuscript of the N. T., sold at his sale in 1824,

is No. 562.

245 A collection presented to Urban VIII (1623-44) by Maximilian,

Elector of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine,

titular king of Bohemia.

246 Or rather A.D. 1274. According to Engelbreth the letters stand

ψτψπβ, which can only mean A.M. 6782 (_see_ p. 42, note 2).

247 Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer’s description, “Evangeliis

et Actis λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus notae.”

248 Others F.

249 By double _syn._ Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in

Cod. 232 both _syn._ and _men._

250 Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symb. Crit. i. pp. 247-304) from

the margin of a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in the Bodleian, in

his own or Thomas Hearne’s handwriting, were placed here, but are

omitted. Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shown that

they were derived from Evan. 440.

251 Holmes, Praefatio ad Pentateuchum, describes his Cod. 32 as “e

Codicibus Eugenii, olim Archiepiscopi Slabinii et Chersonis.”

Nicephorus also is named by Holmes as the editor of a Catena on the

Octateuch and the four books of Kings from the Constantinopolitan

manuscripts (Leipzig, 1772-3), and is described as “primo

Hieromonachus, et postea Archiepiscopus Slabiniensis et

Chersonensis, sedem Astracani habens” (_ubi supra_, cap. iv).

252 Written in three several and minute hands (Hort):—A for the Gospels,

the Epistle of Pilate and its Answer, and a treatise on the

genealogy of the Virgin; B for the Apocalypse and a Synaxarion; C

the Acts, Cath. Paul. (Hebrews last), and Lives of the Apostles,

followed on the same page by the Psalter by B, so that Apoc. and

_syn._ probably stood last.

253 This manuscript appears to be the only Greek witness for the Old

Latin and Curetonian Syriac variation Matt. i. 16 ἰωσὴφ ᾧ

μνηστευθῆσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν _ιν_ τὸν λεγόμενον _χν_. But

then it was written in Italy, as Ceriani judges.

254 The asper or asprum was a mediaeval Greek silver coin (derived from

ἄσπρος, _albus_); we may infer its value from a passage cited by

Ducange from Vincentius Bellovac. xxx. 75 “quindecim drachmas seu

asperos.”

255 450. Great Gr. Monastery at Jerusalem 1 [July 1, 1043], 8vo, _syn._,

_Eus. t._, first three Gospels with an Arabic version, neatly

written by a reader, Euphemius. This appears to be Coxe’s 6, 4to,

St. Luke only.

451. Jerusalem 2 [xii], 8vo.

452. Jerusalem 3 [xiv], 8vo.

453. Jerusalem 4 [xiv], 8vo.

454. Jerusalem 5 [xiv], 8vo.

455. Jerusalem 6 [xiv], 4to, with a commentary.

456. Jerusalem 7 [xiii], 4to, St. Matthew with a commentary, neatly

written.

_Perhaps_ Coxe’s 43 [xi], in gold _uncial_ letters.

457. St. Saba 2 [xiii], 4to, _syn._, _men._, is Act. 186, Paul. 234.

458. St. Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indiction 15], 16mo.

459. St. Saba 7 [xii], 8vo.

460. St. Saba 8 [xii], 8vo.

461. See Evan. 481.

462. St. Saba 10 [xiv], 4to, is also Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86.

463. St. Saba 11 [xiv], 4to, _chart._

464. St. Saba 12 [xi], 4to.

465. St. Saba 19 [xiii], 8vo.

466. St. Saba 20 [xiii], 8vo, is Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 862 or

89. Also “from a monastery in the island of Patmos.”

467. [xi], 4to.

468. [xii], 8vo, with a commentary.

469. [xiv], 4to.

256 The Psalter 5pe (Petrop. ix. 1) [994], containing the hymns, Luke i.

46-55; 68-79; ii. 29-32, is like our Evan. 612, which see.

257 In addition to Evann. 73, 74, Gaisford in 1837 catalogued, and

Scrivener in 1861 inspected, these fourteen copies of the Gospels in

the collection of Archbishop Wake, now at Christ Church, Oxford.

They were brought from Constantinople about 1731, and have now been

described in the Rev. G. W. Kitchin’s Catalogue of the Manuscripts

in Christ Church Library (4to, 1867).

258 The letter χ is quite illegible, but the Indiction 9 belongs only to

A.D. 831, 1131, 1431, while the style of the manuscript leaves no

doubt which to choose.

259 Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey (Evan. 483) states on the

fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 12, 25, 28, 34 in 1749. Caspar

Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 and 34 for his

relative’s great edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4to Greek

Testament printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious

collation (preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake

manuscripts with Wetstein’s N. T. of 1711, having this title

prefixed to them, “Hae Variae lectiones ex MSS. notatae sunt manu et

opera Johannis Walkeri, A. 1732.” John Walker, most of whose labours

seem never yet to have been used, although they were known to

Berriman in 1741 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, pp.

102-4), was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of

his critical materials accumulated for the illustrious Bentley are

deposited. Walker d. 1741, Archdeacon of Hereford, after Bentley’s

will, six months before him. The codd. in Trinity College were

bought from Bentley’s heirs (not from Richard Bentley) when

Wordsworth was Master (1820-41), and so were not in Bentley’s hands

when Walker died. Old Latin Biblical Texts, xxiv-vi. Of his eight

codices, we find on investigation that Walker’s C is Wake 26;

Walker’s 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to

Wetstein, comprise Codd. 73, 74, described above); Walker’s B is

Wake 21; Walker’s D is Wake 24, both of Gospels; Walker’s E is Wake

18, his H is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker’s q is Wake 12, of

which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apocalypse (Cod. 26);

Walker’s W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epistles, or Scholz’s Act.

191, Paul. 245.

260 Bentley specifies “argumenta inedita Cosmae Indicopleustae in 4

Evangelia, et versus iambici fortasse Jacobi Calligraphi: argumenta

incerti ad Actus: prologus ineditus et argumenta Oecumenii ad

Epistolas omnes.”

261 Matt. iv. 1-vii. 6; xx. 21-xxi. 12; Luke iv. 29-v. 1; 17-33; xvi.

24-xvii. 13; xx. 19-41; John vi. 51-viii. 2; xii. 20-40; xiv. 27-xv.

13; xvii. 6-xviii. 2; 37-xix. 14.

262 In Mr. Coxe’s “Report to Her Majesty’s Government,” we find an

account (which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of

several copies of the Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium,

all dated [xii], still remaining in this Prelate’s Library.

263 For Add. 11,837, which is mscr, see Evan. *201.

264 Belsheim (Cod. Aureus, Proleg. p. xvii and note 3) gives a short

life of that noble Swede, John Gabriel Sparvenfeldt [1655-1727], who

was sent over Europe by his master, Charles XI, to procure

manuscripts for the Royal Library, and bought the Latin Codex Aureus

at Madrid in 1690.

265 Gregory considers this to be (not a duplicate but) the same as Cod.

634.

266 For the other Evann. at Patmos, _see_ No. 1160, &c.

267 For all these MSS. (Evann. 1148, 1149, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1265-1268,

1274-1279), _see_ Ἱεροσολομιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, κ.τ.λ., ὑπὸ Α.

Παπαδοπούλου Π. Κεραμέως. Τόμος Πρῶτος. Ἐν Πετρουπόλει, 1891.

268 Mr. Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. xxviii, xxix) represents,

among facts which I am better able to verify, that Act. and Epp. 25,

26, and Epp. 15, were collated by Wetstein, and his labours

preserved at Trin. Coll. Cambridge (B. xvii. 10, 11). The

manuscripts he indicates so ambiguously must be Paul. 25, 26, and

Act. 15, since Wetstein is not known to have worked at Act. 25, 26,

or Paul. 15.

269 Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of

the Sinai MS. (little anticipating worthier claimants for that

appellation), reserving 5 for Harl. 5777 or Evan. 446.

_ 270 See_ under 98.

271 Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it

is the only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the

celebrated text 1 John v. 7, 8, whose authenticity will be discussed

in Vol. II. Ch. XII. A facsimile of the passage in question was

traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess, and published

by Horne in several editions of his “Introduction,” as also by

Tregelles (Horne, vol. iv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all

faithful, this is as rudely and indistinctly written as any

manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between the Latin

column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on

the right, has been ascertained by Mr. B. H. Alford (who examined

the codex at Tregelles’ request) to be merely a consequence of the

accidental shifting of the tracing paper, too servilely copied by

the engraver.

272 Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects but few of his gross

errors in these Catalogues: but A.M. 6902, which he cites from the

manuscript, is A.D. 1394.

273 Here again we banish to the notes Scholz’s list from Cod. 182 to

Cod. 189, for the reasons stated after Evan. 449.

182. (Paul. 243.) Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [xii],

8vo, also another [xiii] 8vo.

183. (Paul. 231.) Library of the Great Greek monastery at Jerusalem

8 [xiv], 8vo. This must be Coxe’s No. 7 [x], 4to, beginning Acts

xii. 6.

184. (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85.) Jerusalem 9 [xiii], 4to, with a

commentary. This is evidently Coxe’s No. 15, though he dates it at

the end of [x].

185. (Paul. 233.) St. Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xi], 12mo.

186. (Evan. 457.)

187. (Evan. 462.)

188. (Paul. 236.) St. Saba 15 [xii], 4to.

189. (Evan. 466.)

274 From the monastery of Grotta Ferrata, near Tusculum, “Ubi degunt ab

antiquo tempore monachi, ordinis S. Basilii Magni, ritum

Italo-Graecum observantes,” Holmes. Praef. ad Pentateuch. on his

Cod. 128, which came to the Vatican from the same place. It is the

traditional Villa Luculli.

275 Birch shows the connexion of Caryophilus with this important copy

(which much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from

James v. 5, and especially from 3 John 5 μισθόν for πιστόν, a

_lectio singularis_. In this codex, as in the others cited, Heb.

stands before 1 Tim.

276 The gold ducat coined for the Military Order of St. John at Rhodes

(_see_ Ducange) was worth 9_s_. 6_d_. English money.

277 Here again we set Scholz’s codices in a note, substituting others in

their room. Scholz’s run, 231. (Act. 183.) 232. (Act. 184.) 233.

(Act. 185.) 234. (Evan. 457.) 235. (Evan. 462.) 236. (Act. 188.)

237. (Evan. 466.) 243. (Act. 182), two separate codices.

278 Mr. B. W. Newton superintended the publication of Tregelles’ last

part of his Greek New Testament under circumstances which disarm

criticism, but Tregelles could hardly have meant that in the

Apocalypse “much of Cod. 14 (Leicestrensis) has been supplied by a

later hand from the Codex Montfortianus, Apoc. 92” (Introductory

Notice, p. 1). The original hand remains unchanged in the Leicester

copy, even on the last torn leaf containing portions of Apoc. xix,

but the converse supposition is very maintainable, though not quite

certain, that the Apocalypse in Cod. 92 was transcribed from Cod.

14.

279 Gregory has substituted this for Scholz’s 23, which he finds does

not contain Apoc. Whatever readings he cites under these three

numbers, are simply copied from Wetstein (Kelly’s “Revelation,”

Introd. p. xi, note). Dr. Gregory has seen all the four.

280 After this again we withdraw Scholz’s copies, as virtually included

in Coxe’s, putting others in their room. They are 85. (Act. 184.)

86. (Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischendorf). 862 of

Scholz, being 89 of Tischendorf (Evan. 466).

281 We cannot identify 109, Bentley’s R (Regis Galliae, 1872): cf.

Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Intr. p. xxix.

282 In the sixth lesson for the Holy Passions the prefatory clause to

Mark xv. 16 is founded on an obvious misconception: Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ

οἱ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον τὸν ϊν εἰς τὴν ἀυλὴν τοῦ καϊάφα, ὅ ἐστι

πραιτώριον. We remember no similar instance of error.

283 Laud. Gr. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an

Evangelistarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the

Septuagint read in Lent and the Holy Week, such as we described

above. It has red musical notes, and seems _once_ to have borne the

date A.D. 1028. It is Dean Holmes’ No. 61 (Praef. ad Pentateuch).

284 As with the MSS. of the Gospels, and for the reasons assigned above,

we remove to the foot of the page, and do not reckon in our

numbering, the twenty-one copies seen by Scholz in Eastern

Libraries.

158. Library of the Great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem, No. 10

[xiv], fol.

159. “Biblioth. monasterii virginum τῆς μεγάλης παναγίας a S. Melana

erect.” [xiii], fol., very neat (“non sec. viii ut monachi putant,”

Scholz).

160. (Apost. 33.) St. Saba 4, written there by one Antony [xiv],

8vo.

161. St. Saba 5 [xv], 8vo, _chart._

162. St. Saba 6 [xv], 16mo, _chart._

163. St. Saba 13 [xiii], 4to, _chart._, adapted (as also those that

follow) to the use of Palestine.

164. St. Saba [xiv], 4to.

165. St. Saba 17 [xv], 4to, _chart._

166. St. Saba 21 [xiii], fol.

167. St. Saba 22 [xiv], fol.

168. St. Saba 23 [xiii], fol.

169. St. Saba 24 [xiii], fol.

170. St. Saba 25 [xiii], fol.

171. (Apost. 52.) St. Saba (unnumbered) [written July, 1059, in the

monastery of Θεοτόκος, by Sergius, a monk of Olympus in Bithynia],

8vo.

[+]172. Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [“iv” Scholz,

obviously a misprint], fol.

[+]173. Patmos [ix], 4to.

[+]174. Patm. [x], 4to.

[+]175. Patm. [x], 4to.

176. Patm. [xii], 4to.

177. Patm. [xiii], 4to.

178. Patm. [xiv], 4to, in the same Library, but not numbered.

Some of these MSS. have been removed to Europe since Scholz made his

reckoning, e.g. Parham No. 20 (Evst. 236).

285 At the end in small gold uncials the following very curious colophon

was deciphered by Dean Burgon and the learned sub-librarian Signor

Veludo jointly: Μηνὶ μαΐω Ἰνδ. ΙΔ. ἔτους ϛφνδ᾽. προσηνέχθη παρὰ

βασιλείου μοναχοῦ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τῆς

κοιμήσεως τῆς θ_κου_ εἰς τὴν ἀυτὴν μονὴν βιβλία τέσσαρα; τὸ

ἀυτὸεὐαγγέλιον, ἀπόστολος, προφητεία, καὶ ἀναγνοστικόν, ὁ βίος τοῦ

ἁγίου. καὶ ἐστύχηται δίδωσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῆς προσενέξαιως ἑνὶ ἑκάστω

χρόνω ἀπὸ τοῦ δοχείου τῆς αὐτῆς μονῆς ὑπὲρ μνήμης αὐτ νόμισμα ἒν

ἥμισον, μέχ[ρι γὰρ τού] τὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν [συ]νίσταται;

περιφυλάττεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ἁγία μονὴ αὕτη; ἐν γὰρ τῶ τυπικῶ τῆς μονῆς

περὶ τοῦ κατίδους (_sic_) τῶν ἀυτῆς βιβλίων, καὶ περὶ τῆς διανομῆς

τοῦ ἑνὸς ἡμίσου νομίσματος σαφέστερον διερμηνεύει.

286 Thus 222, with only two other Evangelistaria (6, 13) and Evan. 59 by

the first hand, supports Cod. א and Eusebius in the significant

omission of υἱοῦ βαραχίον, Matt. xxiii. 35.

287 [+]Evan. Td and Te and Λ (1) should also properly be classed as

Lectionaries. Apost. 15, and perhaps Apost. 24, also contains

Lessons from the Gospels. The two copies of the Gospels, Lowes

formerly Askew, membr. 4to, mentioned by Scholz (N. T., vol. i. p.

cxix), and stated by Marsh on Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 662, to have

been bought at Askew’s sale by Mr. Lowes, the bookseller, are shown

by the sale catalogue to have Evangelistaria. They have not yet been

traced. (Ed. 3.)

288 In 1721. _See_ Monk’s “Life of Bentley,” vol. ii. p. 149. This is

Bentley’s O, John Walker’s collation of which is preserved at Trin.

Coll. (B. xvii. 34). Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introd. pp.

xxix, xxx.

289 As in our preceding lists, we remove to this foot-note Scholz’s six

copies seen at St. Saba, and occupy their numbers by other

manuscripts. They are Apost. 49. St. Saba 16 [xiv], 4to, _chart._

50. St. Saba 18 [xv], 8vo. 51. St. Saba 26 [xiv], fol. 52. (Evst.

171.) 53. (Evst. 160.) 54. St. Saba (unnumbered) [xiii], 4to.

290 An independent mode of reckoning the commencement of the indiction

was followed in Egypt under the later Roman Empire. The indiction

there began normally in the latter half of the month Pauni, which

corresponds to about the middle of June; but the actual day of

commencement appears to have been variable and to have depended upon

the exact period of the rising of the Nile.—“Catalogue of Greek

Papyri in the British Museum,” pp. 197, 198.

291 So Scholz’s index, and we may suppose correctly, but in his

Catalogue of Evangelistaria he numbers it 1256.