prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce into a simple verse
what is little short of an absurdity. Instead of ἤπιοι of the Received
text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we find νήπιοι adopted by Lachmann as
a consequence of his own stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of
their own free will, unless indeed it be said that they also are working
in chains of their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe
in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be quite
unintelligible if Origen, who read νήπιοι, had not instructed us that the
nurse is playing at baby for the babe’s amusement (ἐγένετο νήπιος καὶ
παραπλήσιος τροφῷ θαλπούσῃ τὸ ἑαυτῆς παιδίον καὶ λαλούσῃ λόγους ὡς παιδίον
διὰ τὸ παιδίον, iii. 662). It needs but the exercise of common sense to
brush away such a fancy as this, and the state of the evidence will show
us how the best authorities are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for
νήπιοι is the form favoured by א*BC*D*FG, 5, 23, 26, 31* 37, 39**, 74, 87,
109**, 114, 115, 137, 219*, 252, and is easily accounted for by the
accidental reduplication of the letter after Ν in ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ (_see_ p. 10).
The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying DEFG (_e_ testifying
against its own Greek) have _parvuli_, and so the Bohairic, Ethiopic,
Clement of Alexandria (ἤπιος οὖν ὁ νήπιος), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and
Augustine very expressly. On the other hand ἤπιος is vouched for by
א**AC**D**EKLP, 17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by
both Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric, by
the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their inconsistency
means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia(425), Theodoret, Euthalius, Œcumenius, John Damascene and the
catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds both readings. It is almost
pathetic to mark Dr. Hort’s brave struggle to maintain a cause which in
this instance is simply hopeless. “The second ν might be inserted or
omitted with equal facility; but the change from the bold image to the
tame and facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St.
Paul and the Syrian revisers (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2; ix. 20, &c.). It is
not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but of
flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is procured, his
adversaries having doubtless put this malicious interpretation upon his
language among the Thessalonians” (Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian
revision, _see_ above, p. 287.
41. 1 TIM. iii. 16. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. This text has proved the
_crux criticorum_. The Vatican has now failed us, but all manuscripts (D
_tertiâ manu_, KLP, 300 cursives) read Θεός with the common text, except
א*A*? C*? FG, 17, 73, which have ὅς, D* which (after the Latin versions)
has ὅ: the Leicester codex, 37, gives ὁ _θς_ (_see_ facsimile No. 40, l.
1), as if to combine two of the variations(426). In the abridged form of
writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference between
ΟΣ and _ΘΣ_ consists only in the presence or absence of two horizontal
strokes; hence it is rather to be regretted than wondered at that the true
reading of each of the uncial authorities for the former is more or less
open to question. Respecting Cod. א we have the statement of Tischendorf,
a most consummate judge in such matters: “_corrector aliquis, qui omnium
ultimus textum attigit, saeculi ferè duodecimi_, [_pro_ ος _primae manûs_]
reposuit θεος, _sed hoc tam cautè ut antiquissimam scripturam intactam
relinqueret_” (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is unequivocal enough:
_see_ facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener’s “Collation of Cod. Sin.,” and
Introd., p. xxv: also Plate iv, facsimile No. 11 c of this volume, wherein
the twelfth century θε above the line, the new accent over ΟΣ, and the
triple points to denote insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any
real doubt respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed
title-page of the published “Cod. Augiensis” (F) l. 9, and Matthaei’s
facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4)(427), it will be seen that while
there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within the circle of
omicron, the line above the circle in _both_ (_ΟΣ_) is not horizontal, but
rises a little towards the right: such a line not unfrequently in F,
oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the rough breathing: it
sometimes stands even for the _lenis_ (e.g. ἱδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4;
37; ἱσσα Phil. ii. 6). Those who never saw Cod. C must depend on
Tischendorf’s Excursus (Cod. Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile,
imitated in our Plate x. No. 24. His decision is that the primitive
reading was ΟΣ, but he was _the first to discern a cross line within_ Ο
(facsimile, l. 3, eighth letter); which, however, from the colour
(“_subnigra_”) he judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising
upwards (a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate); while
the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting a word of two
syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand. This verdict, especially
delivered by such a man, we know not how to gainsay, and merely point to
the fact that the cross line in Θ, the ninth letter further on, which is
certainly _primâ manu_, also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I
have examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet am not
quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper when he says “we hope
that no one will think it possible, either with or without a lens, to
ascertain the truth of the matter by any inspection of the Codex” (Cod.
Alex., Introd. p. xviii). On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see
for himself) with my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman
and the earlier collators that Cod. A read _ΘΣ_, and, so far as I am
shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion even of
Bp. Ellicott(428), than by the more recently discovered fact that ΟΣ
(which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson,
Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and Westcott), was read in א
as early as the fourth century.
The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers, also
powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar attention in a case
like the present. The Peshitto (ܕ) and Harkleian (text and ܗܘ in margin)
Syriac have a relative (whether ὅς or ὅ); so have the Armenian, the Roman
Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ Arabic. The Gothic supports ὅς; the Sahidic,
Bohairic, and Platt’s Ethiopic favour ὅς or ὅ: all Latin versions (even
_f_ _g_ whose Greek is _ΟΣ_) read “quod,” while θεός appears only in the
Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later copies) and the
Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the best witness for the
Received text is Ignatius, Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου (“Ephes.” 19),
both in the Greek and Old Latin, although the Syriac abbreviator seems to
have τοῦ υἱοῦ: the later interpolator expanded the clause thus: θεοῦ ὡς
ἀνθρώπου φαινομένου, καὶ ἀνθρώπου ὡς θεοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος. Hippolytus (Adv.
Not. 17: fl. 220) makes a “free reference” to it in the words Οὗτος
προελθὼν εἰς κόσμον, θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη, and elsewhere with ὁ before
προελθών. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can no longer be
upheld (Tregelles, Horne, iv. p. 339), that of Chrysostom to the same
effect is by some deemed precarious, since his manuscripts fluctuate, and
Cramer’s catena on 1 Tim. p. 31 is adverse(429). The evidence borne for
θεός by Didymus (de Trin.) and Gregory Nyssen(430) is beyond all doubt;
that of later writers, Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, Œcumenius
(as might be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary,
Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either _qui_ or _quod_: Cyril of
Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts and his
context)(431), Epiphanius (_twice_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (in
Latin)(432), and others of less weight, or whose language is less direct,
are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in support of a relative; add
to which that θεός is not quoted by Fathers (e.g. Cyprian, p. 35; Bentleii
Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many places where it might fairly be looked for;
though this argument must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated
by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by Hincmar and
Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople (A.D. 506) was
expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for corrupting Ο or ΟΣ into ΘΣ,
although lightly credited by Dr. Tregelles (An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 229) and even by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently
refuted by Bp. Pearson (On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).
On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in mind too that
ΟΣ (from which ὅ of D* is an evident corruption) is grammatically much the
_harder_ reading after μυστήριον (Canon I), and that it might easily pass
into ΘΣ, we must consider it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the
testimony of the first-rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that
the second of our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and
θεός of the more recent many yield place to ὅς of the ancient few(433).
Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were
we to concede to Dr. Hort’s unproved hypothesis that Didymus, de
Trinitate, abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not
rare with Gregory Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius
and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce θεός a
corruption.
This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably
strengthened in favour of θεός, if the above passage had been written
after, instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon’s
elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies
seventy-seven pages in his “Revision Revised” (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon
shows at length that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that
it has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it; he casts
much doubt upon the witness of C for ὅς, which Mr. Hoskier (Cod. 604,
Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not only confirms, but
actually removes in the opposite direction by claiming C as a witness for
θεός; he maintains with reason that the transverse line in F and G is the
sign of contraction; he exhibits the consentient testimony of the
cursives; he claims upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the
Harkleian that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic; and he adds to
the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus,
Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana, Theodorus Studita, Euthymius,
some scholia, the author of Περὶ θείας σαρκώσεως, and an anonymous
author,—making some fifty testimonies in all.
42. 1 TIM. vi. 7. By omitting δῆλον of the Received text, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce a Greek sentence as
inconsequential as the most thorough votaries of the “harder reading” can
wish for: “For we brought nothing into the world, because neither can we
carry anything out.” Dr. Hort sees, of course, that St. Paul could not
reason in this fashion, and says that “The text [i.e. _his_ text, without
δῆλον] is manifestly the parent of all the other readings, which are
futile attempts to smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must
lurk somewhere,”—and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that ΟΤΙ
arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable of κοσμον
(ΟΝ being read as ΟΤΙ), a guess which we observe that Dr. Westcott does
not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But why create a difficulty at all?
Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14, is now lost to us, and of the rest
δῆλον is omitted in א*AFG and its Latin version _g_ with copies of the
Vulgate referred to by Lachmann, the Bohairic (καί for ὅτι), Sahidic; the
Armenian and both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of δῆλον D*,
_m_, _fuld._, Cyprian and the Gothic have ἀληθές, and the printed Vulgate
with its codices (even _f_) and Ambrosiaster _haud dubium_, which will
suit δῆλον well enough, as will ܘܕܝܥܐ (or ܐܥܝܕܘ) (_et notum est_) of the
Syriac versions. For δῆλον itself stand א**D** (_hiat_ E) KLP, all the
cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius, Chrysostom,
Euthalius, Theodoret, and John Damascene, evidence which we should have
liked to see a little stronger.
43. PHILEM. 12. For ὃν ἀνέπεμψα; σὺ δὲ αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα,
προσλαβοῦ of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort read ὃν
ἀνέπεμψά σοι, αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, omitting προσλαβοῦ, which
they judge to have been interpolated from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp.
Lightfoot, moreover, put a full stop after σοι, so that αὐτόν is regarded
as an “accusative suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses
itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed
till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile
dislocated.” So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place he has
assigned to αὐτόν by the not very close parallels John ix. 21, 23; Eph. i.
22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us much in punctuation, but
Codd. א*A, 17 are very good witnesses for σοι in the room of σὺ δέ and for
the omission of προσλαβοῦ, a simple, although somewhat rude, construction
well worthy of attention. For σοι, with or without σὺ δέ following, we
have the additional support of C*DE, _d_ _e_ and _g_ against its own
Greek, the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as _demid.
harl._2**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c. For the
omission of προσλαβοῦ, which is of course the chief variation, besides
א*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but not in their Latin versions, 37
and others setting it before αὐτόν. It is found in all the rest,
D**E**KLP, all other cursives, and (as might have been anticipated) the
versions, as well Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37),
Gothic, and Ethiopic: _g_, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after αὐτόν.
Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles.
44. JAMES iv. 4. Μοιχοὶ καί should be omitted before μοιχαλίδες on the
testimony of א*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both
Ethiopic versions have “adulterers” (_fornicatores ff_) only, but since no
Greek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were
startled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv.
5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by
Wordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would
join μοιχαλίδες with δαπανήσητε ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed
after it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone’s edition,
although he leaves a small space before οὐκ. The full form Μοιχοὶ καὶ
μοιχαλίδες of אcKLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is
evidently a correction of early scribes.
45. JAMES iv. 5. The variation between κατῴκισεν and κατῴκησεν is plainly
to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the
true form. We find ι in אAB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to
say with Tischendorf that collators are apt to overlook such points. In
KLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, η is read,
and so the catenas, with Theophylact and Œcumenius, understand this
difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.)
thus render seems decisive in favour of η. The combination of אAB, however
strong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible; and while it must
be confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of ι and η
(though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p.
10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second
century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in
reading κατῴκισεν.
46. 1 PET. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we
saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3, Phil. ii. 1, that the
chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably
false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For σπορᾶς
φθαρτῆς Codd. אAC have φθορᾶσ φθαρτῆς, the scribe’s eye wandering in
writing σπορᾶς to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this
vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as
well he might), “dormitante scribâ:” but that the same gross error should
be found in three out of the four oldest codices, _and in no other_, is
very suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists.
47. 1 PET. iii. 15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. For
θεόν we find χριστόν (a change of considerable doctrinal importance)(434)
in אABC, 7, 8 (Stephen’s ια´), 13, 33 (_margin_), 69, 137, 182, 184 (but
not 221: _see_ p. 310, note 2), Apost. 1 (_ιν_ _χν_ ἡμῶν) with its Arabic
translation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic,
Armenian (τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ χριστόν), Erpenius’ Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement
of Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has “Jesum Christum:” the
Ethiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both
words. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text
only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this
Epistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener’s twelve, also
Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and
Œcumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real
pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with
Tregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he
says, “Thus the reading χριστόν may be relied on _confidently_” (An
Account of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege this text as
one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in
exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless
supported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however,
Acts xiii. 32.
48. 2 PET. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter
and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless
reader, and the supposition that the elder Apostle’s letter was in Jude’s
hands when he wrote his own is that which best meets the circumstances of
the case. The σπῖλοι of the present verse, for example, looks like the
origin of σπιλάδες in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a
signification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic
poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of “spots,” which all the
ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to
it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that
ἀπάταις of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because
it affords so poor a meaning in connexion with ἐντρυφῶντες and
συνευωχούμενοι, as because the later writer must have seen ἀγάπαις in his
model, when he paraphrased it by οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες
συνευωχούμενοι. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod.
A (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of
the versions, the Latin Speculum _m_ which in these later epistles is
strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the
Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the
Peshitto(435), and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these
Ephraem and the Latin author of the tract “de singularitate clericorum,”
both of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the
second hand of 66 read ἀγνοίαις; but ἀπάταις, _nescio quo sensu_(436),
still cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to
the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers ἀγάπαις with Lachmann and
Westcott and Hort’s margin. Codd. אA (in its original form) CKLP, all
other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and
Harkleian versions also have ἀπάταις, and so Theophylact and Œcumenius,
but hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf.
49. 1 JOHN ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter
clause of this verse, “_but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also_,” is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the
only instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus
denoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of
indicating their doubtful authenticity from the “Great Bible” of
1539(437). The corresponding Greek ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει
(which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton),
was first inserted in Beza’s Greek Testament in 1582(438), it is approved
by all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the _textus
receptus_, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as
versions are best capable of attesting. The “Great Bible” had no doubt
taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and
chief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in _am. fuld. demid. tol. harl._), as
also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the
Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius’ (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of
manuscripts the great uncials אABC (with P) contain the clause, the later
KL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener’s (182, 225) have it,
and another (183) _secundâ manu_: from twelve or more of them it is
absent, as also from seven of Matthaei’s: but of the other cursives it is
present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (_marg._), 68, 69, 98
are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (_thrice_),
Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger
Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or two others have ὁμολογεῖ for the
final ἔχει: the Old Latin _m_, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat τὸν υἱὸν καί
before τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated
very highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the
Elzevir editors.
50. 1 JOHN v. 7, 8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ
Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα; καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς
εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα; καὶ
οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be
maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this
result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which
helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical
studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest
importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts
employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and
other points. A critical _résumé_ of the whole discussion might be
profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch
only upon the chief heads of this great debate(439).
The two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable
variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for
one or more of Erasmus’ five editions. Ver. 7.—ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ _usque ad_ τῇ
γῇ ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—ὁ _prim. et __ secund_. Er. 3. [_non_ C. Er. 4, 5]. +
και (_post_ πατήρ) C.—τό Er. 3. πνεῦμα ἅγιον Er. 3, 4, 5.—οὗτοι C. + εισ
το (_ante_ εν) C. Ver. 8, επί της γης C.—τὸ _ter_ Er. 3, 4, 5 [_habent_ C.
Er. 1, 2].—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad_ _fin. vers._ C. They are found, including the
clause from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ in no more than three Greek
manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus,
Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the
margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real
witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history
was described above, p. 187(440)); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and,
for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing
these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that
they present the following variations: ver. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (_pro_ ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ) 162.—ὁ _prim. et secund._ 34, 162.—τό 34, 162. _πνα_ ἅγιον 34,
162.—οὗτοι 162. + εἰς τό (_ante_ ἕν) 162. Ver. 8. εἰσί 73 _marg._ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς 162.—τό _ter_ 34.—καί (_post_ _πνα_) 34, 162.—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς _ad fin._
_vers_. 34, 162, _fin_. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found
to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only
differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικόν), though on the
whole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in
ver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause
was interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very
ill acquainted with Greek.
The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials
(אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above(441): the cursives
that omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W.
Grafton, Dean Alford’s secretary (N. T. _ad. loc._), to amount to 188 in
all (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty
Lectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we
consult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the
Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee’s): the Harkleian, Sahidic,
Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any
Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the
margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The
Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are
much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman’s
Speculum _m_ and _r_ of the earlier translation; it is found in the
printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its
manuscripts, but not in the best, such as _am. fuld. harl._3; nor in
Alcuin’s reputed copies at Rome (_primâ manu_) and London (Brit. Mus. Add.
10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the
most ancient which contain it, _cav._, ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears
also in _m. tol. demid._ and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, _Wizanburg._ 99
[viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written “_audiat hoc
Arius et ceteri_,” as if its authenticity was unquestioned(442). In
general there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious
circumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words
stand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (_et hi tres unum
sunt_), especially, is frequently left out when the “Heavenly Witnesses”
are retained. It is to defend _this_ omission by the opinion of Thomas
Aquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the
Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only
one in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but
came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.
The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to
establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more
consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited
it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or
though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and
after it(443): [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy
Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to
refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius
(Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary,
Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome(444), and Augustine, with others of less note. On
the other hand the _African_ writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of
the fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places,
expressly appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion of
St. John’s Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of
Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a
confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460
bishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals
[or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period
the clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time
generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.
But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the
evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those
hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these
writers cited or alluded to the passage, it would result—_not by any means
that it is authentic_—but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like
interpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the
second or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian (which
will be found in Tischendorf’s and the other critical editions of the N.
T.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye’s
view is the most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to 1
John v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the
verse” (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus
dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf
(who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) “_gravissimus est_
Cyprianus _de eccles. unitate_ 5.” His words run, “Dicit dominus, _Ego et
pater unum sumus_ (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu
Sancto scriptum est, _Et tres unum sunt_.” And yet further, in his Epistle
to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos
potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum
remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est,
quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si
Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si
Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus
esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two
passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the
stronger(445)), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian
read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus
[vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual
meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7
obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin
copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical
interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22),
who only knew of ver. 8.
Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with
Erasmus, with reference to this very passage, “Sciendum est, Graecorum
codices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] verò ipsam veritatem
continere,” virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition
from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we
must call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but were
somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a
printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two
editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before
mentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there
can be little or no doubt of the identity of his “Codex Britannicus” with
Montfort’s(446). We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought
into its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save
a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly
trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was
questioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with
his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap.
xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person “of some
talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was
with a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at
any rate—_impar congressus Achilli_—no match at all for the exact
learning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson(447). The
“Letters” of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches
of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone,
while yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871],
clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of
battle had been lost beyond recovery(448).
On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction
that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were
originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they
had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the
Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the
printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will
close this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of
Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes,
et argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam
γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et
argumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique
criterium, et _textus Novi Testamenti universus planè incertus esset atque
dubius_” (N. T., _ad locum_, vol. ii. p. 709).
51. 1 JOHN v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have
the perfect γεγεννημένος of continued effects and the aorist γεννηθείς of
completed action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same
Epistle the man begotten of God is invariably γεγεννημένος (ch. ii. 29;
iii. 9 _bis_; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). Hence the special importance of the various
reading αὐτόν for ἑαυτόν after τηρεῖ, since, if this were to be accepted,
ὁ γεννηθείς could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the
human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12(449).
In behalf of αὐτόν we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by
Matthaei), and the Vulgate (_conservat eum_), the testimony of A, always
so powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that
it is corrected into ἑαυτόν by the original [?] scribe(450), who in
copying had faithfully followed his _exemplar_, and on second thoughts
supposed he had gone wrong. _All_ other authorities, including copies,
versions, and Fathers, א and the rest (C being lost here), have ἑαυτόν,
the Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times,
Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and
Œcumenius(451)]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class
Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first
sight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be
confessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the
two tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in
Scripture or ecclesiastical writers of ὁ γεννηθείς being used absolutely
for the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat
countenanced by that between ὁ ἁγιάζων and οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι in Heb. ii. 11.
[So that Dr. Scrivener’s view demands considerable sacrifice for its
acceptance.]
52. JUDE 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it
is hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would
be. Instead of ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, the article is omitted
by אAB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place;
while for _ΚΣ_ of א (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the
Harkleian, we find _ΙΣ_ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (_secundâ manu_), the
Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian
Syriac has yet another variation, ὁ Θεός, in support of which we have the
important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian
(with _ισ_ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria,
and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has _κσ_ _ισ_, but his Latin translation
_ισ_, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that
Joshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel
out of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect
that He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a
similar variation between _χν_, _κν_, and _θν_ in the parallel passage 1
Cor. x. 9.
Lachmann alone reads Ἰησοῦς here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his
margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if
they received it, but, while setting Κύριος in the text and Ἰησοῦς in the
margin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to
believe that the original words were ὁ ... σώσας, without either of the
nouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be
from ΟΤΙΟ to ΟΤΙΣ (one Ι being dropped) in the simple uncials of early
times.
Fifth Series. Apocalypse.
53. APOC. xiii. 10. Εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει.
This reading of the Received text is perfectly clear; indeed, when
compared with what is found in the best manuscripts, it is too simple to
be true (Canon I, Chap. VIII). We read in Codd. אBC: ει (C) τις εις
αιχμαλωσιαν ὑπαγει (ὑπάγῃ B), the reading also of those excellent cursives
28, 38, 79, 95, and of a manuscript of Andreas: εἰς is further omitted in
14 (_sic_), and in 92 its echo, in 32, 47, the Bohairic (?), Arabic
(Polyglott), and a Slavonic manuscript: and so Tregelles in 1872. The
sense of this reading, if admissible at all, is very harsh and elliptical;
that of the only remaining uncial A, though apparently unsupported except
by a Slavonic manuscript and the best copies of the Vulgate (_am. fuld._
and another known to Lachmann), looks more probable: εἴ τις εἰς
αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει: “if any one _is_ for captivity, into
captivity he goeth” (Tregelles, Kelly: the latter compares Jer. xv. 2,
LXX): the second εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν being omitted by Homoeoteleuton in the
above-mentioned codices. Tregelles (in 1844), Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Kelly, Westcott and Hort follow Cod. A, and it would seem rightly.
All other variations were devised for the purpose of supplying the
ellipsis left in the uncials. For συνάγει of the common text (now that it
is known not to be found in C) no Greek authority is expressly cited
except Reuchlin’s Cod. 1, after Andreas (whence it came into the text of
Erasmus) and the _recent_ margin of 94. The favourite form of the cursives
is that printed in the Complutensian Polyglott: εἴ τις ἔχει αἰχμαλωσίαν,
ὑπάγει, after P, 2, 6, 8, 13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49,
50, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94*, 96, 97, 98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic
manuscript, Andreas in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Latin version
printed with the Peshitto Syriac, and Primasius in substance, read “Qui in
captivitatem duxerit, in captivitatem vadet,” but (as we stated above)
_am. fuld._ (not _demid._) and the best codices omit “duxerit” and have
“vadit” (Syr. ܡܘܒܥ ... ܐܙܥ or ܥܙܐ ... ܥܒܘܡ), _which brings the clause into
accordance with Cod. A._ The Greek corresponding with the _printed_
Vulgate is εἴ τις εἰς (33 omits εἰς) αἰχμαλωσίαν (ὑπάγει 87), εἰς (ἐς 87)
αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression (e.g. εἴ τις
αἰχμαλωτίζει εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 7; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτιεῖ,
αἰχμαλωτισθήσεται, 18; εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτησεῖ, εἰς αἰχ. ὑπ. 36, &c.) resemble
those already given, in their attempt to enlarge and soften what was
originally abrupt and perhaps obscure.
We submit the two following as a pair of readings which, originating in
the pure error of transcribers, have been adopted by eminent critics in
their unreasonable and almost unreasoning admiration for Bengel’s canon,
“Proclivi orationi praestat ardua.”
54. APOC. xv. 6. In the transparently clear clause ἐνδεδυμένοι λίνον
καθαρόν Lachmann, Tregelles in his text, Westcott and Hort, present the
variation λίθον for λίνον “arrayed with stone,” i.e. precious stone, for
which καθαρόν “clean” would be no appropriate epithet. Dr. Hort (Notes, p.
139) justifies what he rightly calls “the bold image expressed by this
well-attested reading” by Ezek. xxviii. 13 πάντα λίθον χρηστὸν ἐνδέδεσαι
(or ἐνδέδυσαι), σάρδιον καὶ τοπάζιον κ.τ.λ., but that was said of a king
of Tyre, not of the angelic host. The manifestly false λίθον is only too
“well-attested” for the reputation of its advocate, AC, 38 in the margin,
48, 90, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (_am. fuld. demid. tol.
lips._4.5.6, &c.), though not the printed editions. Andreas knew of the
variation without adopting it: Haymo and Bede also mention both readings.
Cod. א reads καθαροὺς λίνους with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep
Tischendorf right: Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For λίνον or
λινοῦν or λην- we have all the other manuscripts and other authorities,
including BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95, Primasius. Between the two
forms with ν we should probably choose λινοῦν of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97,
as λίνον seems to belong to the raw material in a rough state. The later
Syriac has ܒܬܢܐ (or ܐܢܬܒ) (χιτῶνα), which admits of no ambiguity.
55. APOC. xviii. 3. For πέπωκε of the Received text, or πέπωκαν of
Lachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin has πεπτώκασιν),
Westcott and Hort in their text (not margin) have πέπτωκαν. Dr. Hort has
no note on this place, but treats it in his index of “Quotations from the
Old Testament” as a reference to Isa. li. 17, 22 (ἡ πιοῦσα τὸ ποτήριον τῆς
πτώσεως) and to Jer. xxv. 27 (πίετε καὶ μεθύσθητε ... καὶ πεσεῖσθε), with
the notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to complete the
parallel is some passage in the Septuagint wherein πέπτωκαν stands alone,
whether τοῦ οἴνου be in the text or not, and, in the absence of such
parallel, πέπτωκαν must be regarded as incredible on any evidence. Yet
πέπτωκαν or the virtually identical πεπτώκασιν is found in אAC, in B, 7,
8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91, 92, 94, 95 (πέπτωσι _primâ manu_), the Bohairic and
Ethiopic. The alternative reading πέπωκαν or πεπώκασιν (πέπωκε 96) occurs
in P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93, 97,
98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are divided in a
case where the omission of a single letter produces so great a change in
the sense.
56. APOC. xxi. 6. Καὶ εἶπε μοι, Γέγονε. ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω. Here the
true reading Γέγοναν “They are done” (adopted, with or without εἰμι after
ἐγώ, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the
“Speaker’s Commentary,” Westcott and Hort) is preserved by Cod. A, whose
excellency is very conspicuous in the Apocalypse: its compeer C is
defective here. The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it (γεγόνασιν), as did
אc, but the whole word was afterwards erased: the interpreter of Irenaeus
renders _facta sunt_, and this is all the support A has. The first hand of
א with BP, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 47, 48, 79, 87,
89, 91, 92 (_hiat_ 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian, Origen (_quod
mireris_), Andreas, Arethas, with the Complutensian, read γέγονα, most of
them omitting either the ἐγώ or the ἐγώ εἰμι which follows. Erasmus was
too good a scholar to adopt from Apoc. 1 a meaning for γίγνομαι which it
cannot possibly bear, and seems to have got his own reading Γέγονε (though
he recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate _factum
est_, which is confirmed by Primasius: it probably has no Greek authority
whatsoever. The Syriac printed with the Peshitto (commonly assigned to the
sixth century) appears, like the hand which followed אc, to omit γέγονα,
as do the Bohairic and Ethiopic versions, with _lux._ of the Vulgate.
Those which read γέγονα yet retain the following ἐγώ (אBP, 7 and some
others) obviously differ from the true reading γέγοναν by the single
stroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to represent
_nu_, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid the monstrous
rendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97, 98, “I have _become_
alpha and omega, the first and the last.” P accordingly puts the proper
stop after γέγονα.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us better
instructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find grace to grow, in
like measure, in that knowledge which tendeth to salvation, through faith
in His mercy by Christ Jesus.
APPENDIX A. ON SYRIAC LECTIONARIES.
A very interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collections
of Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the number of
them is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five may be found
in the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203).
Syriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek
Use, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or
_Malkite_ Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They
are only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical
rather than critical(452).
The true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as to
their main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described in
our first volume, coming under two main classes, Evangelistaries and
Apostolos(453). But they present one important contrast. In both families
of Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not, as
in Greek Lectionaries, with Easter; and in general the arrangement is
similar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably
greater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite
copies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the
ancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some
contain a Menology. In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals
form a separate volume.
The majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late, but
others possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would be
considered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485 and 14,486,
are each dated A. GR. 1135 = A.D. 824. Others must be referred to the same
century. Add. 14,528, foll. 152-228 (an Index), and the leaf in Add.
17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another sixth century MS.,
Add. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many Rubrics, a pr. m. in the
text, besides those in the margins by later hands, such as occur in MSS.
of all ages. When to these facts we add the consideration already
mentioned, that the same system was in use in both branches of the Syrian
Church, we see the importance of the testimony of works of this class.
They are very ancient ecclesiastical records from the unchangeable East.
Like Greek Lectionaries, they are difficult to use, because of their
arrangement of Lessons in the succession ordered by the calendar: they are
of course public documents, and in consequence possess an importance above
that of copies which were in many cases the property of private persons,
and may have been carelessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be
right to claim for copies of a version a position quite as important as
that held by the Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as
well as of quotations in ancient writers, is only subsidiary.
Nevertheless, in the fact that the number of ancient Greek copies of the
New Testament is relatively small as compared with the early copies of the
Peshitto version, we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries,
though they are of less value for the Syriac, on account of the large
number of very ancient and well-written copies which have come down to us,
such as those which have been enumerated in our account of the materials
for ascertaining the text of the Peshitto.
APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCRIPTS IN EGYPT (1893).
Cairo 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., _chart._, ff. 290, 27 ×
18·6 (23), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann., Copt., restored
under patronage of Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives
date 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the
eastern desert; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12
and 14.
Ancient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25,
continues to St. Luke x. 2.
begins St. Luke x. 27,
continues to St. Luke xxii. 52.
begins St. Luke xxii. 66,
continues to St. Luke xxiv. 53.
begins St. John i. 31,
continues to St. John xix. 24.
Cairo 2 [1291], fol., _chart._, ff. 409, 26·9 × 18 (24, 25), κεφ., Copt.
Gr., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann.
Copt. Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhmîm, monk
of monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th
Patriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Barsuma, called Al
Shahrân, 1329; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered 12
and 14. Quires numbered in Syriac. Same text as Paris 15.
Cairo 3 [xviii], fol., _chart._, ff. 342, 22·8 × 13 (29), _Carp._ and
_Eus. t._ at end of St. Mark, _proll._, κεφ. _t._, κεφ., Copt. Gr., _Am._,
_Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, who gives
his name in the duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles
and Acts below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text
same as Curzon 126.
Cairo 4 [1327], fol., _chart._, ff. 395, 27·5 × 17·8 (27), κεφ., Copt.,
_Am._, _Eus._, _pict._ Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the
Church of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of St.
Matt. is same as Brit. Mus. 3381.
Cairo 5 [1257], fol., _chart._, ff. 382, 26·4 × 19 (25), _prol._ St. Luke,
Capp. Copt. _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. Arab. _Mut._ St.
Matt. i-iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21; a few leaves restored.
Written by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn ´Assâl;
now in the Church of Al Moallaqah in old Cairo. Text similar to manuscript
of Göttingen.
Cairo 6 [1272], fol., _chart._, ff. 328, 24·9 × 17 and 25·7 × 18. Epilogue
to St. Matt. Κεφ., Copt., _Am._, _Eus._, _pict._, _mut._ Evann. Copt. St.
Matt. by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original
scribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt. similar to Bodl. vii. In the
Patriarchal Library in Cairo.
Cairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij.
Text unimportant.
Besides several which are too late to have any critical importance.
APOCALYPSE.
1. [xix], folio.
ALEXANDRIA 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer.
Evann.
2. [xix], SS. Matt. and Mark.
3. [1861], St. John, Copt.
DAYR AL MOHARRAQ, nr. Manfalût on the Nile (station and telegraph Nasâli
Gânûb).
1. [1345], fol., _chart._, 22·5 × 14·2 (27), _Carp._ at end. _Mut._, but
fairly perfect, _pict._, and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann.
Copt. Arab.
ST. PAUL, CATH., ACTS.
1. [xii?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., _chart._, ff.
432, 25·6 × 18·2 (24), κεφ., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., _pict._, Copt.:
restored Rom. and 1 Cor. i-xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic.
2. [xiv], fol., _chart._, 26 × 18·5 (25), κεφ., Copt. Gr., _pict._
Philemon, Hebr., Copt.
INDEX I. TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED IN THIS TREATISE.
(Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume. _n_
indicates _note_.)
ST. MATTHEW.
i. 18 II. 321-3
iv. 18 12
v. 11 II. 298
22 8; II. 255, 281
vi. 1 13
8 II. 302
13 9; II. 279, 323-5
22 II. 302
vii. 2 13
14 16
28 13
viii. 5 12
28 17
ix. 17 12
29 13
36 13
x. 23 9
xi. 16 11
19 II. 325-6
xiii. 15 11
40 13
xiv. 22 12
xv. 5 11, 14
8 13
xvi. 2, 3 II. 326-7
21 II. 302
xvii. 20 II. 255 _n_
xix. 17 17; II. 281, 327-9
xx. 28 8; II. 330-1
xxi. 23 14
28 31; II. 331-6
xxii. 37 13
xxiii. 14-16 9
35 17
xxiv. 15 12
36 II. 269 _n_
xxv. 16 13
xxvi. 39 16
xxvii. 4 13
9 17
28 II. 234, 302
35 12
49 II. 303
60 16
xxviii. 19 II. 303
ST. MARK.
i. 2 17
21 II. 315
ii. 17 12
27 II. 299
iii. 3 11
14, 16 II. 303
iv. 19 11
v. 14 10
40 II. 318
vi. 2 II. 303
22 II. 303
vii. 2 13, 14
19 11; II. 336-7
ix. 1 II. 303
x. 30 11
xiii. 14 12
32 17
33 II. 303
xiv. 4 II. 318
35 16
xv. 28 12
xvi. 9-20 7; II. 269, 337-44
ST. LUKE.
ii. 14 II. 344-9
15 14
22 17
iv. 18 13
iv. 44 II. 304
v. 32 12
38 12
vi. 1 17
4 8
48 II. 304
vii. 31 12
viii. 40 II. 304
ix. 49 10
x. 1 II. 304
22 12
30 14
41, 42 II. 349-50
xi. 4 II. 279-81
36 9
xii. 54 15
xiv. 5 II. 305
xv. 21 II. 305
xvi. 12 11; II. 305
20 10
xvii. 36 9
xviii. 39 9
xxi. 24 II. 306, 319
xxii. 37 12
43, 44 9; II. 269, 353-6
49 II. 319
xxiii. 32 II. 306
34 II. 356-8
xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 42, 51 II. 299 _n_
ST. JOHN.
i. 18 17; II. 358-60
28 17
44 12
ii. 3 II. 306
iii. 13 II. 360-1
iv. 1 II. 306
v. 3, 4. 9, 19; II. 361-3.
35. 10
vii. 8. 17; II. 363-4
39. II. 306
53-viii. 11. vii, 19; II. 364-8
viii. 44. II. 318
ix. 4. II. 307
x. 22. II. 307
xiii. 25, 26. 19
xviii. 5. II. 307
xix. 6-35. 12
14. 17
ACTS.
iii. 6. 11
iv. 25. II. 307
v. 2. II. 318
vii. 37. 13
46. II. 308
viii. 7. 13
37. 8; II. 368-70
ix. 5, 6 (xxvi. 14, 15). 12
12. 9
x. 19. II. 308
xi. 19-27; xiii. 1. 312
20. II. 370-1
xii. 25. II. 308
xiii. 18. II. 371-2
32. II. 372-3
33. 13
xiv. 8. 14
24. 13
xv. 17, 18. II. 299
34. II. 373-4
xvi. 3. 14
7. 17; II. 374
xvii. 28. 11; II. 309
xviii. 26; xix. 4, 15, 8, 34. 14
xx. 4, 15. 19
10. II. 309
24. II. 299
28. 17; II. 374-7
30. II. 309
xxiv. 6-8. 19
xxv. 13. II. 309
xxvii. 1. II. 318
5. II. 298 _n_
16. II. 377
37. II. 378-9
xxviii. 13. II. 309
xxviii. 16. II. 298 _n_
ROMANS.
v. 1. 17; II. 379-81
22. II. 310
viii. 20. II. 319
24. II. 311 _n_
xii. 11. 15
xv. 31. II. 310
1 CORINTHIANS.
vii. 29. 118 _n_
xi. 24. II. 381-2
29. 8
xii. 20. 14
xiii. 3. II. 382-4
5. II. 310
xv. 49. 17
51. 17; II. 384-6
2 CORINTHIANS.
iii. 10. 10
iv. 12. 14
viii. 4. 13
xii. 1. 11
xiii. 2. 13
3. 11
GALATIANS.
iii. 1. 9; II. 311
v. 7. 9
EPHESIANS.
v. 14. II. 386-7
PHILIPPIANS.
i. 30. 11
ii. 1. II. 387-9
COLOSSIANS.
iii. 6. II. 311 _n_
iv. 15. II. 310
1 THESSALONIANS.
ii. 7. II. 389-90
19. 12
iii. 13. 12
v. 4. II. 310
2 THESSALONIANS.
i. 8, 12. 12
1 TIMOTHY.
ii. 6. 17
iii. 16. 15; II. 390-5
vi. 7. 13; II. 395-6
2 TIMOTHY.
iv. 5. 12
15. 13
PHILEMON.
12 (17). 13; II. 396
HEBREWS.
ii. 7. 13
vi. 16. 14
vii. 1. II. 310
xii. 20. 13
JAMES.
i. 17. II. 310
iv. 4. II. 397
5. II. 397
1 PETER.
i. 3, 12. 11
23. II. 397-8
ii. 3. 11
21. 11
iii. 1. 11
18. 11
20. 10
21. 11
iv. 5. II. 311
v. 10. 11
13. II. 398-400
1 JOHN.
ii. 23. 9; II. 400-1
iii. 21. II. 311 _n_
v. 7, 8. 8; II. 401-7
18. II. 407-8
JUDE.
4. 17
5. II. 409
APOCALYPSE.
ii. 20. 14
iii. 16. 9
xiii. 10. II. 409-10
xv. 6. II. 410-1
xvi. 7. 17
10. 10
xviii. 3. II. 411
xxi. 6. II. 412
INDEX II. OF SUBJECTS.
(N.B.—For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For
separate Fathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS.,
Vol. I. Index I. _n_ indicates _note_.)
א, _see_ Sinaitic.
Abbot, Ezra, II. 236 _n_, 343 _n_ 1, 360 _n_.
Abbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; II. 46, 50.
Abbott’s group, _see_ Ferrar.
Abbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49-51, 92, 144, &c.
Accents employed in manuscripts, &c., 45-8, 100.
Accretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374.
Acts and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.), 63-5, 78.
Acus employed by scribes, 27, 129.
Adamantius, _see_ Origen.
Adler, J. G. C., II. 30, 222, &c. &c.
African form of Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.
Alcuin’s Latin manuscripts, II. 59.
Aldus, N. T., II. 187-8.
Alexander II of Russia, 32, 91.
Alexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history, 97-98;
description, 98-101; age, 103;
written by one hand or more, 101;
collations and editions, 103-4;
character, 104-105, and _passim_.
Alexandrianisms, 141; II. 224-6, 312, 316-8.
Alford, B. H., 147.
Alford, H., Dean, 12 _n_, 114 and _n_; II. 252 _n_ 4, 346, 351, and
frequently.
ἀλλά, when to be edited, 14 _n_.
Alphabet, Gothic, invented, II. 146.
Alphabet, so Armenian, II. 150.
Alter, F. K., N. T. and manuscripts, II. 220, &c.
Amanuensis, influence of, II. 319 _n_ 1.
Amélineau, M., II. 133-4.
Amelli, Guer., II. 48.
Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (_am_.), II. 71.
Ammonian Oasis and dialect, II. 101.
Ammonian sections, 59-63;
without Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and _passim_.
Ἀναγνώσεις, 189, 64.
Ἀναγνώσματα, 189, 68-9, 75 _n_ 1, 139, &c. &c.
Ἀναστασιμὰ εὐαγγέλια, 85, Evst. 30, 240; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II.
341.
Ancient authorities, II. 276-8;
often divided, _ibid_.;
_see_ also 240, 359, 300-1.
Andreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and summaries of the Apocalypse, 64,
67, Evann. 18, &c.
Andreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &c.
Angelus Vergecius, 44 _n_ 1.
Anglo-Saxon version, _see_ Versions.
Antiochene, (supposed) revision of text, II. 287-8.
Antony, St., II. 98-9.
Aphraates, II. 20-21, &c.
Apocalypse (Apoc.), 78,
character of text, 14;
wanting in Peshitto, 8;
in Bohairic, II. 123;
in Sahidic, II. 137.
Apocrypha, II. 177.
Apocryphal insertions, 8; II. 271 _n_. _See_ Western Interpolations.
Ἀποστολοευαγγέλια, 74.
Apostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74-5.
Apostrophus, 49, 138, 175; II. 270 _n_.
Aquila, II. 272.
Arabic versions, II. 161-4; in other MSS., Evan. 211, 240 _n_, Act. 96,
Evst. 6, 328; II. 113-23.
Aramaean, II. 2, 28, 312-3, 320 _n_.
Arethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67.
Argenteus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.
Aristophanes of Byzantium, 46.
Ἀρχή and τέλος, 76.
Armagh, book of (_arm._), II. 74.
Armenian version, _see_ Versions.
Armfield, H. T., II. 401 _n_.
Article, Coptic, II. 124.
Article, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15.
Ascetic temper alleged to be traced in manuscripts, II. 252 _n_ 4, 255,
349.
Asiatic family of text, II. 212.
Asper, value of, 239 _n_.
Assemani, J. S., II. 27, 34.
Assemani, S. E., II. 30.
Assembly of Divines, 103 _n_ 1.
Asterisks, 133; II. 37, 354, 361, 365.
Athanasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102.
Athos, Mount, Evann. 905, &c., _passim_.
Augustine, Bp., II. 42-3, 4 n, and _passim_.
Aureus, Cod., II. 51.
Autographs of the N. T., 2; II. 257-9, 262-3.
Available evidence to be used in full, II. 275, &c., 300-1.
Β and Υ confounded, 43 _n_ 2.
Baber, H. H., 104.
Babington, Churchill, papyri, 22.
Balance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2.
Barbarous readings inadmissible, II. 319 _n_ 1.
Barnabas, St., Epistle of, 96;
his apocryphal ἀποδημία, Evan. 239.
Barrett, John, 153-4.
Barsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 _n_, 31.
Bashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100;
really Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, 103.
_See_ Versions.
Batiffol, P., 166; II. 51.
Bebb, Rev. Ll. J. M., II. 3 _n_ 1, 145, 158-61, 168 _n_ 1.
Bede, the Venerable, II. 369.
Belsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48, 51, 52.
Bengel, II. 210-13;
his paragraphs (περικοπαί), 211, I. 271;
families, II. 211-2;
character, 212;
Canon, 247, and _passim_.
Bensly, R. S., Prof., II. 46.
Bentley, Richard, II. 204-9;
his career, 204-5;
projected edition of N. T., 205-6;
his papers and MSS., 206-9;
causes of failure, 209; I. 110, 285; II. 65-6, 89, 245 _n_ 1, and
_passim_.
Bentley, Thomas, 110, 177; II. 207.
Berger, M. Sam., II. 66 _n_, 46.
Bernard, Edward, II. 200.
Berriman, J., II. 392 _n_.
Bessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105.
Beza, Theod., his N. T., II. 192-3.
Bezae, Cod. (D), 124-30;
same as Stephen’s β´, 124 _n_ 3;
history, 124-5;
collations and editions, 126-7, 130;
character, 130.
Bianchini, Jos., _see_ Index of Facsimiles, Vol. I.
Bible, English, margin of Authorized, II. 371-2.
Bible, Great, II. 400.
Bible, Hebrew, first printed, II. 175.
Bible, Latin, first printed, II. 61, 175.
Bilingual MSS., _see_ Cod. Bezae (D), Evan. Δ, Act. E, Paul. D, Paul. F,
Paul. G.
Binding, manuscripts used for, 91, 151, 159, 171, 183.
Birch, Andr., II. 220-2; 110-111, &c.
Birks, T. R., Canon, II. 282 _n_ 2.
Blakesley, J. W., Dean, II. 351, 352.
Bloomfield, S. T., _see_ Index II, Vol. I.
Bobbio, II. 146.
Bodleian Euclid, 42.
Boetticher, P. (Lagarde), II. 109, 283 _n_.
Böttiger, 180.
Bohairic or Memphitic dialect, _see_ Versions (Coptic).
Bosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.
Bowyer, W., II. 245 _n_.
Bradshaw, H., 151, 189 _n_.
Breathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100, &c.
Breves, _see_ τίτλοι.
Bright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5.
Broadus, J. A., II. 342.
Brown, D., II. 329 _n_.
Bruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129.
Brugsch, 91 _n_; II. 97.
Burgess, Bp., II. 407.
Burgon, J. W., Dean, his enlargement of the study, 78-9;
his letters to the _Guardian_, 189 _n_; II. 338;
use of quotations from the Fathers, II. 167-71;
his great book on “The Revision Revised,” 167;
also I. 120 _n_ 2, 240-1 (his enlargement of the list in ed. 3), 251,
252, 255, 256; II. 282 _n_ 1, 301, 327, 341, 343 _n_ 2, 345,
357 _n_ 2, 363 _n_ 1, 368 _n_ 3, 395, and _passim_.
Buttmann, Phil., II. 231-3.
Byzantine revision of text(?), II. 224, 229.
Caesarea, library of, II. 266-9.
Calendar, Greek, 80-9.
Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament, 19.
Canonici, M. L., library of, 246.
Canons of Comparative Criticism, _see_ Comparative Criticism.
Canons of Internal Evidence, _see_ Internal Evidence.
Capernaum, its orthography, II. 315.
Capitals, 29, 51-2, and _passim_, and _description of plates_.
Caro, Hugo de S., Cardinal, 69.
Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.
Carpianus, Epistle to, &c., 60-3, 189, and _passim_.
Carshunic characters, II. 30.
Casley, II. 65, 89.
Catena, 67, and _passim_.
Ceriani, Ant., I. 120 _n_ 3; II. 50, 52, &c.
Chapters, _see_ Sections.
Chapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68.
Charles the Great, Emperor, II. 59.
Christian VII of Denmark, II. 220.
Church, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ, II. 252, 296 _n_ 1.
Church Lessons, _see_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.
Cilicisms, II. 317.
Citation of O. T., marks of, 64 _n_, &c.
Classes, six, of manuscripts, 77-8.
Clement of Alexandria, II. 262-3.
Clement of Rome, Epistles, 99.
Clement VIII, his Vulgate, II. 64-5.
Cobet, C. G., 113 _n_ 2; II. 253 _n_, 263 _n_ 1.
Codex Britannicus, Evan. 61.
Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c., 90.
Codices, 28.
Coislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H.
Coislin, his Octateuch, Evan. Fa.
Colbert, Pentateuch, &c., LXX (Paris), same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which
_see_.
Coleridge, S. T., II. 258 _n_ 3.
Colinaeus, S., his N. T.; II. 188.
Columns in manuscripts, 28, and _passim_.
Comes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.
Commentary (ἑρμήνεια),
(a) of Andreas or Arethas, 67, 64,
(b) Chrysostom, 242, &c.,
(c) Theophylact, 242, &c.
Comparative Criticism, II. 274-301;
its nature, 274-5;
completeness of comparison essential, 275-6;
cannot be confined to a few authorities, 276-8;
even to the oldest, 278-81;
B and א not infallible, 281-4;
Westcott and Hort’s theory unsound, 284-97,
being on explanation (285-90),
destitute of historical foundation (290-2),
of critical groundwork (292-3),
of Ante-Nicene authority (293-5)
of internal probability (295-6),
and of confirmation when applied to passages (302-11);
true view, 297-301.
Complete copies of N. T., 72.
Complutensian Polyglott, II. 176-181;
deviser of, 176;
character, 177-8;
MSS. used for, 178-180;
text, 180-181, and _passim_.
Conflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3.
Confusion of certain vowels and diphthongs, 10.
Confusion of uncial letters, 10.
Conjectural emendation inadmissible, II. 244-7.
Constantine, Emperor, 118 _n_ 2.
Contents of MSS., 71-72.
Conybeare, F. C., II. 145, 148-54, 156-8.
Cook, F. C., Canon, II. 283 _n_, 325 _n_, 356.
Coptic (or Egyptian) language, its dialects and versions, II. 91-144.
_See_ Versions.
Copying, mistakes in, 10; additions in, 13.
Corrector (διορθωτής), 54-5.
Correctoria, II. 60.
Correctorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81.
Corruptions of text in second century, II. 259-65.
Corssen, Dr., 182; II. 51, 66.
Cotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40.
Cotton paper (bombycina), 23.
Courcelles, Stephen, II. 198.
Cowper, B. H., 104; II. 391.
Coxe, H. O., 240, 297 _n_, 324 _n_, &c.
Cozza-Luzi, Joseph, 116-19.
Cramer, J. A., II. 128.
Cranbrook, Earl of, II. 171.
Crawford, Earl of, his Library, II. 114, 121, 132.
Critical editions, 196-243.
Critical revision a source of various readings, 16-17.
Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton, T., Bp.), II. 401 _n_, 403 _n_.
Crowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c.
Crum, W. E., II. 143-4.
Cureton, W., Canon, 8. _See_ Versions.
Curetonian, _see_ Versions.
Cureton’s Homer, 44.
Cursive letters, described, 29, 30;
earliest cursive biblical MS., 41 _n_ 1;
earlier MSS. still, 42.
Cursive manuscripts, their critical value, II. 277, 297-301.
Curzon, Hon. R. (Lord de la Zouche), and his Parham MSS., 240, 252; II.
114-5; 119, 122.
Cyril Lucar, _see_ Lucar.
Damasus, Pope, II. 56-7.
Dated manuscripts, 41-2. _See_ Indiction.
Davidson, S., II. 292.
Deane, Rev. H., II. 6, 29.
De Dieu, L., II. 10.
Delitzsch, F., II. 180 _n_ 1, 184 _n_ 1.
Demotic writing, II. 92, 97.
Designed alterations alleged in text, 17; II. 259, 327, 363.
Dialectic forms, II. 312-20;
grounded on the Hellenistic dialect, 312-3;
effect of Hebrew Aramaic, 313;
ν ἐφελκυστικόν, 314-5;
harsher forms in older
MSS., 315-6;
variations in grammatical forms, 316-8;
other dialectic forms, 318-20; I. 14.
Dickinson, John, 126.
Dictation, 10; II. 319 _n_.
Dio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 _n_ 2.
Diocletian’s persecution, II. 266, 104 _n_ 1.
Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, II. 259.
Dioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164.
Divisions of N. T., _see_ Sections.
Divisions, Slavonic, II. 158. _See_ Versions.
Dobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61.
Doctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327, 407.
Donaldson, J. W., II. 210 _n_ 3, 314, 315 _n_.
Dorisms in N. T., II. 310, 318.
Duchesne, Prof., 166.
Ecclesiastical writers, _see_ Fathers.
Eclogadion, 77;
list throughout the year, 77, 80-7. _See_ Synaxarion.
“Edinburgh Review” (Tregelles in), II. 210 _n_ 1.
Egyptian versions of N. T., _see_ Versions.
Ellicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392.
Ellis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), II. 206, 207, 209.
Elzevir editions of N. T., II. 193-5.
Embolismus, II. 325 _n_ 2.
Emendation and recension distinguished, II. 245-6.
Engelbreth, W. F. (Bashmuric), II. 131.
Ephraem Syrus, II. 20-1.
Ephraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24;
palimpsest, 121;
history, 121-2;
described, 122-4.
Epiphanius, Bp., II. 270.
Erasmus, Desid., II. 182-7;
first editions of Gr. Test., 182-5;
other editions, 185;
their character, 185-7, &c. &c.
Erizzo, F. M., Count, II. 31.
Ernesti, J. A., II. 216.
Erpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3.
Estrangelo character, II. 9, 14, 37.
Ethiopic version, _see_ Versions.
Euchology, 75, 80.
Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.
Eumenes, king of Pergamus, 24.
Eusebius, 120 n; II. 266-7, &c.;
letter to Carpianus, 60-3, 189.
“Eusebian” canons, 59-63; 189, and _passim._
“Eusebian” canons, tables of, omitted in many MSS., 62.
Eustathius of Antioch, 53.
Euthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and _passim_. _See_ Sections.
Evangelia (Evan.), 78.
Evangelistaria (Evst.), the term used in modern Greek catalogues; II,
74-5, 327, &c.
Fabiani, H., Canon, 118.
Facsimiles of MSS., 104.
Families of MSS., Bengel’s theory, II. 211-12;
Griesbach’s, 224-6;
Hug’s theory of recensions, II. 270-2;
Scholz’ theory, 229-30.
Fathers, value of citations from, II. 167-71;
drawbacks, 168;
list of, with dates, 171-4.
Fayoumic version, II. 140. _See_ Versions.
Fell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169.
Ferrar, W. H., the F. group, _see_ (Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561)
192, 255, 624
Field, Dr., II. 7 _n_ 1, 347 _n_ 1.
Fleck, F. F., 121.
Folio, _see_ Form.
Forbes, G., 50.
Ford, Henry, II. 131.
Foreign matter in manuscripts, 66-7, _passim_ under MSS.
Form of manuscripts, 28.
Forster, C., 129 _n_; II. 401-7.
Frankish version, II. 165.
Friderico-Augustanus, 90-1, 33-9.
Froben, J., II. 182-5.
Gabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II. 147.
Gale, Th., Dean, 48.
Gebhart, Oscar von, 164.
Genevan N. T., 71.
Georgian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Versions.
Gildemeister, II. 162-4.
Giorgi, A. A., II. 128.
Glosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50.
Gold, used in writing, 27.
Golden Evangelistarium, 88 _n_ 2.
Gospels, divisions of, _see_ Sections.
Gothic version, II. 145-8. _See_ Versions.
Goulburn, Dean, 171.
Grammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312-20, 181.
Greek era in dated manuscripts, 42 _n_ 2.
Green, T. S., II. 249.
Gregory, Dr. Caspar René, 79, 241-2, 272-83, 303-5, 317-9, 325-6, 356-65,
373-6, 384-9, App. A; II. 320 _n_, and _passim_, especially
under Cursive MSS.
Griesbach, J. J., II. 222-226; 170, 196, 216, 249, 251;
his N. T., 223;
theory of families and recensions, 224-6;
character, 226; 272 _n_, 285, 290.
Grimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 _n_ 2.
Grouping of authorities, II. 297-300, 279-80.
Guidi, II. 154.
Gutbier, Giles, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.
Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34, 36.
Gwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. 10.
Haddan and Stubbs, II. 50.
Hagen, H., II. 51.
Hall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 _n_, 175 _n_, 193 _n_, 196.
Hammond, C. E., 18 _n_ 1; II. 379.
Hands of MSS. changed, 96, 101 _n_ 1, 337.
Hansell, E. H., 170.
Harkel, Thomas of, II. 25.
Harley, R., Earl of Oxford, 175.
Harmonies of the Gospel History, 67 _n_ 4, 190. _See_ Eusebian Canons.
Harnack, A., 164.
Harris, J. Rendel, 130, 151, 203, 255, Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172,
366 _n_ 2, &c.
Hartel, II. 54.
Headlam, Rev. A. C., II. 91-144.
Hearne, Th., 170.
Hebrew Bible first printed, II. 175.
Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161; II. 15 _n_ 2, 259 _n_ 1.
Hebrews, Ep. of, place in N. T., 74, 57, 99.
Hellenistic dialect, II. 312-20.
Hentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible), II. 62-4.
Herculanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44, 47, 108.
Hermas, 66, 67.
Hesychius of Egypt, II. 268, 270-1.
Hieratic writing, II. 91-2.
Hieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2.
Hieronymus, _see_ Jerome.
Homer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45, 50, 145.
Homoeoteleuton, 9.
Horne, T. H., Introduction and Tregelles’ edition, II. 485, and _passim_.
Hort, F. J. A., II. 242-3; I. 18 _n_ 2; II. 244, 313 _n_ 2, 333 _n_ 1, 337
_n_ 1, and _passim_.
Hort, Westcott and, II. 284-97;
their views explained, 285-90;
compared with those of Griesbach, 290-1;
destitute of historical foundation, 291;
examination of the three reasons of the two Revisers, 293-4;
these views unsound, 296-7; 242-3, 273.
Hoskier, H. C., 191, 251.
Hug, J. L., 107, 111, 120;
his system of recensions, II. 229, 270-2.
Hutter, Elias, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.
Hyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22, 34-41, 45, &c.
Iberian version, II. 156-8. _See_ Georgian.
Ignatius, St., 257.
Indiction, I. Append. C; 42 _n_ 2, 156.
Ink, 26-7,
black and coloured, _ibid_.
Insertion of glosses, 13.
Internal evidence, II. 244-56;
not solely conjectural, 244-7;
textual canons, 247-56.
Interpolations, various readings arising from, 7-9; II. 249.
Interpolations for liturgical use, 327.
Iota, ascript and subscript, 44-5.
Irenaeus, St., II. 261.
Irish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180.
Isaiah, Dublin MS., 154.
Itacism, 10-11, 17.
Itala, 44, 55-6; II. 42.
Italics of English Bible, 9, 400.
Jablonsky, II. 100, 119.
Jackson, John, 126.
Jebb, R. C., II. 209 _n_.
Jerome, II. 268-70;
recklessness in statement, 355. _See_ Vulgate, and _passim_.
Jerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240.
Jerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4. _See_ Versions.
Jude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9.
Junius, Fr., II. 147.
Ἰωάννης, orthography of, II. 316.
Καί abridged, 15, 16 and _n_.
Karkaphensian, 35-6. _See_ Versions.
Kaye, Bp., II. 258 _n_ 3.
Kelly, W., 70 _n_ 2, 343 _n_ 1.
Kennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 300 _n_.
Κεφάλαια, _see_ Sections.
Kipling, T., Dean, 126.
Kitchin, G. W., Dean, 152.
Koriun, II. 148 _n_, &c.
Kuenen, A., _see_ Cobet, C. G.
Kuster, L., 122; II. 203-4.
La Croze, II. 100, 119.
Lachmann, C., II. 231-5, 245, 285;
his system, 231-2;
unsoundness of it, 232-4, 273, 276, &c.;
his character, 234-5; 170, 256, and _passim_.
Lagarde, P., _see_ Boetticher.
Lanfranc, Abp., II. 60.
Latinizing, 130, 182; II. 180, 215.
Laud, W., Abp., 170.
Laurence, R., Abp., II. 226.
Leaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151, 155, &c.
Lectionaries of N. T., 74-7;
system, age of, 75 and _n_ 2, 190. _See_ Evangelistaria, Apostolos.
Lectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A.
Lectionaries of Old Testament, 76, 329 _n_, &c.
Lee, Edw., Abp., II. 186.
Lee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11.
Le Long, J., II. 104, 191.
Lent, Lessons for, 84-5.
Leusden and Schaaf’s Peshitto N. T., II. 11.
Lewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac MS., II. 14, 17, 37.
Liddon, H. P., D.D., II. 252 _n_ 1.
Lightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic versions, II. 91-139, &c.
Line set over Proper Names, Evan. 530.
Linen Paper (_charta_), 23, 189.
Linwood, W., II. 245 _n_ 2.
Liturgical notes, _see_ ἀναγνώσματα, Lect., ἀρχή and τέλος, 189-90, &c.
&c., 11-12.
Lloyd, C., Bp. (N. T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8.
Λόγοι, 68.
Louvain Vulgate, _see_ Hentenius.
Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and afterwards of Constantinople,
97-8.
Mabug, II. 25.
Mace, W., his N. T., II. 210.
Madden, Sir F., 21, 44.
Magee, W., Abp., II. 251.
Mahaffy, J. P., 166.
Mai, Angelo, Cardinal, 111 _n_ 2, 112-15.
Malan, S. C., D.D., 77 _n_ 2; II. 3, 32 _n_ 2,
120 _n_ 1, 146 _n_ 2, &c.
Manuscripts—
(1) Greek. _See_ Index I, Vol. I: containing the whole Greek Testament,
72 and _n_ 1;
containing the four Gospels complete, 136.
(2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29.
(3) Latin.
(a) Old Latin (_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, &c.), II. 45-54.
(b) Vulgate, II. 67-90;
various notations (Tischendorf, _am._, _and._, _bodl._, _cav._,
&c.), 89-90.
(4) Coptic.
(a) Bohairic, II. 110-23.
(b) Sahidic, II. 132-6.
(5) Gothic (Argenteus, Carolinus, Ambrosiani), II. 146-7.
(6) Armenian, II. 153-4.
Marcion, heretic, II. 259-60.
Margoliouth, Prof. D. G., II. 145, 154-5, 161-4.
Marsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 191, 401 _n_, 407.
Marshall, Th., II. 106, 147.
Martianay, D. J., II. 46, 47.
Martin, Abbé, 242, 269-72, 303, 317, Append. A; II. 28 _n_ 1.
Μαρτυρίαι, II. 192, 194.
Martyrs, era of, 98, 104 _n_ 1.
Mary Deipara, St., convent of, 145.
Materials for writing, 22-6.
Matthaei, Ch. F., II. 216-20; I. 75, 172;
his accuracy, II. 216;
his collations, 217-8;
mode of controversy, 218-9.
Ματθαῖος, orthography of, II. 316.
Mazarin Bible, II. 61, 175.
McClellan, J. B., 347 _n_ 2.
Memphitic version (_see_ Bohairic).
Menology, 76-7;
list of, throughout the year, 87-9.
Mesrop, St., II. 148-53, 156.
Michaelis, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321.
Mico, Abbate, 110-11.
Middleton, T. F., Bp., 15; II. 182 _n_ 2, 321, 331 _n_.
Mill, Dr. J., II. 200-3;
his career, 200-1;
character of his services, 201-2;
his MSS., 202-3;
his Prolegomena, 203.
_See_ also I. 122; II. 106, 169, and _passim_.
Miller, Edward, II. 3 _n_ 2, 24 _n_ 2, 256 _n_, 325 _n_ 2.
Miller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index II, &c.
Milligan, Wm., II. 346.
Mingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129.
Moldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c.
Monasteries, Egyptian, II. 99.
Montfaucon, Bernard de, 21, 134, and _passim_.
Morning hymn, Greek, II. 345.
Moses of Chorene, II. 149, &c.
Moulton, W. F., II. 319-20.
Moveable type, supposed cases of, 140; II. 146.
Mozarabic Church Lessons, II. 341 _n_ 3.
Münter, M. F., II. 129.