Muralt, Edw. de, edition of B, 110, 244.

Musical or vocal notes in red, _passim_ under Evst.

N, abridged form of, 50.

ν ἐφελκυστικόν or attached, 139; II. 181, 185, 314-5, &c.

Nablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch at, 28 _n_ 2.

Nazarenes, Gospel of, 161.

Nazareth, its orthography, II. 315.

Neubauer, Dr., II. 320 _n_.

Nicholson, E. B., 245, 341; II. 322 _n_ 2, 327.

Nicoll, Prof. of Hebrew, Oxford, 98.

Nitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145.

Nolan, Dr., II. 267.

Northumbria, MSS. written in, II. 59.

Notation of manuscripts of N. T., 77-8.

Obeli, II. 26 _n_ 1, 323, 365-6, &c.

Oblak, II. 159.

Oecumenii ὑποθέσεις to N. T., &c., 67, also under the MSS.

Old Latin Biblical Texts, II. 48, 49, 50.

Old Latin version, _see_ Versions.

Omissions, 7, 15.

Order of books in N. T., 72-4;

Western order, 73 _n_ 2, Evan. 461.

Order of words, variations in, 9.

Origen, fanciful biblical speculations, II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271.

Origen, his Hexapla, II. 266.

Orme’s memoir of 1 John v. 7, II. 401 _n_.

Orthodox readings, not improbable, II. 251-2.

Orthography of manuscripts of N. T., II. 312-20.

Ostromir Gospels, II. 159.

Palaeographical Society, I. App. B.

Palestinian, _see_ Versions.

Palimpsest described, 25; double, 141.

Palmer, E., Archdn., 119 _n_; II. 208, 243.

Pamphilus, Martyr, and his library, II. 266-7.

Paper, cotton and linen, 23.

Papyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33;

of Hyperides, 41, 44, 48.

_See_ Herculanean Rolls.

Paradiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4.

Paragraph, 128. _See_ Sections.

Parchment, 23-6; dyed purple, 26.

Paronomasia, II. 399 _n_ 2.

Particles omitted or interchanged, 14.

Patriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211.

Paul, Acts of, 97.

Pauline Epistles (Paul.), ancient divisions of, 64-6, 78.

Penn, Granville, 15 _n_ 1.

Pens, different instruments used for, 27.

Pericopae of Church Lessons, 11, 75. _See_ Bengel.

Pericope adulterae, 81 _n_, 99 _n_ 2.

Persic versions of N. T., II. 165-6. _See_ Versions.

Peshitto, II. 6-14. _See_ Versions.

Petrie, Dr. Flinders, II. 143.

Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν, 30, 33, 44.

Philoxenian Syriac, II. 25-9. _See_ Versions, Harkleian.

Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp., II. 25.

Pictures in MSS., 190, and _passim_.

Pierius, II. 269.

Pius IV, II. 63.

Plantin, Greek N. T., II. 181;

Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Plato, dated manuscript of, in the Bodleian, 42.

Pocock, Edw., II. 165.

Pocock, Rev. Nicholas, 182.

Pococke, Richard, II. 26.

Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9.

Polyglott, Bagster’s, II. 11.

Polyglott, Complutensian (_see_ Complutensian), II. 176-81.

Polyglott, London (_see_ Walton), II. 163.

Polyglott, Paris, II. 10.

Porson, R., II. 406.

Porter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228.

Praxapostolos, _see_ Apostolos.

Printing, invention of, II. 61, 175.

Προγράμματα, Evan. 597.

Prologues, 67, 68, 190, and _passim_.

“Psalms of Solomon,” 99.

Psalters, Greek, first printed, II. 175.

Psalters, MS. on papyrus, 46.

Punchard, E. G., II. 248 _n_ 2.

Punctuation, 48-9, and _passim_.

Purple and gold or silver manuscripts, 27.

Pusey, Philip E., II. 12, 18, 19.

Quarto, _see_ Form.

Quaternion, _see_ Form.

Quatremère, _see_ Coptic.

Quotations from Fathers, II. 167-74. _See_ Fathers.

Quotations from Old Test. in New, 12-13.

Received Text, II. 264; founded on what editions, II. 195 _n_ 3, 193 _n_

1.

Recension, false, 16-17; recensions, _see_ Families.

Reed used for writing, 27.

Reiche, J. G., II. 283 _n_.

Ῥήματᾳ or ῥήσεις, 65, 68-9, App. D.

Rettig, H. C. M., 157.

Reuchlin, J., 10 _n_.

Reuss, Ed., II. 175 _n_, 181 _n_, &c.

Revised Text, II. 243.

Revisers, the two, II. 292-6.

Rhythm, cause of various readings, II. 254.

Ridley, Gloucester, II. 27.

Roberts, Alex., 18 _n_ 1; II. 244 _n_ 2, 248 _n_ 1, 320 _n_.

Rolled manuscripts, 28-9.

Rönsch, H., II. 54.

Rosetta stone, 31, &c.

Rulotta, Abbate, 110.

Σ, the weak, II. 315.

Sabatier, P., II. 42. _See_ under Lat. MSS.

Σαββατοκυριακαί, 328, &c.

Sahak, St., 148, &c.

Sahidic or Thebaic dialect and version, II. 119-39. _See_ Versions.

Sakkelion, A. I., 272.

Sanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293.

Sarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49 _n_, 51; II. 378. Part of the Colbert

Pentateuch.

Schaaf, Ch., and Leusden, J., Peshitto N. T., II. 181, 183.

Schmeller, J. A., Frankish version, II. 165.

Scholz, J. M. A., 240; II. 226-30;

labours, 227; character, 228; theory of families, 229-30, and _passim_.

Schulz, D., II. 48, 228.

Schwartze, M. G., Bohairic N. T., &c., II. 101-3.

Scott, C. B., D.D., II. 198.

Scribes, chiefly clergy or monks, II. 252.

Scrivener, F. H. A., his Collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II;

edition of D, 127, &c.;

of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8;

of Revised Gr. Text, II. 243;

of “Adversaria et Critica Sacra,” I. App. I, I. 252.

_See_ also II. 79, 195 _n_ 3, 243, and _passim_.

Sections,

(1) in B, 56-7;

(2) greater, 57-8;

(3) “Ammonian,” 59-63;

(4) Euthalian, 63-4;

(5) other, 64-5.

Semicursive letters, Evan. M, 274.

Semler, J. S., II. 211, 215.

Signatures of sheets, 28, 164.

Silver, used in writing, 27.

Silvestre, M. J. B., Paléographie Universelle, 21, &c., App. C.

Simonides, Constantine, 94-7·

Sinaitic MS. (א), 90-7;

discovery of, 90-1;

description, 91-3;

age, 94-5;

derived from a papyrus, 95;

imposture of Simonides, 95-7;

character of, 97; II. 267-8.

Sionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N. T., &c., II. 10.

Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II. 63-5.

Skeat, W. W., II. 148, 164.

Slavonic, II. 158-61. _See_ Versions.

Slips of the pen, a source of various readings, 16.

Smith, R. Payne, Dean, II. 354.

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, II. 103.

Specimens of four Syriac versions of N. T., II. 38-40.

Specimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139, 142, 144.

“Spectator,” No. 470, II. 345 _n_.

Spelling, variations in, 14.

Standish, II. 186.

Stephen, Henry, 70.

Stephen, Robert, II. 188-92; I. 70-1, 124-6, 137; II. 61-2, 196.

Stephen, Robert, editions, II. 188-9;

MSS. used by him, I. 124 _n_ 3, 191, 192, 196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2.

Stichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137, I. App. D, and _passim_.

Stilus, 27, 137.

Στίχοι, _see_ Stichometry.

Stops, their power varies with their position, 48, 137.

Storr, G. C., II. 163.

Streane, A. W., II. 241.

Stunica, J., Lopez de, II. 184, 186, 405.

Style, change of, no decisive proof of spuriousness, II. 342.

Subjunctive future, II. 384.

Subscriptions, 55, 65-6, 190, and _passim_ under MSS.

Suicer, J. C., 53 _n_ 1, 144.

Sulci or Sulca, 63.

Swete, Dr., II. 286, 393 _n_ 4.

Synaxarion, 77 and _n_ 1;

list of Lessons throughout the year, 80-7.

Synonyms interchanged, 13.

Syriac Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A.

Syriac language and dialects, II. 6-8, 312-3.

Syrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33.

Syro-hexaplar version, II. 13 _n_ 1.

Tatham, Edw., II. 402 _n_ 2.

Tatian’s Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &c.

Tattam, H., Archd., II. 110.

Taylor, Isaac, 18 _n_ 2.

Tentative process commended, II. 264-5.

Tertullian, II. 257.

Textual Canons, II. 247-56.

Textual criticism and its results, 4-7; II. 257-301.

Textus receptus, _see_ Received Text.

Thebaic, _see_ Sahidic.

Thecla, St., 101-2.

Theodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and _n_ 2.

Theodulphus, Bp., II. 59.

Theophylact, _see_ Commentary.

Thompson, E. Maunde, 22, 102, 104, 147 _n_, App. C.

Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels, II. 165.

Tischendorf, II. 235-8;

his great editions, 235-6;

texts, 236-8; I. 115-7, 122, 155-6, 159-60, 163; II. 89, 163, 248, 282;

collations, _see_ Vol. I. Index II, and _passim_.

Titles of the books, 65.

Τίτλοι, 57-9, 68, 190, _passim_ under MSS.

Todd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of Lambeth MSS., 249.

Traditores, II. 266.

Transcription, _see_ Copying.

Transposition of sentences, 12.

Transposition of words, &c., 9-10.

Travis, G., Archd., II. 401 _n_, 406 and _n_ 2.

Tregelles, S. P., 18 _n_ 1, 111; II. 238-41;

his books, 239;

texts and collations, 240;

his system, 240-1;

life, 241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, 273, 275, 328, and _passim_.

_See_ also for Collations, Vol. I. Index II.

Tremellius, Im., Peshitto N. T., II. 9.

Trent, Council of, II. 63.

Τρισάγιον, 103.

Trost, Martin, Peshitto N. T., II. 10.

Tübingen edition of John i-vi, II. 176.

Tuki, R., Bp., II. 128.

Two Revisers, II. 292-6.

Tychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222.

Tyler, A. W., II. 383.

Tyndale, W., II. 186 _n_ 1.

Typicum defined, 144, Evan. 608.

Ulphilas or Ulfilas, Bp., II. 145.

Uncial letters, described, 29-30;

mistakes in, 10;

how distinguished as to age, 31-40;

compressed uncials, 137;

mixed with cursives, 142 _n_ 1.

Uncial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst., 328.

Ὕποδιαιρέσεις μερικαί (subdivisions of chapters), 64 _n_ 2.

Ussher, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8.

Utrecht Psalter, the, 28 _n_ 2.

Valla, Laurentius, 205.

Vansittart, A. A., 152, 278 _n_.

Various readings defined, 3;

different classes, 7-17.

Vatican MS. (B), 105-121; sections of, 56-7, 68;

history, 105;

description, 105-9;

collations and editions, 109-19;

age, 105, 118 _n_ 2;

character, II. 268.

Vaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 297 _n_ 1.

Vellum, manufacture of, 22-5.

Vercellone, C., 56, 112, 113, 116-18.

Vermilion paint (κιννάβαρις), 61.

Verses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192, _passim_ under MSS.

Verses, modern in N. T., 68, 70-1.

Versions, 1-5; use and defects, II. 2-3; various early, 3-4.

1. Syriac:

(1) Peshitto, II. 6-14;

dates probably from the second century, II. 7, 264;

printed edd., II. 8-12;

new one by P. E. Pusey and G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS., II. 12-13;

why so called, II. 13.

(2) Curetonian, II. 14-24;

first discovery, II. 14;

second, II. 14;

publication by Cureton, 11;

common origin of Peshitto and Curetonian, II. 16;

Peshitto the older, II. 17-24.

(3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II. 25-9;

made first by Xenaias, or Philoxenus, 25;

next, collated by Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26-8;

character, 28;

MSS. of, 29;

Mr. Deane’s work, 29.

(4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II. 30-4;

fragments, esp. of an Evst., 30;

description, 30;

Erizzi’s edition, 31;

menology, 32-3;

Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam, 34.

(5) Karkaphensian or Massorah, II. 34-6;

discovered by Wiseman, 34;

description, 34-6;

a Massorah, 36.

2. Latin, II. 41-90:

(1) Old Latin, 41-56; many versions (3 _n_ 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2;

probably one, 42-3—but cf. 3 _n_ 2;

“Itala,” arose in Africa, 43-4;

age, 264;

Old Latin MSS. of the Gospels, 45-51;

Act. and Cath., 51-3;

Paul., 53-4;

Apoc., 54;

Latin Fathers, 54;

African family, 55;

European, 55;

Italian, 55-6.

(2) Vulgate, II. 56-90;

history, 56-65;

text often incorrect, 58-9;

revisions, 59;

correctoria, 60-1;

printing, 63;

authorized recension, 63-5;

editions, 65-6; MSS., 66-89;

Bibles, 67-74;

New Testaments, 74-5;

Gospels, 75-85;

Acts, Epistles, Apoc., 85-9;

notations, 89-90.

3. Egyptian or Coptic versions, 91-145;

history and description, 91-106;

sacred and demotic writing, 91-3;

Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96-106;

at least five instead of three, 103-6:

(1) Bohairic (Coptic or Memphitic), 106-27;

editions, 106-10; MSS.,

Gospels, 110-18,—Paul., Cath., and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3;

all except Apoc. in the Canon;

order of books, 124;

character, 124-5;

date, 125-7.

(2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39;

editions, 127-32;

MSS., 132-6;

order of books, 137-8;

character, 138-9.

(3) Fayoumic or Bashmuric, 140-1.

(4) Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3.

(5) Akhmimic, 143-4.

4. Other old versions, 145-66:

(1) Gothic, history, 145;

MSS., 146-7;

editions, 147-8.

(2) Armenian, history, 148-51;

collation, 151-2;

character of text, 152-3;

MSS., 153-4.

(3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5;

editions, 155.

(4) Georgian, history and MSS., 156;

editions, 157;

character, 157-8.

(5) Slavonic, history and divisions, 158;

MSS., 159-60;

character, 160-1.

(6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161-2;

editions, 162-3;

character, 163-4.

(7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS., and editions, 164-5.

(8) Frankish, 165.

(9) Persic, versions and MSS., 165-6.

Vossius, Isaac, II. 146.

Vulgate version, II. 56-96. _See_ Versions.

Wake, Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 _n_, 246-8.

Walker, John, II. 206-9; I. 248 _n_; II. 65, 89.

Waller, Rev. Dr., II. 21 _n_ 2.

Walton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic), 197-8.

Ward, W. H., II. 394 _n_ 2.

Westcott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 59 _n_ 2; II. 242, 258 _n_ 1, &c. _See_ Hort.

Western text, II. 264, 138, 224-6, 229-30, 231 _n_, 264-5, 272 _n_,

286-73;

interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. _See_ Apocryphal insertions.

Wetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78 _n_, 122, 209, 210, 247, and _passim_.

Wheelocke, Abr., II. 165.

White, E., 151.

White, H. J., Rev., II. 41-90, 66, 69, 71, 80, 85.

White, Joseph, II. 27.

Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N. T., II. 8-9.

Wilkins, D., Coptic N. T., II. 106-7.

Winer, G. B., II. 284 _n_.

Wiseman, N., Card., 112; II. 34, 42, 406 _n_ 2.

Woide, C. G., 103; II. 129-31, 215, &c.

Woods, F. H., Rev., 21.

Wordsworth, C., Rev., 69.

Wordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II. 381-2, &c. &c.

Wordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66, 90.

Wright, W., Dr., II. 155.

Writing, style of, 15; slips of the pen, 16.

Xenaias or Philoxenus, _see_ Versions.

Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II. 176-81, 184.

Year, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9.

Young, Patrick, 103, 123.

Zacagni, L. A., 110.

Zacynthius, Cod., II. 365 _n_ 2.

Zahn, Dr., II. 21.

Zahn, J. C., Gothic N. T. II. 147.

Zoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2.

Zouche, de la, Lord, _see_ Curzon.

Zurich Psalter, 16 _n_.

FOOTNOTES

1 See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. “Evidence of Early Versions

and Patristic Quotations, &c.,” by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p.

211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I

am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb’s careful and thoughtful essay.

2 I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great

many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources

of origin:—briefly speaking,

(_a_) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome;

(_b_) Because Latin translations from the first _must_ have been

wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the

one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure

a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate

Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and

propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation

could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately

to the want;

(_c_) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin

MSS.;

(_d_) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can

be quoted on both sides;

(_e_) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is

quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has

been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this

respect being to group them.

But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—ED.

3 Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.

4 Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), “The

Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,” distinguishes between

(1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic

spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at

Jerusalem.

5 I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt,

Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version

here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance

between it and the renderings imputed to “the Syrian,” he certainly

produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides

Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and

passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the

former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius,

Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).

6 All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm

Walton’s gracious language two hundred years ago: “Etsi verò, olim

in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae

membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo

oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen

calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis

Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad

rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit”

(Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).

7 Dean Payne Smith’s Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge

manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and

Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr.

Bradshaw reports.

8 See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in “Transactions of the Royal

Irish Academy,” xxvii. 8, “On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop

Ussher.” This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent

to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College

Library, Dublin.

9 Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto

text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the

Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc.

xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and

Gutbier (1664).

10 Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, _Church

Quarterly Review_, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical

Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock’s Translation of the

Peshitto.

11 Tregelles in “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” thinks that the term

was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old

Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek

Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with

their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds

his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1),

adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is

called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its

rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was

proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the

New.

12 ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.

13 A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the

Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.

14 “Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,

hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by

William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,” 4to, London, 1858.

_See_ also Wright’s description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac

MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.

15 Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though

not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew’s

Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To

demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that

Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and

not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will

bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew

or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript

agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the _three kings_,

ch. i. 8, though even here the number of _fourteen_ generations

retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as

_Juda_, ch. ii. 1; _Ramtha_, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch.

xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian

with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been

derived.

16 The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the

subscription) we read, “Gospel of Markos,” and “Gospel of Juchanan”

occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the

title “Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.” The meaning of the second word

is doubtful in this application. The root means _divide_,

_distinguish_, _separate_—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says

(1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested “Evangelium per

anni circulum dispositum.” This is inapplicable, because the copy is

not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much

later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in

the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and

render “The distinct Gospel of Matthew.” This he understood to

indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from

the other books, and was “built upon the original Aramaic text,

which was the work of the Apostle himself.” But there is nothing to

justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title

with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,

“Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai” [Catalogue Brit. Mus. _l. c._]; the

other names being preceded by “Evangeliom” only. (3) “Dampharsa” has

been rendered “explained” [see the review in “Journal of Sacred

Literature,” 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as

we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian,

for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the

quotations and references in the “Thesaurus Syriacus” (R. Payne

Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means

“separated,” as opposed to “united in a Harmony.” Such, of course,

the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to

justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of

Tatian’s Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion

in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.

17 “Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite

_Peshitto_ s’accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu’avec (B).” (Les

Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact

is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener’s

evidence, but on universal consent.

18 The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen,

1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859.

Lehir’s Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of

Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische

Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische

Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the

question.

19 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.

20 Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—_see_ p. 36.

21 So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ);

but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.

22 Pages 164-5.

23 Pages 171-2.

24 Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345.

Ephraem died A.D. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.

25 Page 14.

26 In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the

results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of

St. John’s Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to

make use of his labours.

27 For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the

Curetonian.

28 The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand

attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.

29 E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.

30 Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by

Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have

maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main

grounds:—

1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the

original text.

2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would

have demanded revision.

3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the

Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between A.D. 250 and 350.

These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and

internal evidence.

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—

1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but

none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in

history.

2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii.

11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is

known.

3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst

people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The

Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been

known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach

of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be

made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards.

As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by

the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions

Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally

received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the

earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single

copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide,

Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

31 On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, _see_

Bingham’s “Antiquities,” book ii, chap. xiv.

32 Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé

Martin (_see_ p. 323 note), after stating that this version was

never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites,

goes on to ask “Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de

monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l’affirmer, il faudra

l’examiner très minutieusement; car l’hérésie monophysite est, à

quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru”

(Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).

33 The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of

this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the

similar marks in Origen’s Hexapla (from which they were doubtless

borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that

their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him

even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian

from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to

intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal

from it.

34 “Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS.

Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum

edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White.

Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,” 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for

the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts

which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of

revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii.

11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John’s Gospel (Leipzig,

1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor

Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a

manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he

kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke

and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the

Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White’s, but

the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a

list of over 300 readings differing from White’s.

35 Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little

known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171,

7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and

Barberini vi. 32.

_ 36 See_ also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version,

Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John.

Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with

phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a

fragment at end. _Mut._ at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite

characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

37 Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is

made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns

in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited

(_below_, p. 39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ)

(καιρός), _v._ 3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός), _v._ 5, which are

common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and

forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (_vv._ 4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or

ܢܝܒܒ) _v._ 3, “when;” ܐܗܐ _v._ 3, “repented;” ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ

(or ܐܡܕ) (_vv._ 4, 6, 8), “blood;” ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ), _v._ 4, “to

us;” ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ), _v._ 5, “himself;” ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ), _v._ 6,

“price” (Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή);

ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ) _v._ 8, “therefore;” ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ), _v._ 8, “this.”

38 Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the

recensions of Targum and Talmud, _see_ Etheridge’s “Hebrew

Literature,” pp. 145-6, 195-7.

39 Dr. Hort’s not very explicit judgement should now be added: “The

Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the

Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate

[meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old

Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek

texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the

more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite

character” (Introd., p. 157).

40 On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34),

_see_ “The New Syriac Fragments” (F. H. Woods), in the _Expository

Times_, Nov., 1893.

_ 41 See_ the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder

and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. S.

C. Malan, London, 1868.

42 Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek

Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.

43 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

44 So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.

45 See _Athenaeum_, Oct. 28, 1893.

46 Anecdota Oxoniensia, “The Palestinian Version of the Holy

Scripture;” edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press,

1893.

47 The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛ _blessed_) occurs in the scholion to

Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see

“Studia Biblica,” iii. 60 and note.

48 Our specimens show the use in MSS. of _rucaca_ and _kushaia_, here

printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian

Massorah ore also shown.

49 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.

50 The Codex Babylonicus, A.D. 916, is the oldest Old Testament MS.

known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.

51 Karkaphta = skull. See also “Thes. Syr.,” col. 3762.

52 Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas

Heracleensis. M. l’Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la

Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty

years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. _See_

Mr. Gwilliam’s Essay in “Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,” iii. pp. 56-65.

53 “How the Codex was found” (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.

54 Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual

sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three

MSS.; see Wordsworth’s Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.

55 For _Itala_ Bentley conjectured _et illa_, changing the following

_nam_ into _quae_; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the

idea of a “Versio Italica;” _see_ Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth,

1842, p. 569; and “Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,” in Ellis,

Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata,

Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured _usitata_ for

_Itala_; _see_ Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

56 Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera

et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised

edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of

preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able

superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.

57 Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris

Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino,

2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the

works of Eusebius Vercellensis.

58 That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians

would use other names, _vetus_, _antiqua_, _usitata_, _communis_,

_vulgata_; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

59 Published in the _Catholic Magazine_ for 1832-3; since reprinted in

his “Essays on various subjects,” 1853, vol. i.

60 We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in

1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less

positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true

that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms

can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them

only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost

exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are

able to use only the method of _agreement_ and not the method of

_difference_ in testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin

New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the

time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress

be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of

Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.

_ 61 See_ Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

62 “Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria

Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et

quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant

veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare

de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et

canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.” Praef. ad

Damasum.

63 “[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum,

quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita

calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare

correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.” _Ibid._ For a

signal instance, see below, ch. ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.

64 To his well-known censure of Jerome’s rendering of the Old Testament

from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “Proinde non parvas Deo gratias

agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es:

quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam

contulerimus.”

65 Roger Bacon’s writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the

first in which Jerome’s translation is cited as the “Vulgate” in the

modern sense of the term. _See_ Denifle, Die Handschriften der

Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.

_ 66 See_ Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, “Jam pridem universos

Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;” S.

Berger’s essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De

l’histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.

_ 67 See_ the Oxford “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” ii (1890), p.

278 f.

68 Fritzsche, “Latein. Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog, R. E.2 viii. p.

449; Westcott, “Vulgate,” in Smith’s Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703;

Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in “Die Trierer

Adahandschr.” (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.

69 Berger, as above, p. 7.

_ 70 See_ the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch.

xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, _ibid._,

col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave’s remark (Hist. Lit. 1743,

vol. ii. p. 148), “Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,” seems hardly

borne out by the facts.

71 His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public

library, 9 bis, _see_ below, p. 68, no. 8; also Denifle, Die Hdss.

d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.

72 His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat.

class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141); _see_ Denifle, p. 270, who prints

them.

_ 73 See_ the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.

_ 74 See_ S. Berger, De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f.,

1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41,

1883.

_ 75 See_ Hugo’s remark (Denifle, p. 295), “In multis libris maxime

historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”

_ 76 See_ Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp.

426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in

Wordsworth’s Vulgate as _cor. vat._; _see_ Berger, Notitia Linguae

Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

_ 77 See_ W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century

of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des

Savants, Apr. 1893.

78 Or to Peter Schoeffer, _see_ J. H. Hessels, in the _Academy_, June,

1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust. _See_ the British

Museum “Catalogue of Printed Books,” Bible, part i. col. 16.

79 Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of “Thielman

Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,” with emendations of A. Castellani.

80 The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1); _see_ the

“Catalogue,” part i. col. 1.

81 For details _see_ “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,” i. p. 51 f.

_ 82 Ibid._, p. 48 f.

83 The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in

three forms:—

(1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the

Hentenian Bible of 1583.

(2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton’s Polyglott, and taken

from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various

readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds

the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated

the subject more fully in (1).

(3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels)

in Walton’s Polyglott; a _delectus_ of them is given in Sabatier at

the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman.

Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

_ 84 See_ E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p.

13 f., 1892.

85 There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in

one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.

86 He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and

Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is

to be noticed that the _versing_ of the Sixtine ed. differs

considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.

87 The regular form of title, “Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V

Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,”

does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of

Rouille, Lyons, 1604. _See_ Brit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The

earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl.

Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect.

i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.

_ 88 See_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

_ 89 Ibid._, p. xxv.

_ 90 See_ Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge,

1862.

91 M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the

proof-sheets of his “History of the Vulgate” as they were printed,

and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.

92 For the Würzburg MSS., _see_ G. Schepps, Die ältesten

Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887,

from which these descriptions are mainly taken.

93 For these MSS., _see_ as before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten

Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.

94 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4,

but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? “Au

nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des

témoignages sur l’existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément,

prêtre de l’église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l’an

190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l’empereur Sévère.

Mais les monuments nous prouvent que _cette date n’est pas la

dernière_; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d’une époque plus

rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M.

de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu’il eut la complaisance de me

communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun

d’Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve que _dans la première moitié

du troisième siècle_ le démotique était encore connu et en usage.”

L. Verus died A.D. 169.

95 The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout

(Mélanges d’Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who

supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan

Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete

by their orthodox successors.

96 [That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern,

Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]

97 [There has been considerable variation in the names given to the

different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been

commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be

shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and

misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the

form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe,

the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or

Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so

used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading;

and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed

by scholars at the present day.]

98 Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological

bias, infers from the historical notices that “the greatest part of

the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old

Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in

the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that

of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt” (p. 963).

99 For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: “Z. A. S.”

for _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_; “Recueil” for the

_Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie

égyptiennes et assyriennes_; “Mémoires” for the _Mémoires de la

Mission Archéologique Française au Caire_; and “Mitt.” for the

_Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer_.

100 Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved,

which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur

la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).

101 Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).

_ 102 See_ also A. J. Butler’s “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.

103 I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year

A.D.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as

the Diocletian year began in August or September; _see_ Clinton,

Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.

104 I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct

forms in different Bohairic MSS.

105 My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and

Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me

free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in

facilitating my investigations in many ways.

106 The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1,

vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark,

is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four

Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves,

however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting.

The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ

ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.

“The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from

numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers

quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two

Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius,

Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen,

and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of

Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites,

Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the

name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the

monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great

abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have

been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date,

however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in

the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred

Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the

facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an

explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak

of the great Macarius, but of “_an abbot_ Macarius.” The fact is,

that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing

which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself

as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος)

who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a

proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ

(Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ

ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura

of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the

monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat.

MS. lxi in Tattam’s Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated

A.M. 604 = A.D. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde;

but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it

is perhaps translated from the Greek.

The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as

containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be

explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of

one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS.

(no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic

translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an

antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able

to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access

to the Parham collection.

107 The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner,

who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in

European libraries.

108 The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

109 No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we

know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.

110 It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by

Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan’s

“Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest

Versions except the Latin,” London, 1862, all Tuki’s Sahidic

fragments of this Evangelist are included.

_ 111 See_ Münter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang.

p. xx) says, “Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent

vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei _Rudimenta_, Sahidicis locis

partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.” I do not know on

what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

112 This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus

Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la

Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lre

Partie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache

aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.

113 In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to

have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS.,

e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I

have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of

information.

Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the

Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already

spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

114 Catal., p. 169: “Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non

defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si

aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit

quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non

satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.” But since this was

written the publication of Hyvernat’s “Album de Paléographie Copte”

has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the

publication of the Paris fragments.

115 Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of

the Codex Vaticanus, after it.

116 The term “Middle Egyptian” is often used as a general term to

include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is

properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.

117 The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with

which the additions to this article had to be written, much must

have been passed over.

118 “But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might

tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the

barbarians;” Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.

119 “A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,” is

the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John’s Gospel, translated

from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872,

Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as

usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the

rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.

120 Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione,

Milan, 1834.

121 Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.

122 Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv.

38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38;

xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24;

xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38;

45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii.

10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1

Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x.

4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35;

46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i.

14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2

Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1;

Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic

Epistles, or Apocalypse.

_ 123 See_ p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French

translation of this in the “Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie,”

Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because

the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at

random.

124 The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by

his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.

125 The translation of this writer in Langlois’ second volume is

reliable.

126 Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or

eighth century.

127 Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest

Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one _sure_ copy was

brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.

128 This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his

“Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,” Venice, 1889, p. 228.

129 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the

following:—

(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской

Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.

(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ

просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.

(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій

славянскаго перевода Евангелія.

(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы

до xv вѣка.

(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the

“Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361].

(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex

Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.

(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

130 In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two,

and in another library as twelve to one. _See_ Описаніе славянскихъ

рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.

131 Kaluzniacki, _l. c._, p. xlv, gives instances.

_ 132 See_ Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

133 The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into

Arabic in A.D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien

Arabisch, p. xv).

134 Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great

Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an

Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.

135 I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter

because of Dr. Scrivener’s private confession to myself of the great

value of Dean Burgon’s services in this province of Sacred Textual

Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to

maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as

that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the

wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As

Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching

in Dean Burgon’s great book, and to his method of argument in

respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province

at all as he found it.

136 The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of

Chichester. John Murray, 1883.

_ 137 See_ some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J.

M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford “Studia Biblica (et

Ecclesiastica).” Mr. Bebb’s entire Article on “The Evidence of the

Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of

the New Testament” is well worth careful study.

138 “Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.”

Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. “Every Father is seen to be a

dated witness and an independent authority,” p. 297.

139 I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr.

Hammond, who says: “The value of even the most definite Patristic

citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such

citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage

in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which

he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by

other good evidence, the writer’s authority may become of immense

importance” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His

illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is

discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)

140 He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell’s “praepropera

opinio;” he merely stated as _universally_ true what for the most

part certainly is so.

141 Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of

them all. The _editio princeps_ of Erasmus (1526) was printed from

manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin

only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen

of the tenth or eleventh century, _olim_ Claromontanus; another, of

the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the

third once belonged to Vossius.

142 Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one

Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies

on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his “Monumenta Sacra

Inedita,” vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.

143 Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.

144 Dampar cod. i.e. “Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc.

saeculi ferè 8.” Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth

edition, 1869. He promised full information in his “Prolegomena,”

which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same

century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris

(collated by Mr. Rendel Harris, A.D. 1884); another in Phillipps

collection at Cheltenham.

145 This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used

with H. Roensch’s “Das Neue Testament Tertullian’s,” Leipzig, 1871,

wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically

examined.

_ 146 See_ Dean Burgon’s Appendix (D) to his “Last Twelve Verses of St.

Mark,” pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by

a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius

and character of Victor of Antioch’s Commentary on St. Mark, and

enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.

147 It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just

given are doubtful, authorities differing.

148 Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has

published “Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab

initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri

potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis”

(Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions

which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements

regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes

of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a

complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand

passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical

results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill’s.

Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff’s “Companion to the Greek

Testament and the English Version,” D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has

improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to

America is, I believe, exhaustive (_see_ also his “American Greek

Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as

published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and

is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to

have availed myself of the Professor’s kind permission to copy that

list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since

these two chapters are simply upon the _Early_ Printed and the

_Critical_ Editions of the Text.—ED.

149 “Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter

impressum,” Tom. v.

150 Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour,

“Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut

inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc

et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam

Ecclesiam collocantes” (Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no

disparagement to the original Scriptures, _as such_; but they had

persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the

Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the

Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which

the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.

151 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I

subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a

rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the

fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not _his_

work.

Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,

ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,

ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ

ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

152 Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he

was _elected_ Feb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas

(“Chronology of History,” p. 194) that he was elected March 11,

without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning

that “Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his

pontificate before his coronation.”

153 The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by

Vercellone: “Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus

Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a

Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo

continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis,

Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras,

Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo

folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex

blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis

super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera

Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam

annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena

ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr.

Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”

154 The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the

Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the

silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration of _las cosas

de España_ was not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts

had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir

John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, “To celebrate the arrival of

some worthless grandee.” Gutierrez’s recent list comprehends all the

codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may

hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.

155 Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one

places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of

other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and

differ but forty-one, some of their _loci singulares_ being quite

decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1

Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel’s

Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1

(Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this

last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill’s

representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his

Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.

156 Goeze’s “Defence of the Complutensian Bible,” 1766. He published a

“Continuation” in 1769. _See_ also Franc. Delitzsch’s “Studies on

the Complutensian Polyglott” (Bagster, 1872), derived from his

Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig,

1871-2.

157 Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text “purus et authenticus

a veteribus nunquam repetitus est” (p. 25), and gives a list of

forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions

are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in

which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp.

18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot

be disputed.

158 At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful

rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury

(1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly “felix

opportunitate mortis.” It gladdens and makes sad at once an English

heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later:

“Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis,

fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo

parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud

nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum

literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in

eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis” (N.

T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).

159 Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he

wrote of Erasmus, “an acquaintance with Greek criticism was

certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament

plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent

for languages” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).

160 The title-page is long and rather boastful. “Novum Instrumentum

omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non

solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque

linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem,

postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et

interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli,

Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum

Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit.

Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde

judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed

expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae

Basilaeam.” The Vulgarius of Erasmus’ first edition is no less a

person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly

from his Annotations, p. 319, “nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus

addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in

antiquis codicibus Latinis.” He had found out his portentous blunder

by 1528, when, in his “Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,” he

gives that commentator his right name.

161 Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28;

xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x.

1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John

i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is

neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.

162 Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω

τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (_ante_

βιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλου _secund_., καί

ult-τῷ (_ante_ βιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his

Annotations fairly confesses what he did: “quanquam in calce hujus

libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis

exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.” But since the text and

commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be

undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript

(Tregelles’ “Delitzsch’s Handschriftliche Funde,” Part ii. pp. 2-7),

it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was

sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin

Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly

passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12,

15; vi. 11, 15 (_see_ under Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16;

xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false;

while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (_bis_); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5

(as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the

Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no

Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel’s acuteness had long

before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος,

ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no

Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any

countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13,

διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus’ πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has

πληρώσωσιν, the Latin _impleantur_; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3,

we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου,

ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.

163 Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.

164 It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at

variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged

in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no

leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1,

but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim.

v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.

165 The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed

Erasmus’ third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21

as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.

166 I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been

more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his

statement that ’Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few

MSS. which he collated’ (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition).

The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them as _copy_

for the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon’s evidence is

quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be

necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might

fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127),

“se codices suos praecastigasse.” Any wanton “tampering” with the

text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know

of.

167 Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of

Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were

changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition

agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).

168 Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives

us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill’s

other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.

169 Here again Reuss declares “paucissimas novas habet” (p. 36), and

names only six.

170 “Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix.

28” (Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition

of the present work.

171 Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam

eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece

cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).

172 This is Mill’s calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the

ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations

of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his

predecessor’s errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without

mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since

Wetstein’s time no one seems to have gone carefully through the

Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex

Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places

in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven

wherein it rejects both books.

173 The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω

κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας

α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1

John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss

(p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts

Erasmus’ third edition 113 times out of his own thousand,

fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a

list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early

editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.

174 Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.

175 Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen’s

first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or

Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the

third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further

alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced

by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the

Complutensian.

176 Mill states that Stephen’s citations of the Complutensian are 598,

Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we

have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen’s

inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5;

xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24;

iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β’ seems to be put for α’ Matt. x.

25.

177 Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii.

5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities,

α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen

rejects no less than fifty-four times. _See_, moreover, above, p.

154, note 3.

178 Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen’s first edition as

differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real

various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere

errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six

places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with

some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of

manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may

be mere errata.

179 Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of

Cod. D (indicated as “quidam codex” by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38;

x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence

of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii.

9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also

in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30,

two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his

dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an

“exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus

minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico

Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam

diligentissimè collatum.”

180 But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58)

cites six instances wherein Stephen’s third and fourth editions

differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col.

i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke

i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.

181 Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in

actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he

states in MS. in a copy of his “American Greek Testaments” kindly

given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the

Greek does not occur, and that Beza’s first _Greek_ text was

published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his

editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition,

and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his

labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted

from Professor Hall’s list in Schaff’s “Companion to the Bible,” pp.

500-502.

182 Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of

what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624

rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen,

from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only

twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four

times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine

readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been

adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of

the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more.

The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the

second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only

twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε),

neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss’s system of

investigation, can be only approximately true (_see_ p. 154, note),

and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza’s

Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.

183 Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples

Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza’s smaller New Testament of 1565 in

only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza’s

other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint

(Rom. vii. 2).

184 Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that

he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ

δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine. “And although he says it reads

δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is

all.” The point is not worth disputing.

185 “American Additions and Corrections,” p. 50.

186 Professor Hall states (Schaff’s “Companion,” p. 501) that Beza’s

editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the

Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek

Testament with Revisers’ Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to

Stephen’s edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer

refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the

Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the “Textus Receptus,”

says that it rests upon Stephen’s 1550, and Beza’s 1565, 1582, 1589

(= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly

1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also

Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p.

60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252

passages the “Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113,

with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian,

Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”

187 “The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent

Reprints and Modern Representatives.” By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A.,

D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.

_ 188 See_ Miller’s “Textual Guide,” George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr.

Scrivener’s “Adversaria et Critica Sacra” (not yet

published).—Postscript.

189 Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where

Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.

190 Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p.

50).

191 If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as

well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the

cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher’s “Body of Divinity,” 1678, p.

11, we are told that “in the winter evenings he constantly spent two

hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking

with his own hand the _variae lectiones_ of each:” on which

statement Dean Burgon (Letter in the _Guardian_, June 28, 1882)

makes the pregnant comment, “Such work carried on at seventy or more

by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when

done with a heart-ache.”

192 “Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis

fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint,

quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt

argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint

adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est,

nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut

prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C.

Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.

193 1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that

the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22.

Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed “ad editiones

priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”

194 “Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro

variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices,

unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis

exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.” Canon xiii. pp.

11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (_see_ below, p. 204).

195 But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi.

5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i.

21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii.

2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb.

xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein’s text follows its

erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. §

1409) that Fell’s text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.

196 Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally

recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that

accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a

superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration

Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of

Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered

hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the

practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred

books, it was allowed “e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu

profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare” (Praef. p. 4).

197 “Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,” 1659: to which Walton

rejoined, sharply enough, in “The Considerator considered,” also in

1659.

198 Dr. Hort says that “his comprehensive examination of individual

documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous

details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations” (Introd. p. 180).

199 As Mill’s text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite

identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the

following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen’s of

1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx.

15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 _bis_;

x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36;

vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor.

vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet.

ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster’s

edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii.

5.

200 Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.

201 Ellis, _ubi supra_, pp. xvii-xix. These _Proposals_ were also very

properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th

edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full

title was to have been: “Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum

Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria

Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS.,

cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”

202 This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not

accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him

over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in

this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of

Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that “Bentley’s testimony, when

he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so

when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits

_one-third_ of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far

as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”

203 Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the

suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a

task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called “Clarissimus Walker,”

died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old

Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts

collated by him wholly or partially, _see_ pp. 55-63.

204 He continued this work till after 1735. _See_ paper found by Dr.

Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin

Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.

205 Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley’s

grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him

from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the

problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted

with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172)

ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man

by the proviso “si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”

206 “This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me,

that _vae mihi_ unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the

blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end”

(Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, _ubi supra_, p. xvi). A short

article in the _Edinburgh Review_ for July, 1860, apparently from

the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to “Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia

Graeco-Latina,” Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,” Reuss, p.

167), who so far anticipates Bentley’s labours, that he forms a new

Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of

them) and of the Latin version.

207 Dr. Gregory says that though Mace’s edition had no accents or soft

breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some

critics of the present day.

208 I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with

reference to an entirely different department of study, in the

opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work:

“It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary

history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen

has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have

acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further

improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The

man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an

irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation

to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps,

clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished

labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr.

Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763),

Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S.

looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing

study.

209 The full title is “’Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita

adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium

lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum

delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim

compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A.

B.”

210 They consist of seven Augsburg codices (_Aug._ 1 = Evan. 83; _Aug._

2 = Evan. 84; _Aug._ 3 = Evan. 85; _Aug._ 4 = Evst. 24; _Aug._ 5 =

Paul. 54; _Aug._ 6 = Act. 46; _Aug._ 7 = Apoc. 80); _Poson._ = Evan.

86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (_Bas._ α = Evan.

E; _Bas._ β = Evan. 2; _Bas._ γ = Evan. 1); _Hirsaug._ = Evan. 97;

_Mosc._ = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add

Uffenbach’s three, _Uffen._ 2 or 1 = Paul. M; _Uffen._ 1 or 2 = Act.

45; _Uffen._ 3 = Evan. 101.

211 It is worth while to quote at length Bengel’s terse and vigorous

statement of his principle: “Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per

singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores

majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari

et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad

schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae

fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam

oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum

agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores

exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de

tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod

praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices

discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo

saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum

vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt

testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab

eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet” (N. T., Apparat. Crit.,

p. 387).