=Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament=,
...... 156-246
Task and method—Internal criticism—Conjecture—Eclectic
method—Genealogical method—External testimony—Lucian: his relation to
the Peshitto—Hesychius: Codex B—Eusebius: Pamphilus: Origen: Euthalius:
Evagrius: Athos manuscript—Later revisers—Pre-Origenic texts—Heretics:
Artemonites, Marcosians, Basilides, Noetus, Valentinians, Gnostics,
Marcionites, Arians—Marcion: his relation to the Western text—Tatian:
question as to a Greek Harmony: his relation to the Western text—The
Western text: theory of Blass: the Lucan writings in Codex Bezae:
conclusion of Luke’s Gospel: the Apostolic Decree—Rules of Textual
criticism: sources of error: illegibility: homoioteleuton: transposition
of letters and words: itacism: substitution of synonymous terms:
additions: conscious alterations: stylistic, liturgic, and dogmatic
changes: critical canons: proper names: textus brevior—Conclusion.
=Critical Notes on Various Passages of the New Testament=, ......
247-335
=Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers=, ...... 336
=Appendix II. List of Passages referring to= ἀντιγραφα, ...... 340
=Index of Subjects=, ...... 343
=Index of New Testament Passages referred to=, ...... 350
ABBREVIATIONS.
The symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions will
be found in the chapter on Materials. The student will compare the Notes
in Tischendorf’s _Edito octava minor_ and the Index in the _Octava
maior_, vol. iii. The following contractions are employed in the course
of this work:—
_GGA._ = Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen.
_GK._ = Zahn’s _Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_. See p.
196 n. 2.
_LCbl._ = Literarisches Centralblatt.
PRE. = Protestantische Real-Encyklopädie. See p. 7.
_ThLbl._ = Theologisches Literaturblatt.
_ThLz._ = Theologische Literaturzeitung.
_ThStKr._ = Theologische Studien und Kritiken.
_TiGr._ = Tischendorf’s _N.T. Graece_, _editio octava maior_, vol.
iii. See p. 6.
_TU._ = Texte und Untersuchungen.
_Urt._ = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6.
W-H. = Westcott and Hort. See p. 21.
W-W. = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131.
_ZdmG._ = Zeitschrift der morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
_ZfdPhil._ = Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie.
_ZfwTh._ = Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie.
ADDENDA.
_Page 6._ To the Literature add: Rüegg, _Die neutestamentliche
Textkritik seit Lachmann_, Zurich, 1892.
_Page 74._ Two fragments of N.T. text have been published by Grenfell
and Hunt in _The Amherst Papyri, Part I.: The Ascension of Isaiah and
other theological fragments_ (London, 1900). The first consists of
Hebrews i. 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small uncial hand
of the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at the top of
a _papyrus_ leaf containing a letter from Rome. The verse from the N.T.
exhibits the reading τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν, which is not found in any of
the manuscripts. The other fragment consists of Acts ii. 11-22 with
lacunae, written on vellum and dating apparently from about the fifth or
sixth century. It contains a few singular readings such as: (verse 12)
πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον; (13) ἐχλεύαζον λέγοντες, which is practically the
reading of D, the only difference being that D has the compound verb
διεχλεύαζον; (14) γνωστὸν ὑμῖν, apparently; (17) μετὰ ταῦτα with B
instead of ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, and also, apparently, ἐνύπνια with
the _textus receptus_; (20) πρὶν ἢ with the _textus receptus_; (21) ὃς
ἂν with the _textus receptus_.
_Page 91._ Add: J. R. Harris, _Further Researches into the History of
the Ferrar Group_, 1900.
_Page 106 (5)._ Add: Hilgenfeld, _Thomas von Heraklea und die
Apostelgeschichte_, in the _ZfwTh._, 1900, 3.
_Page 137._ Add: Forbes Robinson, _Coptic Apocryphal Gospels_, in _Texts
and Studies_, iv. 2, 1896.
_Page 139._ To Kauffmann’s _Beiträge_ must now be added: v. _Der codex
Brixianus_ (_ZfdPhil._ xxxii. pp. 305-335). In this important
contribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt in the
_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. pp. 129-134, that Wordsworth and
White were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Brixianus (f) as a
recension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome’s revision. Burkitt
holds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the Vulgate, and
afterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. The only difference
between Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the latter believes that the text
of Brixianus was derived from an earlier Latin manuscript which had been
altered in conformity with the Gothic, and that it was _afterwards_
assimilated to the Vulgate. This view must also be noted in connection
with the Old Latin codex gue (see p. 118). For an example of the
connection between Brixianus and the Gothic see the note to p. 289,
below.
_Page 162._ Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. 90. _Page
289._ John vii. 15. For Ἰουδαῖοι f here reads _turbae_, which is
interesting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has _manageius_. Compare
the view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above. The
variant is not mentioned in Tischendorf.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.
[Transcriber’s Note: Throughout this book, superscripts and subscripts
are used for various purposes. Superscripts after the titles of books
indicate edition numbers. Superscripts after the symbols for manuscript
groups are used to name members of the group. Subscripts are also used
for distinguishing documents.
In this text version, superscripts are indicated with the caret symbol:
^. A single-character superscript will be shown as text^1; a
multiple-character superscript will be wrapped in brackets: text^{1, 2},
text^{abc}. Subscripts are indicated with the underscore, followed by
the subscript text wrapped in brackets: text_{1}.
The asterisk, *, is often used as part of the name of a manuscript.
There are also some instances of characters printed, one on top of the
other. In this e-book they are rendered A/B, with A on top and B on the
bottom.]
It is not quite creditable to Christian scholarship at the close of the
Middle Ages that not a single printed edition of the Greek New Testament
appeared during the course of the fifteenth century. The Jews printed
their Hebrew Psalter as early as 1477, and the entire Hebrew Bible in
1488.
[Sidenote: Editio princeps.
Complutensian Polyglot.]
1. The honour of producing the first edition belongs to the Spanish
Cardinal Francis XIMENES de Cisneros (1437-1517). It was included in the
so-called _Complutensian Polyglot_, which takes its name from Complutum
(now Alcalà de Henares), where it was printed. The plan of the work was
conceived as early as 1502, in celebration of the birth of the future
Emperor Charles V. The scholar who had the principal part in it was
James Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the New Testament was completed
on the 10th January 1514, and of the remaining five volumes, comprising
the Old Testament with Grammar and Lexicon, on the 10th July 1517. On
the 8th November of the same year the Cardinal died. It was not,
however, till the 22nd March 1520 that Pope Leo X. sanctioned the
publication of the work, the two Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Old
Testament, which had been borrowed in the first year of Leo’s papacy,
having been returned on the 9th July 1519.[2] On the 5th December 1521,
the presentation copy designed for the Pope, printed on parchment and
bound in red velvet, was placed in the Vatican Library. No copies seem
to have reached Germany through the trade till the year 1522. Only 600
copies were printed, which were sold at 6-½ ducats per copy—about £3 of
our present English money. The Cardinal, who enjoyed the income of a
king but was content to live like a monk, expended over 50,000 ducats on
the undertaking. At the present time, copies of the Complutensian
Polyglot, especially those printed on parchment, are counted among the
rarest treasures of libraries. The Old Testament is printed in three
columns, the Latin text of the Bible used in the Church of the Middle
Ages standing between the original Hebrew text of the Synagogue and the
Alexandrian Greek version, “like Jesus between the two thieves.” The New
Testament has only two columns, that on the left containing the Greek
text, that on the right the Latin version. For the sake of those
learning Greek the corresponding words in each are indicated. The type
is modelled on the characters found in good manuscripts. Of accents, the
acute alone is used to mark the tone syllable.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, _Introduction_, ii. c. 7; Hoskier (see below,
p. 5); Frz. Delitzsch, _Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der
Polyglottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes_, Leipzig, 1871;
_Fortgesetzte Studien_, 1886; _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_,
p. 64. A facsimile of the title-page and colophon will be found in
Schaff’s _Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version_.
The decree of Pope Leo X. is printed in the Greek and Latin
Testament of Van Ess, Tübingen, 1827.
Previous to Ximenes, however, the famous Venetian printer Aldus Manutius
had conceived the idea of such a Polyglot. In the Preface to his undated
Greek Psalter (_circa_ 1497), a triglot Bible was promised. Of this he
was reminded from London by Grocyn on the 6th October 1499. On the 9th
July 1501 he wrote about it to the German humanist Conrad Celtes, to
whom he sent the first specimen page on the 3rd September of the same
year. (Facsimile in Renouard, _L’Imprimerie des Aldes_^{2, 3}.)
Still earlier, the Magnificat and the Benedictus[3] had been printed
among the hymns at the end of the Greek Psalter (Milan, 1481; Venice,
1486). These were the first portions of the Greek New Testament to be
printed, while the first printed in Germany appeared at Erfurt in
1501-2. The first edition of the Greek New Testament for sale was
Erasmus’s edition of 1516.
LITERATURE.—On Aldus, see Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, i. 2; ii.
11. On Aldus’s well-known device, the anchor and dolphin, see Léon
Dorez, _Études Aldines_, Revue des bibliothèques, vi. (1896), part
5-6, p. 143 ff.; part 7-9; also J. R. Harris, _The Homeric
Centones_, London, 1898, p. 24. The device is emblematic of the
favourite motto of Augustus and Titus, ἀεὶ σπεῦδε βραδέως, Semper
festina lente.
[Sidenote: Erasmus, 1516.]
2. Froben, the printer of Basel, was anxious to forestall the costly
edition of the Spanish Cardinal, and with this object appealed on the
15th March 1515 to the famous humanist Desiderius ERASMUS (1467-1536),
then in England. His edition appeared as early as the 1st March 1516,
and was dedicated on the 1st February to Pope Leo. The printing was
begun in the previous September, and was partly superintended by
Zwingli’s friend, John Oecolampadius of Weinsberg. Erasmus himself
confessed afterwards that his New Testament was “præcipitatum verius
quam editum,” though he boasted that he had employed in its preparation
not any sort of manuscripts, but the oldest and most correct copies.[4]
As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apocalypse Erasmus
must have used only one manuscript, and that partly mutilated, so that
he was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacunæ
by means of a retranslation from the Latin into Greek. And this
conclusion was confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very
manuscript by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at
Mayhingen.[5]
In a parallel column Erasmus gave a translation of the Greek into
elegant Latin. The Emperor protected the edition for four years by
copyright, but as early as February 1518 it was reprinted by Aldus
Manutius in his Greek Bible. It was sanctioned by the Pope on the 10th
September 1518. Four successive editions were afterwards prepared by
Erasmus: the second in 1519, the third in 1522, the fourth (improved) in
1527, and the fifth in 1535.
In his third edition, Erasmus for the first time incorporated the
well-known “comma Johanneum,” the passage about the Three Witnesses (1
John v. 7). He did so on the evidence of a manuscript now in Dublin
(Montfortianus, 61), in which the passage had probably been inserted
from the Vulgate by the English Franciscan monk Roy. From the Vulgate it
had already been received, in a slightly different form, into the
Complutensian Polyglot. Luther himself purposely omitted it from his
version. The first edition of his translation to contain it was that
printed at Frankfurt by Feyerabend in 1576. It was not inserted in the
Wittenberg editions till 1596. After 1534 no Greek edition appeared
without it for the space of 200 years.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, vol. ii. p. 182 ff.; Frz. Delitzsch,
_Handschriftliche Funde_, i., Leipzig, 1861; H. C. Hoskier, _A full
Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 ...
together with ten Appendices containing ..._ (B) _... the various
readings by the five editions of Erasmus_, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527,
1535.... (F) _Report of a Visit to the Public Library at Bâle, with
facsimile of Erasmus’s second MS. Evan. 2_, ... London, 1890. On
Erasmus’s supplementary matter, the New Version, Annotationes,
Paraclesis ad lectorem, Methodus and Apologia, as also on the entire
practical and reforming aim of his N.T., see R. Stähelin in the
_Protestantische Real-Encyklopädie_, third edition, v. 438. Froude,
_Life and Letters of Erasmus_, p. 126 ff.
[Sidenote: Collections of editions.]
3. The number of editions of the Greek New Testament which have been
brought out since the time of Ximenes is about 1000. No library in the
world contains them all. In the last century the Danish Pastor Lorck
possessed perhaps the largest private collection of Bibles. This was
purchased by Duke Charles of Württemberg, and has found a place in the
Royal Public Library at Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
supplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves. The largest
collection of the present century is that of the late Prof. Ed. Reuss of
Strassburg. In his descriptive catalogue he established the genealogy of
the separate editions by a collation of the readings in 1000 selected
passages. Several editions he was unable to obtain: some he was obliged
to regard as of doubtful existence: others, again, mistakenly quoted by
previous collectors, he was able to discard once for all. His labours
form the basis of those further researches prosecuted with much ardour
chiefly in England and America: in the latter by the German-Swiss
scholar Philip Schaff (d. 20th Oct. 1893), and his American friend I. H.
Hall (d. 1896), in England by F. H. A. Scrivener (d. 26th Oct. 1891),
and in Germany by the American C. R. Gregory. Mention can be made of
only a few of these printed editions.
LITERATURE.—Ed. Reuss, _Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius
editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas
quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R.
Argentoratensis_, Brunsvigae, 1872. Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum
Graece ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum
apposuit Constantinus de Tischendorf_, Lipsiae (Hinrichs), vol. i.
1869; vol. ii. 1872; vol. iii., _Prolegomena scripsit Caspar Renatus
Gregory additis curis Ezrae Abbot_, 1894, 8vo. (vol. iii. cited in
the following part of this work under the symbol _TiGr._). F. H. A.
Scrivener, _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament_. Fourth edition, edited by Ed. Miller, 2 vols., London,
1894. P. Schaff, _Companion to the Greek Testament and the English
Version_. Fourth edition revised, New York, Harper, 1892. Schaff’s
_Companion_ gives, in an Appendix, Reuss’s list of printed editions
of the Greek N.T., with additions bringing it down to 1887, by I. H.
Hall. It also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustrations
of twenty-one standard editions of the Greek N.T., showing in each
case the title-page and a page of the print. I. H. Hall, _A Critical
Bibliography of the Greek New Testament, as published in America_,
Philadelphia, 1883. Also, by the same author, _Some Remarkable Greek
New Testaments_, in the Journal of the Society of Biblical
Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, 40-63. S. P. Tregelles, _Account
of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with remarks on its
revision and a collation of the critical texts with that in common
use_, 1854. Copinger, _The Bible and its Transmission, being an
historical and bibliographical view of the Hebrew and Greek Texts,
and the Greek, Latin, and other Versions of the Bible (both
manuscript and printed) prior to the Reformation. With 28
facsimiles._ London, Sotheran, 1897, large 8vo. H. J. Holtzmann,
_Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (_Allgemeiner Teil_, _Geschichte
des Textes_), Freiburg, 1886. _Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel
in übersichtlicher Darstellung_, a reprint of the article “Bibeltext
und Bibelübersetzungen,” in the third edition of the
Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig,
Hinrichs, 1897, pp. 15-61 (Tischendorf), O. v. Gebhardt, “_Bibeltext
des Neuen Testamentes_,” PRE, ii. 728-773 (cited hereafter as
_Urt._). C. R. Gregory, _Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes_, vol. i.
Leipzig, 1900. Vol. ii. in the press.
[Sidenote: First critical edition.]
4. The first to prepare a really critical edition of the Greek New
Testament, _i.e._ one based on a collation of manuscripts, was Simon de
Colines (COLINAEUS), the father-in-law of the Parisian printer Robert
Stephen (Estienne). In his edition^1, which appeared in 1534, he adopted
for the first time a number of readings that are now generally accepted,
though naturally he did not succeed in gaining credit for them. Up till
the time of Mill and Bengel the publishers and their more or less
uncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of Ximenes and Erasmus,
mostly the latter, with trifling variations.
Among the innovations introduced by these editors was the choice of a
more convenient form. The first editions were all in folio. But in 1521,
Anselm, then in Hagenau but previously in Tübingen, reduced the size to
quarto; in 1524 Cephaleus in Strassburg still further to octavo; while
Valder printed the first miniature edition in Basel in 1536. The
smallest edition printed previous to this century is that of Jannon,
1628 (Sedan); the smallest of this century is that of Pickering, 1828
(London).
But a much more important feature was the collation of fresh
manuscripts. The credit of being pioneer in this respect rests with the
Parisian Typographer-Royal, Robert STEPHEN (1503-1559). [Sidenote:
Stephen.] He was assisted by his son Henry Stephen (1528-1598),
particularly in the preparation of his third edition of 1550, the
_Editio Regia_, which takes its name from the inscription on its
title-page in honour of Henry II., Βασιλεῖ τ’ ἀγαθῷ, κρατερῷ τ’
αἰχμητῇ.[6] The first edition, called _O mirificam_, from the opening
words of its preface, appeared in 1546. The Editio Regia was the first
to contain a critical apparatus in which fifteen manuscripts indicated
by the Greek letters β—ιϛ were collated with the text of the
Complutensian which was designated α. All the manuscripts employed were
of late date, with two exceptions, viz., the Codex Bezae, of which we
shall have a good deal to say in the sequel, and a Parisian MS. of the
eighth century, now known as L.
[Sidenote: Verse division.]
An important innovation of another sort is due to the same Robert
Stephen, who printed at Geneva in the following year (1551) a fourth
edition containing the Greek text with the Latin version of Erasmus on
the outer side and the Vulgate on the inner.[7] With a view to carrying
out this arrangement conveniently, he divided the text into separate
verses or very small sections, which he numbered on the margin. In this
way he introduced into the New Testament not only a convenient
verse-enumeration—there are 7959 verses in all—but also the unfortunate
practice of printing the text in separate verses. Mill in 1707, and
notably Bengel in 1734, were the first to revert to the practice of
printing the text in paragraphs divided according to the sense while
retaining the enumeration of the verses in the margin. [Sidenote:
Chapters.] The customary division of the New Testament books into
chapters is much earlier, having been first invented in Paris for the
Latin Bible by Stephen Langton (died Archbishop of Canterbury in 1228),
and at once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the Vulgate. It
was employed in the Complutensian Polyglot with a subdivision of the
various chapters into A B C etc.
LITERATURE.—_Nov. Test. textus Stephanici_ A.D. 1550, _ed._
Scrivener, Camb., 1859, 1871 etc. Hoskier (as above) ... (B) _A
Reprint with corrections of Scrivener’s list of differences between
the editions of Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the
Complutensian, together with fresh evidence ... by the other
editions of Stephen of 1546, 1549, 1551...._ Ezra Abbot, _De
Versibus_, in _TiGr._ 167-182. I. H. Hall, _Modern Chapters and
Verses_, in Schaff’s _Religious Encyclopædia_, i. 433. _Journal of
the Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exeg._, 1883, 60; 1891, 65.
It is frequently stated that copies exist of Stephen’s edition of 1551
(the first to contain the verse enumeration) bearing on the title-page
the date MDXLI. In the two I examined belonging to the collections of
Lorck and Reuss, the two halves of the number MD and LI are far apart.
In the case of the Lorck copy it is possible to suppose that a letter
has been erased from the middle, but not in the Reuss copy. In his
Preface, Stephen says: “Quod autem per quosdam ut vocant versiculos opus
distinximus, id, vetustissima Graeca Latinaque ipsius Novi Testamenti
exemplaria secuti, fecimus: eo autem libentius ea sumus imitati, quod
hac ratione utraque translatio posset omnino eregione Graeco contextui
respondere.” As Ezra Abbot pointed out, Stephen gave a double number
19/20 to the verse Τινὲς δὲ ... πρὸς μέ in Acts xxiv. A similar double
enumeration occurs in the previous chapter, where the verse Γράψας ...
χαίρειν is numbered 25/26. Accordingly, Abbot’s supposition becomes
pretty certain, that the verse division was originally made for a Latin
copy which, at the passage in Acts xxiv., contained the additional
sentence: Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, Tolle inimicum
nostrum. And in chapter xxiii. several Latin editions show an extra
sentence at the place marked with the double number: et ipse postea
calumniam sustineret tanquam accepturus pecuniam. But what edition it
was from which Stephen took the enumeration into his Greek copy is not
yet known. Unfortunately, as Abbot shows (_l.c._ 173-182), later
editions frequently deviated from Stephen’s enumeration. Even Oscar v.
Gebhardt, in his editions of Tischendorf’s text, followed in eight
instances a different verse division from that recommended by Gregory in
his Emendanda (p. 1251 ff.).
Several mistakes in numbering crept into the Stuttgart edition of the
N.T., but the division and enumeration have been carefully compared with
that of the Reuss copy for the second edition. There are differences in
verse-division even in the reprint of Westcott and Hort’s Greek
Testament (Macmillan fount, 1895), Heb. xii. 22, 23: in Swete’s _Gospel
of St. Mark_ (Mk. ii. 18, 19), and in Cronin’s edition of _Codex
Purpureus Petropolitanus_ (Lk. iii. 23, 24, ix. 7, 8.)
The Textus Receptus is usually indicated by the Greek letter ϛ, the
initial of Stephen’s name.
[Sidenote: Beza.]
Following Stephen, the French theologian Theodore de Bèze (BEZA
1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin in Geneva, prepared,
between 1565 and 1611, four folio and six octavo editions,[8] which are
noteworthy as forming, with the last two editions of Stephen, the basis
of the English Authorised Version. Beza was the owner of two valuable
Greek-Latin manuscripts of the Gospels with the Acts and Pauline
Epistles, one of which, the now so famous Codex Bezae, he presented to
the University of Cambridge in 1581. He himself, however, made little
use of these in his editions, as they deviated too far from the printed
texts of the time. Beza seems also, in the preparation of his Geneva
edition, to have been the first to collate the oriental versions. For
this purpose he employed the Syriac edition of Emmanuel Tremellius
(1569), and for Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians the Arabic version put at
his disposal by Franciscus Junius.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, ii. 188 ff.; Hoskier (as above): _the various
readings ... by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582,
1588-9, 1598, and the 8vo. editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590,
1604_.
[Sidenote: Polyglots.
1. Antwerp.]
5. The credit of presenting these oriental versions in a convenient
combination for the interpretation of the Bible belongs to the so-called
_Antwerp Polyglot_, the Biblia Regia, printed in eight folio volumes
between 1569 and 1572 by Christopher Plantin, a French printer residing
in Antwerp. In this work the Greek New Testament is printed twice, first
in vol. v., alongside the Vulgate and the Syriac text with its Latin
translation, and again in vol. vi. with the interlinear version of Arias
Montanus. Plantin was aided in this enterprise by a grant of 12,000
ducats from King Philip II. It was carried out under the supervision of
the Spanish theologian Benedict Arias, called Montanus from his
birth-place Frexenal de la Sierra.
“Labore et Constantia” was the motto of this celebrated family of
printers, who continued to carry on their trade on the same premises
till August 1867. Nine years later the house was sold to the city
and converted into the “Musée Plantin.”
Of the Antwerp Polyglot 960 ordinary copies were printed, 200 of a
better quality, 30 fine, 10 superfine, and 13 on parchment, for which
last 16,263 skins were used. One of these Montaigne saw and admired in
the Vatican Library; another, the copy dedicated to the Archduke Alba,
is in the possession of the British Museum. The undertaking was the
glory of Plantin’s life, but it was also the beginning of his financial
difficulties. Copies were sold to book-sellers at 60 gulden each, and to
the public at 70 gulden (about £6 and £7). Ordinary copies now fetch
from £6 to £7 or £8. At the sale of the Ashburnham Collection in 1897 a
parchment copy realised £79. The supplements, including lexical and
other matter, are still valuable to a certain extent. But here the
collector must note that certain parts have been reprinted.
On the Polyglots, see: _Discours historique sur les principales éditions
des Bibles Polyglottes. Par l’Auteur de la Bibliothèque Sacrée_, Paris,
1713; especially pp. 301-554, “Pièces justificatives du discours
précédent.” Also, Ed. Reuss, _Polyglottenbibeln_, PRE^2, xii. 95-103
(1883). Max Rooses, _Christophe Plantin, Imprimeur Anversois_, Antwerp,
1884. Fol. 100 plates. Also _Correspondance de Plantin_, edited by
Rooses. 2 vols. 1886. L. Degeorge, _La Maison Plantin à Anvers_. 3rd ed.
Paris, 1886. R. Lorck, _Das Plantin-Haus in Antwerpen_. Vom Fels zum
Meer, 1888-9, ix. 328-346. On the double imprint see Rooses, p. 123; A.
Rahlfs in Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca, p. 19. On Plantin’s connection
with the Familists see PRE^3, v. 751-755.
[Sidenote: 2. Parisian.]
A still more extensive undertaking than the Antwerp Polyglot is that
brought out in Paris by the advocate Guy Michel LE JAY. This _Parisian
Polyglot_ extends to ten folio volumes of the largest size, furnished
externally in the most sumptuous manner. Le Jay expended his whole
fortune on the edition, and was obliged at last to sell it as waste
paper, being too proud to accept the offer of Cardinal Richelieu, who
wished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a large sum and
thereby acquire the credit of it. The scholars who gave most assistance
in the preparation of the oriental texts were Jean Morin and the
Maronite Gabriel Sionita, the latter of whom superintended the Syriac
portion. The two volumes of the New Testament, viz. vol. v. 1,
comprising the Gospels, and vol. v. 2, the Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypse, appeared in 1630 and 1633. In addition to the texts printed
in the Antwerp Polyglot, the Parisian contained a Syriac version of the
so-called Antilegomena, _i.e._ those parts of the New Testament at one
time disputed (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Apocalypse), and it had
also an Arabic version, each one being accompanied with a Latin
translation.[9]
[Sidenote: 3. London.]
Less sumptuous, but more copious, convenient, and critically valuable,
is the last, and at the present day still most used of the four great
Polyglots—the _London Polyglot_ of Brian WALTON (1600-1661). It contains
in all nine languages. In the New Testament (vol. v.) there is the Greek
text of Stephen with slight alterations, the version of Arias, the
Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and (for the Gospels only) Persic
versions, each with a literal translation into Latin. The sixth volume
also contains Walton’s Apparatus, which was re-issued at Leipzig in
1777, and again at Cambridge by F. Wrangham in two volumes in 1828. It
is really a kind of Introduction to Biblical Criticism. Finally, in two
supplementary parts, there is Edmund Castle’s _Lexicon Heptaglotton_, a
thesaurus linguae semiticae such as no one since has ventured to
undertake.
The London Polyglot first appeared in 1657, under the patronage of
Cromwell, but after the Restoration it received a new Preface from
the editor, who was raised to the See of Chester by Charles II. In
this Preface Cromwell is styled “Magnus Draco ille.” Accordingly,
bibliophiles draw a sharp line of distinction between republican and
loyalist copies. One of the former costs considerably more than the
latter, the most recent prices running from £22 to £31. This is said
to have been the first work brought out in England by subscription.
See Schaff’s “_Companion_” for facsimiles of title-page and page of
text. Todd: _Life of Brian Walton with the Bishop’s Vindication of
the London Polyglot Bible_. London, 1821. 2 vols.
For this Polyglot, in addition to the critical works of previous
scholars, the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible, sent by Cyril Lucar
to Charles I. in 1628, was also employed for the first time. Its
readings are set at the foot of the Greek text and indicated by the
letter A. This was the origin of the modern custom of indicating
manuscripts with Roman letters in the apparatus of critical editions not
only of the New Testament but of other books as well, a custom which has
generally prevailed since the time of Wettstein. That gift of Cyril
Lucar seems really to have awakened for the first time a general desire
for critical editions. At the same time it was Walton’s edition that
made Stephen’s text of 1550 the “textus receptus” in England.
[Sidenote: Elzevir.]
6. On the Continent a similar result was attained by the enterprising
Dutch printers Bonaventura and Abraham ELZEVIR of Leyden. What scholars
had a hand in their edition, if we may speak of scholars at all in this
connection, is not known. In 1624 the Elzevirs published, in a handy
form and beautifully printed, an edition the text of which was taken
mainly from Beza’s octavo edition of 1565. In their Preface to a new
issue in 1633 they said “textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in
quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus,” while they professed that even
the smallest errors—“vel minutissimae mendae”—had been eliminated with
judgment and care. By means of this catchword they actually succeeded in
making their text the most widely disseminated of all during 200 years.
The English Bible Society alone have issued not fewer than 351,495
copies of it in the 90 years of their existence, and at the present time
are still printing this text alone. They issued 12,200 copies of it in
the year 1894. For several centuries, therefore, thousands of Christian
scholars have contented themselves with a text based ultimately on two
or three late manuscripts lying at the command of the first
editors—Stephen, Erasmus, and Ximenes—a text, moreover, in which the
erroneous readings of Erasmus, already referred to, are retained to this
day.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, ii. 193. Hoskier ... (C) _a full and exact
comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the
number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the
support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent
editions of 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678_. On the Elzevirs see
G. Berghman, _Nouvelles Études sur la Bibliographie Elzevirienne.
Supplément à l’ouvrage sur les Elzevier de M. Alphonse Willems_,
Stockholm, 1897. Also, A. de Reume, _Recherches historiques,
généalogiques et bibliographiques sur les Elzevier_, Brussels.
Facsimile of the edition of 1633 in Schaff’s _Companion_.
[Sidenote: Critical attempts.]
7. Even those who were impelled by a greater spirit of research did not
yet get back to the oldest attainable sources. In Rome, CARYOPHILUS set
about preparing a new edition. With this view, about the year 1625 he
collated twenty-two manuscripts with the Antwerp Polyglot—ten for the
Gospels, eight for the Acts and Epistles, and four for the Apocalypse.
Among these were the most celebrated manuscript of the Vatican Library,
the “Codex Vaticanus” _par excellence_, and another of the same
collection, dating from the year 949 (Tischendorf’s S), one of the
oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament whose date is known with
certainty. The results of this collator’s labours were printed at Rome
in 1673. But such collations were not then made with that exactitude
which is the primary condition of works of this nature at the present
day, though even now it is not always observed. In 1658 Stefan de
COURCELLES (Curcellaeus, 1586-1659), a native of Geneva, brought out an
edition which was printed by the Elzevirs, and which is valuable for its
scholarly Introduction, its careful collection of parallel passages, and
its fresh collation of manuscripts. In this edition the “Comma
Johanneum” was included in brackets. The editor also expressed the
opinion that even conjectural readings deserve consideration. Courcelles
had further projects in view, but these were interrupted by his death.
In 1672, in Germany, John SAUBERT published a collection of various
readings in St. Matthew’s Gospel which he had compiled from printed
editions, manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations in the Greek and
Latin Fathers.
In 1675 John FELL, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, published anonymously at
the Sheldonian Theatre, _i.e._ the Oxford University Press, an edition
in the preparation of which more than 100 Greek manuscripts were
employed. Among the ancient versions the Gothic of Ulfilas and the
Coptic were also made use of.
About the same time (1689) there appeared anonymously at Rotterdam a
_Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament_, by Richard SIMON, a
member of the French Congregation of the Oratory. Simon is the father of
the historical method of critical introduction to the New Testament.
With his work, what might be called the infancy of New Testament
criticism comes to a close. With Mill’s New Testament begins the period
of its maturity, especially if Simon’s works are taken as belonging to
it. Such, at least, was the judgment expressed in 1777 by the Göttingen
scholar J. D. Michaelis. But we would say rather the period of its
youth, for otherwise we should now have reached the time of its old age,
and much work still remains to be done.
[Sidenote: Mill, 1707.]
8. Encouraged by Bishop Fell, John MILL (1645-1707), about 1677, set to
work upon an edition which appeared in the year of his death.[10] The
value of Mill’s New Testament lies in its extended critical apparatus,
and particularly in its Prolegomena. An enlarged edition was brought out
in 1710 by Ludolf Küster of Westphalia (1670-1716), which, however, had
such a small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title-page at
Leipzig in 1723, and again at Amsterdam in 1746. In Mill’s time the
number of various readings in the New Testament was estimated at 30,000:
a competent estimate will now make them more than four or five times as
many. That is to say, there are almost more variants than words.
Mention must also be made of Nicolaus TOINARD’S Latin-Greek Harmony of
the Gospels, which appeared at Orleans in the same year as Mill’s New
Testament, and which was the fruit of nearly as many years’ labour.
Toinard was the first Catholic after Erasmus, and the last previous to
Scholz, to undertake a critical edition of the New Testament. He was
also the first editor after Beza to estimate properly the critical value
of the Vulgate.
[Sidenote: Bentley.]
It was Edward Wells who set the example of greater freedom in the
adoption into the text of new readings from the manuscripts. His famous
countryman, the great philologist Richard BENTLEY (1662-1742), projected
a great critical edition of the New Testament, but unfortunately got no
further than the preparation of materials and the publication of his
“Proposals” in 1720. He undertook to remove two thousand errors from the
Pope’s Vulgate, and as many from that of the Protestant Pope (Stephen),
without using any manuscript under 900 years old. But as his edition
never appeared, his nephew had to refund the 2000 guineas prepaid by the
subscribers.
In 1729 MACE published an edition anonymously, in which, perhaps, most
courage was shown in departing from the ordinary text. Thereafter,
English work in this department was suspended for nearly a century. It
was transferred to Germany and the Netherlands by the Swabian scholar
Bengel and by Wettstein of Basel.
LITERATURE.—A. A. Ellis, _Bentleii Critica Sacra_, Camb., 1862. R.
C. Jebb, _Bentley_, London, 1882. _TiGr._, 229-240.
Wordsworth-White, I. pp. xv-xxviii (see below, p. 123).
[Sidenote: Bengel.]
9. As early as 1711, G.D.T.M.D., _i.e._ Gerhard de Trajectu Mosae
(Maestricht) Doctor, a Syndic of Bremen, published at Amsterdam an
edition prefaced by 43 canons or rules of criticism. Thereafter, in
1725, J. A. BENGEL (1687-1752) issued his _Prodromus Novi Testamenti
Graeci recte cauteque adornandi_, in which he unfolded a most carefully
thought-out scheme for a new edition, undertaking to reduce all Gerhard
von Maestricht’s 43 canons to one comprehensive rule of four words. That
was the principle now commonly expressed in the shorter but less
satisfactory form—_lectio difficilior placet_. Bengel himself chose a
more careful mode of expression—_proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua_.
Six years later he was able to issue his _Notitia Novi Testamenti Graeci
recte cauteque adornati_. It was published in 1734 at Tübingen by Cotta
in a handsome quarto.[11] In the same year a small octavo edition
appeared at Stuttgart in which he urged the duty expressed in the motto,
Te totum applica ad textum,
Rem totam applica ad te.
Of the latter, four editions were afterwards brought out. Of the large
edition, the Apparatus, pronounced by Haussleiter to be a “memorable
work of most solid and productive learning,” was reprinted separately
after his death. Bengel was too timid. He was unwilling to admit into
the text any reading which had not already appeared in some printed
edition. But he inserted new readings in the margin and classified them.
Out of 149 readings pronounced by Bengel to be genuine, only 20 are not
now generally approved. Out of 118 whose genuineness appeared to him
probable but not quite certain, 83 are now accepted.
But Bengel’s most important contribution to the textual criticism of the
Greek New Testament consists in the sound critical principles which he
laid down. He recognised that the witnesses must not be counted but
weighed, _i.e._ classified, and he was accordingly the first to
distinguish two great groups or families of manuscripts. His principles
were reaffirmed by the celebrated philologist Lachmann, the first great
textual critic of our time, and the advance which the latest English
critics have made on Tischendorf is really due to the fact that they
have gone back to Bengel.
LITERATURE.—Eb. Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere
Tage_. (In Marginalien und Materialien; also printed separately,
Tübingen, 1893.) Scrivener, ii. 204.
[Sidenote: Wettstein.]
For the time, however, Bengel’s rival, John WETTSTEIN (1693-1754),
outdid him. His treatise on the Various Readings of the New Testament
was published as early as 1713, to be followed by his Prolegomena, which
appeared anonymously in 1730, and later by his New Testament,[12] which
was issued in two folio volumes in 1751 and 1752. His Apparatus is
fuller than that of any previous editor, while he also gives a detailed
account of the various manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers. It
was he who introduced the practice, already referred to, of indicating
the ancient MSS. by Roman letters and the later MSS. by Arabic numerals.
He too, however, still printed the Elzevir text, following Maestricht’s
edition of 1735. At the foot of the text he placed those readings which
he himself held to be correct.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, _Introduction_, ii. 213; Carl Bertheau,
PRE^2, xvii. 18-24, 1886.
[Sidenote: Griesbach.]
10. J. J. GRIESBACH (1745-1812) was the first in Germany who ventured to
print the text of the New Testament in the form to which his criticism
led him. He was the pupil of Salomo Semler, who had combined the
principles of Bengel and Wettstein. These principles were adopted and
carried out by Griesbach. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more exact use
of citations from the Fathers, particularly from Origen, and of various
versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, and the Philoxenian. In his
classification of the witnesses, Griesbach distinguished a Western, an
Alexandrian, and a Byzantine Recension. The edition, in four folio
volumes, printed by Göschen at Leipzig (1803-1807), is rightly described
by Reuss as “editio omnium quae extant speciosissima.”[13] His text was
more or less faithfully followed by many later editors like Schott,
Knapp, Tittmann, and also by Theile.
[Sidenote: Matthaei.]
Griesbach’s opponent, Christian Friedrich MATTHAEI, a Thüringian
(1744-1811), was misled into attributing a too great value to a large
number of manuscripts in Moscow of the third, the Byzantine, class.
A considerable amount of critical material was collected at the expense
of the King of Denmark by Andreas Birch (afterwards Bishop of Lolland,
Falster, and Aarhuus), by D. G. Moldenhauer, and by Adler.
A similar service was rendered, though not with sufficient care, by J.
M. Augustin SCHOLZ, Professor of Catholic Theology in Bonn.
LITERATURE.—On Matthaei see O. v. Gebhardt, _Christian Friedrich
Matthæi und seine Sammlung griechischer Handschriften_, Leipzig,
1898.
[Sidenote: Lachmann.]
It was Carl LACHMANN (1793-1851) who first broke with the Textus
Receptus altogether. He was a master in the domain of textual criticism.
He distinguished himself first in the department of classical and
Teutonic philology, but came afterwards to render equal service to the
textual criticism of the New Testament. His object was to restore the
text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient Church about
the year 380, going on the ground of the oldest known Greek and Latin
manuscripts, _i.e._ the oldest Eastern and Western authorities.[14] He
did not claim to go further back than that date with any certainty. But
it was still open to question whether that were not possible, and
whether the grounds on which Lachmann’s work was based might not be
still further extended and confirmed.
[Sidenote: Tischendorf.]
11. The task which Lachmann set before him was prosecuted with the most
brilliant success in and from Germany by Gottlob (Aenotheus) Friedrich
Constantin von TISCHENDORF (b. 18th January 1815, d. 7th December 1874).
In the course of several tours, first in Europe and afterwards in the
East, from the year 1841 onwards, he discovered and collated a number of
the most important and ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Among these the
most notable was the Codex Sinaiticus, found by him on Mount Sinai in
1859, and now in St. Petersburg, the oldest known manuscript of the
present day which contains the entire Greek New Testament. On the basis
of the material collected by himself and others, Tischendorf prepared
eight different editions between 1841 and 1872.[15] His seventh edition,
consisting of 3500 copies, appeared in 1859, previous to the discovery
of the Sinaiticus. The text of this edition differed from that of 1849
in 1296 instances, of which no fewer than 595 were reversions to the
Textus Receptus. The text of the last edition, the octava critica maior,
which was issued complete in eleven parts between 1864 and 1872,
differed from that of the seventh in 3572 places. The third volume of
the editio octava maior, containing the Prolegomena, was completed in
three parts, extending to 1428 pages, by Caspar René Gregory between
1884 and 1894, a work which affords the most complete survey of what has
been done on the Greek New Testament up to the present time.
LITERATURE.—Scrivener, ii. 235; _TiGr._, 1-22; _Urt._, 49-52. Apart
from the Editio Octava Maior, the most useful editions will be found
to be those of O. v. Gebhardt (see below, p. 23), or the Editio
Academica ad editionem oct. maior. conformata, Leipzig, Mendelssohn,
16mo, 1855, twentieth edition, 1899.
[Sidenote: Tregelles.]
While the editions of Tischendorf were appearing on the Continent, an
edition began to be issued in England, which was completed in the course
of twenty years. It was the work of a Quaker, Samuel Prideaux TREGELLES
(b. 1813, d. 1875), who, while reaping no profit from his undertaking,
has left in it a monument to his fidelity. In this edition
(1857-1879)[16] those passages in which the editor was unable to
pronounce a final judgment from the accessible material are indicated by
the form of the type.
[Sidenote: Westcott and Hort.]
A still more important advance was made by Brooke Foss WESTCOTT (b.
1825), now Bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony HORT (b. 23rd April
1828, d. 30th November 1892). In 1881, these Cambridge scholars, after
nearly thirty years of joint labour, published two volumes, the first
containing the Text with a brief survey of its history and resulting
criticism, the second giving a detailed exposition of their critical
principles by Hort himself. They were led by their investigation to
distinguish four main types of text:—
(1) A late type, originating in Syria about the year 300, which, issuing
from Constantinople, became the prevailing text in later manuscripts,
and corresponds essentially with the textus receptus of early printed
editions:
(2) A type originating in Alexandria, characterized by linguistic
emendations:
(3) A type originating in Syria but reaching the West previous to the
year 200, represented essentially by the Old Latin versions on the one
hand and by the Syriac on the other, and displaying all sorts of
remarkable additions:
(4) The Neutral text, which displays no sort of corruptions.
Westcott and Hort’s work is the latest and most thorough attempt yet
made at a complete edition of the New Testament.
LITERATURE.—_The New Testament in the original Greek. The text
revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort,
D.D._, Cambridge and London. Vol. i. Text (Fourth Edition, 1898).
Vol. ii., Introduction and Appendix (Third Edition, 1896). A smaller
edition of the text, 1885. Text, from new type, in larger form,
1895. For “Some trifling Corrections to W.-H.’s New Testament,” see
Nestle in the _Expository Times_, viii. 479; ix. 95, 333, 424. See
_Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols.,
London, 1896; also article on Hort_, by Gregory in the PRE^3, viii.
368. Facsimile of the American Edition with Introduction by Schaff,
in Schaff’s _Companion_.
[Sidenote: Weymouth.]
The “Resultant Greek Testament” of R. F. WEYMOUTH affords a convenient
comparison of the text of the most important editions.
LITERATURE.—_The Resultant Greek Testament, exhibiting the text in
which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing the
readings of Stephen (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bâle edition (1880),
Westcott and Hort, and the Revision Committee._ By Richard Francis
Weymouth. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of
Worcester. London, 1886.... Cheap Edition, 1892, pp. xix. 644.
Besides the editions mentioned in the title, the Complutensian,
Elzevir (1633), Scrivener and others are compared in several places.
[Sidenote: Weiss.]
Quite recently, Bernhard WEISS, of Berlin, began a new and independent
revision of the text, which has been published in three large volumes
with introduction and explanatory notes.
LITERATURE.—_Das Neue Testament. Textkritische Untersuchungen und
Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. Erster Theil,
Apostelgeschichte: Katholische Briefe: Apocalypse._ Leipzig, 1894.
_Zweiter Theil, Die paulinischen Briefe einschliesslich des
Hebräerbriefs_, 1896. _Dritter Theil, Die vier Evangelien_ 1900.
Vol. i. is compiled from _Texte und Untersuchungen_, ix. 3, 4; viii.
3; vii. 1. The section in vol. ii. entitled _Textkritik der
paulinischen Briefe_, is taken from _TU._ xiv. 3, and the
corresponding section in vol. iii. from _TU._ xix. 2 (New Series,
iv. 2). See “B. Weiss and the New Testament,” by C. R. Gregory in
the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, i. 16-37.
[Sidenote: Von Gebhardt.]
In Germany, O. von GEBHARDT has done good service by issuing the text of
Tischendorf’s last edition, with the necessary corrections, and giving
in the margin the readings adopted by Tregelles and Westcott-Hort, when
these differ from the text. In the “editio stereotypa minor,” the
differences of Westcott-Hort alone are shown. In his Greek-German New
Testament, he also exhibits at the foot of Luther’s German text those
readings wherein the text of Erasmus’s second edition of 1519, used by
Luther, differs from that of the last edition of Tischendorf. In this
diglot of v. Gebhardt, therefore, one can see at a glance not only how
far the Greek text of the present day differs from that printed at the
beginning of the sixteenth century, but also the amount of agreement
between present-day editors working on such different principles as
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. In the Adnotatio Critica found in the
Appendix to the larger edition, there is a brief digest of the critical
Apparatus, but it extends only to those passages where Tischendorf and
Westcott-Hort disagree. The editio minor contains 600 pages. One of
these, p. 501, shows not a single disagreement between these great
editors, while 18 pages exhibit only one variation each, and these, for
the most part, mere grammatical trifles.
LITERATURE.—_Novum Testamentum Graece recensionis Tischendorfianae
ultimae textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano contulit et
brevi adnotatione critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit
Oscar de Gebhardt._ Editio stereotypa. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1881.
Seventh edition, 1896.
_N. T. Graece et Germanice._ Leipzig, 1881. Fourth edition, 1896. In
this edition the Greek is that of Tischendorf’s last edition, and
the German is the Revised text of Luther (1870). The various
readings are shown for both texts, and a selection of parallel
passages is also given.
_N. T. Graece ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione edidit Oscar de
Gebhardt._ Editio stereotypa minor. Lipsiae, 16mo., 1887. Fourth
edition, 1898.
[Sidenote: Stuttgart New Testament.]
The text of the Greek and Greek-German New Testaments prepared by me,
and issued by the Württemberg Bible Institute, is based on a comparison
of the three editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth. The
variations of these editions are shown at the foot of the page, where
are given also the readings inserted by Westcott and Hort in their
Appendix and omitted by O. v. Gebhardt. From Acts onwards, the readings
adopted by Weiss are indicated as well. In a lower margin, a number of
important manuscript readings are given. In the Gospels and Acts, these
are taken mainly, though not exclusively, from Codex Bezae. In the
Greek-German edition, the text (German) is that of the Revised Version
of 1892. Below it are given the readings of Luther’s last edition
(1546), with several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings.
LITERATURE.—_Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico ex
editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto._ Stuttgart, 1898.
Second corrected edition, 1899. Also issued in two and in ten parts,
and interleaved. Third edition in preparation.
[Sidenote: Schjøtt.]
Fr. SCHJØTT published an edition at Copenhagen in 1897 the text of which
was determined by the agreement between the Codex Vaticanus
(Claromontanus, from Heb. ix. 14 onwards) and the Sinaiticus. Where they
disagreed he called in the next oldest manuscript as umpire. For this
purpose he employed for the Gospels the manuscripts A C D E F H I^b K L
P Q T U V X Z Γ Δ, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles A C D E H K L P,
for the Pauline Epistles A C D E F G H L P, and for the Apocalypse A C P
1, 18, 38, 49, 92, 95. At the foot of the text his edition gives, in two
divisions, a comparison with the Elzevir text and with that of
Tischendorf-Gebhardt (1894). From what source Schjøtt derived his
knowledge of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not mentioned. The
photograph of the former seems not to have been employed.
LITERATURE.—_Novum Testamentum Graece ad fidem testium
vetustissimorum recognovit necnon variantes lectiones ex editionibus
Elzeviriana et Tischendorfiana subjunxit Fr. Schjøtt._ Hauniae,
1897, pp. xi. 562.
[Sidenote: Baljon.]
The edition of J. M. S. BALJON is in the main an abridgment of
Tischendorf’s octava maior. He avails himself, however, of later
discoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest for the Gospels, and
the Syriac version published by Gwynn for the Apocalypse. In Acts,
Blass’s restoration of the so-called Forma Romana is regularly
indicated. No other edition, for one thing, shows more conveniently
where recent scholars recognise glosses or other interpolations, or
propose transpositions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far,
therefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess an edition
with a more copious critical apparatus. But even Baljon’s New Testament
fails to realise the ideal of a practical edition.
LITERATURE.—_Novum Testamentum Graece praesertim in usum studiosorum
recognovit J. M. S. Baljon_, Groningae, 1898, pp. xxiii. 731. The
first 320 pages are also issued separately as Volumen primum
continens Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, Lucae et Ioannis. _Vide_
Bousset in the _Theologische Rundschau_ for July 1898.
[Sidenote: Catholic editions.]
From the Catholic side little has been done in Germany in this
department of scholarship for a long time. In 1821 Aloys GRATZ reprinted
the Complutensian at Tübingen; while Leander van ESS issued an edition
which combined the Complutensian and Erasmus’s fifth edition.[17] This
also appeared at Tübingen in 1827. Both of these contained the Vulgate,
and showed where recent editions gave a different text.
Reuss mentions two Synopses, one by Joseph GEHRINGER (Tübingen, 1842,
4^o), the other by Fr. X. PATRICIUS (Freiburg, 1853, 4^o), and two small
editions, one of which, by A. JAUMANN (Munich, 1832), was the first to
be printed in Bavaria. The other is by Fr. X. REITHMAYER (Munich, 1847),
and closely follows the text of Lachmann.
There has also appeared recently at Innsbruck a Greek-Latin edition in
two volumes by Michael HETZENAUER, a Capuchin. The first volume contains
the Evangelium and the second the Apostolicum. But as the strict
Catholic is bound by the decision of the Holy Office, Hetzenauer’s
edition hardly falls to be considered here. A resolution of the Holy
Office of 13th January 1897 pronounced even the Comma Johanneum (1 John
v. 7) to be an integral part of the New Testament. This was confirmed by
the Pope on the 15th January, and published in the _Monitore
Ecclesiastico_ of the 28th February of the same year. An edition in
Greek and Latin was issued by BRANDSCHEID at Freiburg in 1893.
It is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate books of the New
Testament. Many of these are in the form of Commentaries. In addition to
the works of Blass, to which reference will be made later, mention may
be made here of a recent and most thorough piece of work—viz., _The
Gospel according to St. Mark: The Greek Text, with Introduction and
Notes_, by Henry Barclay SWETE, D.D., pp. cx. 412 (London, Macmillan,
1898); also of _The Gospel according to St. Luke after the Westcott-Hort
text, edited with parallels, illustrations, various readings, and
notes_, by the Rev. Arthur Wright: London, Macmillan, 1900; and of
Hilgenfeld’s edition of the Acts in Greek and Latin. Berlin, 1899.
[Sidenote: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.]
Nor can we enter particularly the field of early Christian Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha. Those who cannot obtain Hilgenfeld’s _Novum Testamentum
extra Canonem Receptum_, or Resch’s _Agrapha_, or the editions of
Tischendorf, Lipsius, and Bonnet, will find a handy and inexpensive
selection in my _Supplement_ to Gebhardt’s editions of Tischendorf.
LITERATURE.—_Novi Testamenti Graeci Supplementum editionibus de
Gebhardt-Tischendorfianis adcommodavit Eb. Nestle. Insunt Codicis
Cantabrigiensis Collatio, Evangeliorum deperditorum Fragmenta, Dicta
Salvatoris Agrapha, Alia._ Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1896, pp. 96.
There can be no question that in these last mentioned editions which
have been brought out at the end of the nineteenth century, we have a
text corresponding far more closely to the original than that contained
in the first editions of the Greek New Testament issued at the beginning
of the sixteenth century, on which are based the translations into
modern languages used in the Christian churches of Europe at the present
time. It would be a vast mistake, however, to conclude from the textual
agreement displayed in these latest editions, that research in this
department of New Testament study has reached its goal. Just as
explorers, in excavating the ruined temples of Olympia or Delphi, are
able from the fragments they discover to reconstruct the temple, to
their mind’s eye at least, in its ancient glory—albeit it is actually in
ruins—so too, much work remains to be done ere even all the materials
are re-collected, and the plan determined which shall permit us to
restore the Temple of the New Testament Scriptures to its original form.
Footnote 2:
They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August.
Footnote 3:
Mary’s Hymn, Luke i. 46-55; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.
Footnote 4:
“Nec eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis.”
Footnote 5:
At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens
and even hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible
Society of London. To this day the word ἀκαθάρτητος is printed in
their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though there is no such word in the
Greek language as ἀκαθάρτης, meaning uncleanness. In the concluding
verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus from
his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future ἀφαιρήσει for ἀφελεῖ.
We find also constructions like οὐκ ἔστι, καίπερ ἐστίν, in c. xvii. 8,
where, however, the accentuation ἐστίν makes Erasmus responsible for
an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed
ἔστιν. Every college lad knows that καίπερ is construed with the
participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at
once that καὶ πάρεστι is the correct reading. [_Cf._ Mark xv. 6, where
the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between ὃν παρῃτοῦντο and ὅνπερ
ᾒτοῦντο (ΟΝΠΑΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has
adopted the reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is
unsupported by any known MS. are to be found, _e.g._ in 1 Pet. ii. 6
(καὶ περιέχει) and in 2 Cor. i. 6. Luther, who used Erasmus’s second
edition of 1519, followed him in saying of the Beast, “that is not
although it is.” This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the
year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first
impression of the Revised Version of Luther’s Bible issued by the
Conference of German Evangelical Churches, and only removed in their
last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc. xvii. 8 was copied into the
English Authorised Version of 1611 (“is not and yet is”) but was
corrected by the Revisers of 1884 (“is not and shall come”).
Footnote 6:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 7:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 8:
Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 9:
Copies of the Parisian Polyglot now cost about £6.
Footnote 10:
Facsimile in Schaffs’s _Companion_.
Footnote 11:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 12:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 13:
Facsimile of the second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in Schaff’s
_Companion_.
Footnote 14:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 15:
Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in
Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 16:
Facsimile in Schaff’s _Companion_.
Footnote 17:
Van Ess’s edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of
these gives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and
Griesbach. But the other omits the names together with the Notanda on
the back of the title-page, so that the reader is left in the dark as
to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., in the margin. Most copies
omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope’s sanction of the
editions of Erasmus and Ximenes.
CHAPTER II.
MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Even in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded by that
invention, it is not always easy or even possible to exhibit or restore
the literary productions of a great mind in their original form. One has
but to think of the obscurity in which the works of Shakespeare and
their early editions are enveloped, or the questions raised over the
Weimar edition of Luther’s works. And even when the author’s original
manuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual,
destroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional discrepancies
between the print and the manuscript are intentional or not. Nay, even
when the two agree, there is still the possibility that what the author
wrote and allowed to be printed was not what he thought or intended to
be read. Did Lessing, _e.g._, mean us to read in _Nathan_ ii. 5, 493,
“the great _man_ requires always plenty of room,” or “the great _tree_”
does so? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist’s talents
or dexterity, have used the words “haud impigre.” To take them at their
word, the object of their praise had no such endowment beyond the
common. We may be certain that what they meant to convey was the very
opposite of what they actually wrote, viz. “haud pigre” or “impigre.” As
a rule, however, the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon reading
it in the form in which the author intended it to be circulated. It is
quite different in the case of those works which were composed at a time
when their multiplication was only possible by means of copying, and
specially so in the case of those that are older by a thousand years
than the invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh
source of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact as it was
possible for him to be. It is simply astonishing, in view of all the
perils to which literary works have been exposed, to find how much has
been preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully.
[Sidenote: Autographs.]
The matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good fortune the
author’s own manuscript, his =autograph=, is extant. The abstract
possibility of this being so in the case of the New Testament writings
cannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness of the climate of Egypt and the
excellence of ancient writing material, we have documents more than
twice the age that the New Testament autographs would be to-day did we
possess them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the
newspapers that such an original document has been found,—of Peter,
_e.g._, or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it was asserted that
the original copy of Matthew had been discovered in the grave of
Barnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the devout there are still
exhibited not only the Inscription from the Cross, but works from the
artist hand of Luke. In reality, however, we have no longer the
autograph of a single New Testament book. Their disappearance is readily
understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New
Testament, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intended for
publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation.
Even in the early ages of the Christian Church, when there must have
been frequent occasion to appeal to them, the autographs were no longer
in existence.
Tertullian (_De Praescriptione Haereticorum_, 36) mentions
Thessalonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of
the Apostles that were addressed there were still read from
autograph copies.[18] “Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas
ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas
ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et
repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque.” But when the same author, in
his _De Monogamia_, speaks of “Graecum authenticum,” he refers not
to the autograph, but to the original text as distinguished from a
version.
On the copy of Matthew’s Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas in
Cyprus, _vide_ Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of Antioch
in Assemani, _Bibliotheca Orientalis_, ii. 81; _Vitae omnium 13
Apostolorum_: Βαρνάβας ὁ καὶ Ἰωσῆς ... οὗτος τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον
εὐαγγέλιον οἰκειοχείρως γράψας ἐν τῇ τῆς Κύπρου νήσῳ τελειοῦται.[19]
In the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on
Holy Thursday of every year. _Vide_ Fabricius, _Evv. Apocr._, 341.
On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky,
_Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, vulgo autographi_, Prague, 1778.
It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating
from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague.
In the _Chronicon Paschale_ there is a note on the reading τρίτη for
ἕκτη in John xix. 14, to the following effect:—καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ
βιβλία περιέχει _αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ_, ὅπερ μέχρι
τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι θεοῦ ἐν τῇ Ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ
ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται. Bengel himself said on 1 John v.
7:—“Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum
Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc
periocham habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc
latentes, suo tempore productum iri.” (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)
In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, _Aus dem
deutschen Gelehrtenleben_, Göttingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends of
this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the
Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the
possession of the Queen of England, etc., _vide_ S. Schechter, _Die
Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums_, in the
_Jüdisches Literatur-Blatt_ for 1888, No. 46.
At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Harnack (_DG._ ii.
408) says might be called the “Council of Antiquaries and
Palaeographers”, investigations were instituted in this department
with some success.
J. G. Berger, _De Autographis Veterum_, Vitenb., 1723. 4^o.
J. R. Harris, _New Testament Autographs_ (Supplement to the
_American Journal of Philology_, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882. With
three plates.
In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of
Constantine Simonides: _Facsimiles of certain portions of the Gospel
of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude,
written on papyrus of the first century_. London, 1862. Fol.
[Sidenote: Manuscripts.]
Seeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament books have all
perished, we have to do as in the case of the Greek and Latin classics,
viz. apply to later copies of them, the so-called =manuscripts= of which
frequent mention has already been made. But while in the case of most
literary products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the _only_
sources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, we are happily more
fortunate in regard to the New Testament.
[Sidenote: Versions.]
The new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant peoples
speaking other languages than that in which the Gospel was first
preached. Indeed, even in its native land of Palestine, several
languages were in use at the same time. Accordingly, at a very early
date, as early as the second, and perhaps, in the case of fragments,
even in the first century, there arose in the East, and in the South,
and in the West, =versions= of the Christian books very soon after their
composition. At first only separate portions would be translated, but as
time went on versions of the entire New Testament made their appearance.
Manifestly, the value for our purpose of these versions depends on their
age and accuracy. It is impossible, without further knowledge, to be
certain whether a Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original
quite faithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testament which
dates from the second century, _e.g._, will represent with tolerable
certainty the second century Greek manuscript from which it is derived,
even supposing that our present copy of that version is not earlier than
the sixth century or even later. But these versions confer yet another
advantage. In the case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek
manuscripts, we do not know in what country they originated. But it is
quite certain that a Latin version could not have originated in Egypt,
or a Coptic version in Gaul. In this way we may learn from the versions
how the text of the Bible read at a particular time and in a particular
region. Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating in
quite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the Syrian East, and
in the Egyptian South, agree, then we may be certain that what is common
to them all must go back to the earliest times and to their common
original.
[Sidenote: Quotations.]
In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we have still a
third and by no means unimportant class of material that we can employ
in reconstructing our text of the New Testament. We possess an
uncommonly rich Christian literature, which gathers volume from the
second half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first
century onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that matter,
what any early writer quotes from the New Testament will have for us its
own very peculiar importance, under certain conditions. Because, as a
rule, we know precisely where and when he lived. So that by means of
these =patristic quotations= we are enabled to locate our ancient
manuscripts of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history
further than we are able to do with the help of the versions. Here, of
course, we must make sure that our author has quoted accurately and not
loosely from memory, and also that the quotations in his book have been
accurately preserved and not accommodated to the current text of their
time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions, as has
actually been done even in the nineteenth century. We shall now proceed
to describe these three classes of auxiliaries.
LITERATURE.—W. Wattenbach, _Anleitung zur griechischen
Palaeographie_, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877; V. Gardthausen, _Griechische
Palaeographie_, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, _Palaeographie,
Bücherwesen, und Handschriftenkunde_, in I. v. Müller’s Handbuch der
klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892;
E. M. Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography_, London,
1891; T. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_, Berlin, 1882; W. A. Copinger,
_The Bible and its Transmission_; F. G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the
ancient Manuscripts_, London, third edition, 1897; F. H. A.
Scrivener, _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient
Manuscripts which contain it_, Cambridge and London, 1875; _A
Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels_, London,
1853; _Adversaria critica sacra_, Cambridge, 1893; Hoskier; _Urt._,
pp. 16, 54; O. Weise, _Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer
Zeit_, Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work); F.
G. Kenyon, _The Palaeography of Greek Papyri_, Oxford, 1899 (with 20
Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160); Ulr. Wilcken,
_Tafeln zur älteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Originalen des
Berliner K. Museums_, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20
photographs); G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, _Collezione Fiorentina di
facsimili paleografici greci e latini_, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50
Greek Plates and 50 Latin, Folio); Charles F. Sitterly, _Praxis in
Manuscripts of the Greek Testament; the mechanical and literary
processes involved in their writing and preservation_ (with table of
Manuscripts and 13 Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898,
second enlarged edition, 1900; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati,
_Monumenta Palaeographica sacra: Atlante paleografico-artistico
composto sui manuscritti_, Turin, 1899; Karl Dziatzko,
_Untersuchungen über ausgewählte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit
Text, Uebersetzung und Erklärung von Plinii Histor. Nat._, lib.
xiii. § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner, 1900.
1. MANUSCRIPTS.
[Sidenote: Number of manuscripts.]
For no literary production of antiquity is there such a wealth of
manuscripts as for the New Testament. Our classical scholars would
rejoice were they as fortunate with Homer or Sophocles, Plato or
Aristotle, Cicero or Tacitus, as Bible students are with their New
Testament. The oldest complete manuscript of Homer that we have dates
from the thirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragments go back
to the Alexandrian age. All that is extant of Sophocles we owe to a
single manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century in the
Laurentian Library at Florence. But of the New Testament, 3829
manuscripts have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic
search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the list; a
search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly do so. Gregory
believes that there are probably some two or three thousand manuscripts
which have not yet been collated, and every year additional manuscripts
are brought to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain
only separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New
Testament.[20] Not a few, however, go much further back than our
manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of the Greek and Latin
Classics. Only in the case of the Mohammedan sacred books is the
condition of things more favourable. These came into existence in the
seventh century, and the variations between separate manuscripts are a
vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was officially fixed
at a very early date and regarded as inviolably sacred. Fortunately, one
might almost say, it is quite different with the New Testament, which
was put together in a totally different way. In its case the very
greatest freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.
The manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous, it becomes
necessary to arrange them. One of the most important considerations
hitherto has been that of age, and therefore manuscripts have been
divided into =Uncials= (or Majuscules) and =Cursives= (or Minuscules),
according to the style of writing in use at earlier or later times.
[Sidenote: Uncial, and Cursive script.]
In early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monuments and
public buildings were engraved in capital letters. This form of writing
was also employed for books, especially those containing valuable or
sacred writing. The letters were not joined together, but set down side
by side.[21] They were called _litterae majusculae_, _capitales_,
_unciales_, _i.e._ “inch-high,” as Jerome says with ridicule—_uncialibus
ut vulgo aiunt litteris onera magis exarata quam codices_. Alongside of
this there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller Cursive
form (_Minusculae_), for use in common life, in which the letters were
joined.[22] This running hand found its way into manuscripts of the
Bible in the course of the ninth century. In some cases, in Codex Λ
_e.g._, both styles are found alongside or following each other.[23]
The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the exact date of
which is known, is 481^{evv.}; it bears the date 835. The great majority
of New Testament manuscripts belong to this later date, seeing that out
of the 3829 manuscripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules.
Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manuscripts exactly,
it becomes the task of palæography to settle the criteria by which the
date and place of a manuscript’s origin may be determined. These are the
style of writing—whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the
punctuation—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and
form of the book. These distinctions, however, are often very
misleading. The following table will show the distribution of the
manuscripts according to the centuries in which they were written, as
given by Vollert, Scrivener, and von Gebhardt[24]:—
Vollert. Scrivener. v. Gebhardt.
IVth Century, 5 ... 2
Vth “ 4 10 15
VIth ” 18 22 24
VIIth “ 6 9 17
VIIIth ” 8 8 19
IXth “ 23 ... 31
Xth ” 4 ... 6
[Sidenote: Papyrus and parchment.]
Manuscripts are distinguished according to the =material= on which they
are written, which may be either parchment or paper.
=Parchment= derives its name from Pergamum, where it was introduced in
the reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). But prior to the use of
parchment, and to a certain extent alongside of it, =papyrus= was used,
especially in Egypt, down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest.
Papyrus books were originally in the form of rolls (_volumina_). Only a
few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. The use of
parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. In the case of parchment
codices, a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum
manufactured from the skins of very young calves, and those made of
common parchment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.
[Sidenote: Paper.]
As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called =cotton
paper= (_charta bombycina_) was introduced from the East. This, however,
never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of flax and hemp. It had been
in use for a long time in China and the centre of Eastern Asia, but
seems to have been unknown in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of
Samarcand in 704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of
linen was employed.
In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are referred to. In 2
Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the φελόνης he had left at Troas might be
brought to him, and τὰ βιβλία, but specially τὰς μεμβράνας. Here,
φελόνης means cloak rather than satchel; τὰ βιβλία are the papyrus
books, possibly his Old Testament, while τὰς μεμβράνας are clean sheets
of parchment. In 2 John 12 the word χάρτης is used of papyrus. There,
and in 3 John 13, τὸ μέλαν is the ink, and the κάλαμος (_lat._ canna) is
the reed pen, still used for writing in the East. The quill pen, strange
to say, is not mentioned prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in
the sixth century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred
from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to above.
[Sidenote: Scriptio continua.]
In order to economize space, the writing was continuous, with no break
between the words (=scriptio continua=), breathings and accents being
also omitted. This is a frequent source of ambiguity and
misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, _e.g._, ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ may be either εἷς
ἐλθὼν or εἰσελθὼν. In Mark x. 40, ΑΛΛΟΙΣΗΤΟΙΜΑΣΤΑΙ was rendered “aliis
praeparatum,” ἄλλοις being read instead of ἀλλ’ οἷς. In Matt. xvi. 23,
ΑΛΛΑ may be taken either as ἀλλὰ or ἀλλ’ ἃ. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, again,
the Ethiopic translator read οὖς instead of οὓς. The Palestinian-Syriac
Lectionary translates 1 Tim. iii. 16 as though it were ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς
μέγα ἐστίν. There is something to be said for this, but Naber’s proposed
reading of Gal. ii. 11, ὅτι κατέγνωμεν ὃς ἦν, cannot be accepted.
[Sidenote: Columns, Lines.]
Most manuscripts show two =columns= to the page. The Sinaitic, however,
has four, while the Vatican has three. Columns vary considerably in
width. They may be the width of a few letters only, or of an average
hexameter line of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six
letters. Such a line is called a στίχος, and as the scribe was paid
according to the number of στίχοι, we find at the end of several books a
note giving the total number of στίχοι contained in them. In carefully
written manuscripts, every hundredth, sometimes every fiftieth στίχος is
indicated in the margin. These stichometric additions were afterwards
adopted for the entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be
obvious.
As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testament
manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either from the luxury of
the rich or the pious devotion of kings and churches.
[Sidenote: Palimpsests.]
Parchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and so the practice
arose of using an old manuscript a second time. The original writing was
erased by means of a sponge or pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets
were then employed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same
matter over again. And so we have =Codices Rescripti= or =Palimpsesti=
as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who says, though of a wax
tablet, “quod in palimpsesto, laudo parsimoniam” (_ad Diversos_ vii.
18). Some manuscripts were used as often as three times for distinct
works in three different languages _e.g._ Greek, Syriac, and Iberian.
Codex I^b is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first
in Greek and then twice in Syriac.
[Sidenote: Punctuation.]
Marks of =punctuation= are hardly to be found in the earliest times. It
was frequently, therefore, a question with church teachers whether a
sentence was to be taken interrogatively or indicatively, or how the
sentences were to be divided, as in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the
general absence of punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in
some of the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus _e.g._, to indicate
citations from the Old Testament, is remarkable.
[Sidenote: Size.]
The =size= of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in the case
of a parchment codex must have been very expensive, to a small octavo.
In regions inhabited by a mixed population we find =bilingual=
manuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek-Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like.
If the manuscript was designed for use in church, the two languages were
written in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying the left
column or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of honour. In
manuscripts intended for use in schools, the translation was written
between the lines. Codex Δ is an example of a manuscript with an
interlinear version of this sort.
[Sidenote: Contents.]
Of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts according to their
=contents=. Of all our recorded Uncials, only one contains the whole of
the New Testament complete. That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by
Tischendorf in 1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus,
Ephraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of the later
Minuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the entire New Testament. Of
the English Minuscules, five are complete. The fragmentary nature of our
manuscripts is intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament
codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and ponderous volume
running to about 150 sheets. Comparatively few would be in a position to
procure such a costly work all at once. The other reason is that the New
Testament itself is not a single book, but a series of different
collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated
separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in the order of
the several parts of the New Testament found in the manuscripts, and
still, to a certain extent, in our printed editions. It is not exactly
known who it was that first collected and inscribed in one volume the
books and the parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single
volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known as a πανδέκτης,
and in Latin, _bibliotheca_. The parts into which the New Testament is
divided are—
1. The four Gospels.
2. (_a_) The Acts of the Apostles. (_b_) The so-called Catholic
Epistles, _i.e._ those not addressed to any particular church or
individual, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude.
3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews, fourteen.
4. The Apocalypse.
[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]
Among these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testament may be classed
the so-called =lectionaries=—_i.e._ manuscripts containing only those
portions read at church services. Following the custom of the Synagogue,
in which portions of the Law and the Prophets were read at divine
service each Sabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the
Christian Church of reading passages from the New Testament books at
services. A definite selection of such extracts was formed at an early
date from the Gospels and Epistles, and the custom arose of arranging
these according to the order of Sundays and Holy days, for greater
convenience in use. A collection of selected passages from the Gospels
was called a Εὐαγγέλιον, and in Latin _Evangeliarium_,[25] in
distinction to the books containing the continuous text, which were
called Τετραευαγγέλιον, while the selections from the Epistles were
known as Ἀπόστολος or Πραξαπόστολος. These lectionaries, though mostly
of later origin, are nevertheless important as indicating the official
text of the various provinces of the Church. They show, moreover, how
sundry slight alterations found their way into the text of the New
Testament.
We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the Gospels are
by far the most numerous, while those of the last book of the New
Testament are the fewest. Among the Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and
only 7 have the Apocalypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. א B
K M S U, or, if we include Ω, only 7 are quite complete; 9 are almost
so; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the remainder
contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the Pauline Epistles, only
1 is entirely complete—viz., א; 2 are nearly complete, D G; 8 have the
greater part. It is plain that our resources are not so great, after
all, as the number of manuscripts given above would lead us to expect.
Here also there are πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι ἐκλεκτοί.
Parchment.
The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of papyrus. It
is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as writing material to
the encouragement given to its manufacture by Eumenes II. of Pergamum
(197-159 B.C.). Pliny’s story,[26] which he gives on the authority of
Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a library which should, as far as
possible, excel that of Alexandria. To frustrate this intention Ptolemy
Epiphanes prohibited the exportation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the
list of principal exports of Alexandria, Lumbroso[27] mentions βίβλος
and χάρτη in the second place after ὑέλια, and βιβλία in the seventh.)
Eumenes was accordingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and
hence its name, περγαμηνή. The name first occurs in Diocletian’s
Price-list,[28] and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was
διφθέραι,[29] or δέρρεις,[30] or μεμβράναι as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which
last was taken from the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than
papyrus, and was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the
making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin. But it
gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came also the
change from the roll to the “codex” form of book. If papyrus was the
vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was the means whereby the
literature of the new faith became known to mankind, and the remnant of
the ancient culture at the same time preserved. Origen’s library, which
still consisted for the most part of papyrus rolls, was re-written in
parchment volumes (σωμάτιον, _corpus_) by two priests shortly before the
time of Jerome. Our principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one
of these codices.[31] When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a
certain number of Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire,
he sent him, not rolls, but codices, πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις.
Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, asses,
swine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible exhibit the
finest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, _e.g._, displays the
very finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size that only two
sheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule, four sheets were
folded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheets having been
previously ruled on the grain side. They were laid with the flesh side
to the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain side, beginning with
the flesh side outermost, so that in each quaternio, pages 1, 4, 5, 8,
9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with the lines showing in relief,
while the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 were darker and rough, with
indented lines.[32]
[Sidenote: Ink.]
For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three parts of
lamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted with water. This
ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not stick well to
parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made of gall nuts.
Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the result that the
writing material is frequently corroded with the ink. From its having
been boiled the mixture was also called ἔγκαυστον, hence our word “ink”
(encre). Many old recipes for making ink are still preserved.[33] Even
in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks, especially red, were used. One
of the most beautiful manuscripts extant is a Syriac Codex in the
British Museum, of date 411, in which the red, blue, green, and yellow
inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius used cinnabar for numbering the
paragraphs, and Jerome makes mention of minium or vermilion. In times of
great wealth parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and
silver letters.
Papyrus.
Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the
preparation of papyrus, in his _Historia Naturalis_, xiii. 11.[34] The
sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the plant.
This was cut into strips (σχίδας) as thin and broad, and, according to
some, as long as possible. These were laid side by side as firmly as
might be, to form the first layer (σχέδα). On this a second layer was
laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with moisture or gum. The two
layers were then compressed to form the writing sheet (σελίς), which was
carefully dried and polished with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll
(τόμος, κύλινδρος) consisted of a number of σελίδες joined together to
make one long strip—sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even
longer. The upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in
which the fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of
the roll.[35] The under or outer side was only used in cases of
necessity.[36] The first sheet (πρωτόκολλον) was made stronger than the
rest, and its inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (ὄμφαλος), with a
knob at the end (κέρας). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the
edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the back
was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with cedar oil.
The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment (σίττυβος or
σίλλυβος). The separate rolls were enclosed in a leather case (διφθέρα
or φαινόλης, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number of them kept in a chest
(κιβωτός or κίστη).
On the literature cf. also Paul Krüger, _Ueber die Verwendung von
Papyrus und Pergament für die juristische Litteratur der Römer_,
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section,
viii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, _Archiv für Papyrus-Forschung und
verwandte Gebiete_, Leipzig, Teubner. F. G. Kenyon, _Palaeography of
Greek Papyri_. C. Haeberlin, _Griechische Papyri_, Leipzig, 1897:
“Nearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and 1806 Papyrus
Fragments were discovered in the year 1752 at Herculaneum, in the Villa
of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the pupil and friend of the Epicurean
philosopher Philodemus. Then twenty-five years later the soil of Egypt,
that home and nursery of literature, opened for the first time to
vouchsafe to us a Greek Papyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a
series of discoveries often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It
was, perchance, not the only one of its kind; but out of the fifty rolls
accidentally discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the
neighbourhood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the
possession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by their
unsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the resinous
odour that arose from their smoking pyre.”
Paper.
The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Archduke
Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of
paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more
exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible.
Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, _De Chartae vulgaris
seu lineae Origine_, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1767, have been
superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have been introduced into
Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went by the name of _pergameno de
panno_ to distinguish it from the _pergameno de cuero_. In the Byzantine
Empire it was called ξυλοχάρτιον or ξυλότευκτον, as being a vegetable
product. It came afterwards to be known as χάρτης Δαμασκηνός, from its
chief place of manufacture. The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence
it passed into Italy. After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the
exports of Genoa. European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern
manufacture chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, _e.g._,
which were unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great
resemblance to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments
of Mark’s Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were written on
bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus. Massei said it was
cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be parchment. In many
manuscripts a mixture of parchment and paper is found. This is so in the
Leicester Codex, in which the leaves are regularly arranged in such a
way that the outer and inner sheets of a quire are of parchment, while
the three intermediate sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, _The
origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887, p. 14 ff.
[Sidenote: Lead.]
Lead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde sees a
reference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix. 24. He
holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed as run into
letters cut out in the rock, which would be a very unlikely thing to do,
and a practice for which there is no evidence. He would therefore
correct the text so as to read “with an iron pen on lead.” Hesiod’s
Ἔργα, _e.g._, was preserved on lead in the temple of the Muses on
Helicon.[37] A leaden tablet from Hadrumet contains an incantation
showing strong traces of O.T. influence.[38] At Rhodes there was
recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed with the 80th Psalm, which
was used as a charm to protect a vineyard.[39]
[Sidenote: Clay.]
Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Strack
has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the
_Realencyklopädie_ (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of N.T.
writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of which we have
now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this sort dating from a
period of over a thousand years from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus
onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen. Several of these contain
portions of literary works such as those of Euripides.[40]
[Sidenote: Linen.]
Linen was also written on.[41] It was used, _e.g._, for the Sibylline
Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus: _Orac. Sib._ ed. Alexandre, ii., 159,
178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found on
linen.
Paul’s “books.”
On Paul’s “books and parchments,” see Zahn, _Kanon_ ii., 938 ff. I am
not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La Bibliothèque
de l’Apôtre Paul (Chrétien Évang., 1897, v. 224-227). In the _Theol.
Tijdschrift_, 1898, p. 217, the view that the μεμβράναι Paul sent for
were blank sheets of parchment is called in question. The most natural
explanation, certainly, is that they were.
Pen.
The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. By “the
wild beast of the reeds” (Ps. lxviii. 31) the Rabbis understood the
reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by קנה, and they
took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who decided the fate of
nations with a single stroke of his pen.[42] Luther, moreover, was not
without precedent in speaking of “governors with the pen” in Jud. v.
14, as the Syriac version renders it in the same way. In Ps. xlv. 2,
the Hebrew עֵט is rendered κάλαμος (LXX), σχοῖνος (Aquila), and
γραφεῖον (Symmachus). It is also rendered σχοῖνος by the translator of
Jeremiah viii. 8, where Aquila has γραφεῖον. Σχοῖνος must therefore be
added to the Bible names for pen. Γραφίς for γραφεῖον, mentioned
alongside of ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος in Jer. xvii. 1, seems to belong to the
Spanish-Greek of the Complutensian, but is really classic, as also its
diminutive γραφίδιον. According to the Rabbis, pens were among the
things God made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They
were also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an invention of
the Deity.[43] According to Antisthenes[44] or Democritus,[45] a young
man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, requires to have a
βιβλιαρίου καινου (= καὶ νοῦ) καὶ γραφείου καινου καὶ πινακιδίου
καινου. In Cyprus, the stilus is called ἀλειπτήριον, and the
γραμματοδιδάσκαλος in like manner διφθεράλοιφος.[46] In the recently
discovered fragments of Diocletian’s _List of Wares_, the section περὶ
πλούμου (goose, swan, and peacock feathers) is followed by that περὶ
καλάμων καὶ μελανίου, and then by that περὶ ἐσθῆτος. Ink costs 12
drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian κάλαμοι[47] cost 4
drachmae; and κάλαμοι δευτ[έρας] φώρ[μης] the same. Baruch, the
ἀναγνωστής, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the Gentiles, in
order to write his letter to Jeremiah (ἀποστείλας εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν [v.
l. διασπορᾶς] τῶν ἐθνῶν ἤνεγκε χάρτην καὶ μέλανα [v. l. μελαν]).[48]
Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver stilus. Boniface,
_e.g._, had one of that sort sent him from England.
[Sidenote: Reading and writing.]
The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writing
taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim to be
complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath’s _Concordance
to the Septuagint_.
ἀκριβόω, ἀναγιγνώσκω, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀναγνωστής, ἀντίγραφον, ἀποκαλύπτειν;
βιβλιαφόρος (βιβλιο-), βίβλινος, βιβλιογράφος (Est. iii. 13, Complut.),
βιβλιοθήκη, βιβλίον (βυ-), βιβλιοφυλάκιον, βίβλος (βυ-); γαζά, γράμμα,
γραμματεία, γραμματεύειν, γραμματεύς, γραμματικός, γραμματοεισαγωγεύς,
γραπτόν, γράφειν (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, ἐπι-, κατα-, συν-), γραφεῖον (σιδηροῦν),
γραφεὺς (ταχινός), γραφή (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, συν-), γραφικός, γραφίς;
διφθέρωμα, διώκειν; εἴλημα, εἰς- or ἐγχαράττειν, ἐπιστολή, ἑρμηνεύω,
ἐπιστάμενος γράμματα; θησαυροφύλαξ; κάλαμος (καλαμάριον, _vide_ Field’s
_Hexapla_ on Ezek. ix. 2) κάστυ, κεφαλίς; μαχθάμ, μέλαν, μελανοδοχεῖον,
μίλτος, μνημόσυνον, μολίβος, μολίβδινος; ξυρός; ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος,
ὀξυγράφος; πινακίς, πινακίδιον, πτύξ, πτυχή, πυξίον; σελίς, σμίλη,
στηλογραφία, σφραγίζειν, σφραγίς, σχοῖνος; τόμος (χαρτοῦ καινοῦ μεγάλου,
Isa. viii. 1; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for τόπος), τεῦχος, τύπος; χάρτης,
χαρτίον, χαρτηρία.
Diastole and hyphen.
Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous letters
were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunderstanding, they
employed the ὑποδιαστολή as the mark of division (ὅ, τι, _e.g._), and
the ὑφ’ ἕν as the mark of combination (Διό[σκ]ουροι, not Διὸς κοῦροι).
Such marks are also found in manuscripts of the Bible, in the
Septuagint, _e.g._, in the case of proper names. It goes without saying
that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as the copying of
manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hermas (Visio ii. 1) says of
the book given him to copy μετεγραψάμην πάντα πρὸς γράμμα· οὐχ ηὕρισκον
γὰρ τὰς συλλαβάς.[49] For two instructive mistakes in the Latin
interlinear version of Codex Boernerianus see p. 77.
Breathings and accents.
Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the Bible as
early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our oldest manuscripts
they seldom occur before the seventh century. They were inserted by the
first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch (Swete’s F), which is ascribed to
the first half of the fifth century by Ceriani. They seem to have been
added to the Codex Vaticanus by the third hand, probably in the twelfth
century, and do not always conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting
on the rival readings _filiis_ and _porcina_, in Psalm xvi. 14, says:
“quod (porcina) alii codices habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia
diligentiora exemplaria per accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci
ambiguitatem graeco scribendi more dissolvunt, obscurius est” (ii.
504-5, in Lagarde’s _Probe einer neuen Ausgabe_, p. 40). Similarly,
speaking of the difference between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen.
xlvii. 31, he says:—“fallit enim eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem literis
scribitur sive _eius_ sive _suae_; sed accentus [= spiritus] dispares
sunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur” (iv. 53
ed. Lugd. 1586, cited by Scrivener, i. p. 47).
[Sidenote: Abbreviation.]
The practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like Θ̅Σ̅,
Χ̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Α̅Ν̅Ο̅Σ̅ goes back to very early times. So, too, does the
use of letters as numerals, Ι for 10, etc.
[Sidenote: Divisions.]
In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the rule of
beginning each new line with a consonant. A good many exceptions occur
however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of which have been corrected
by a later hand. These are indicated in the third volume of Swete’s
edition of the LXX. A good instance of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12,
where the Vaticanus and Marchalianus both originally had προσ ενεγκωσιν,
which in the former is corrected to προ σενεγκωσιν, and in the latter to
προσε νεγκωσιν. For examples from the O.T. portion of the Codex
Vaticanus see Nestle’s _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20.
Stichometry.
Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are provided
with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better manuscripts of
the classics, as _e.g._ Herodotus and Demosthenes. In the N.T. it is
found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back to the recension
of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex Vaticanus has copied, in
several of the books of the O.T., the stichometric enumeration which he
found in his original, and the numbers show that the manuscript he
copied contained almost twice as much matter in a line as the one he
himself wrote. See Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20 f.; Lagarde,
_Die Stichometrie der syrisch-hexaplarischen Uebersetzung des alten
Testaments_ (_Mitteilungen_, iv. 205-208). On the stichometric list in
the Codex Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles (D_{2}), see p. 76.
American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek N.T. In
Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke 19,209.
Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the N.T. See
Schaff’s _Companion_, pp. 57, 176.
Graux (_Revue de Philologie_, ii.) has counted not only the words but
the letters in the various books. The numbers are given in Zahn’s
_Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 76. They are as follows:—
Letters. Stichoi.
Matthew, 89,295 2480
Mark, 55,550 1543
Luke, 97,714 2714
John, 70,210 1950
Acts, 94,000 2610
3 John, 1,100 31
Apocalypse, 46,500 1292
For Philemon, Zahn 1,567 44
gives
In this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or
including the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincide as
near as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters to the
stichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 complete lines which
my edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters, that is, only 7 fewer.
In Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi, while my edition shows
exactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. For stichometric calculations,
therefore, this edition will prove very convenient.
For a “Table of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New Testament,” see
Scrivener, i. 68; also Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, xix., xx.; _Bible
in the Church_, Appendix B, 4.
[Sidenote: Cola and commata.]
The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. The length
of the latter was regulated according to the space (space-lines), that
of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence (sense-lines).
On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White, _De colis et commatibus
codicis Amiatini et editionis nostrae_, in the _Epilogus_ to their
edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the stichometry proper see
_Ibid._, p. 736, _De stichorum numeris in euangeliis_.
Manuscripts de luxe.
Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen of Sheba,
who herself could both read and write.[50] Mani inscribed characters on
white satin in such a way that if a single thread was drawn out the
writing became invisible.[51] On gold and silver writing among the
Syrians see Zahn, _Tatian, Forschungen_, 108, n. 1; also R. Wessely,
_Iconographie_ (_Wiener Studien_, xii. 2, 259-279). The earliest mention
of this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle of Aristeas,[52]
σὺν ... ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν αἷς [ἦν] ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη
χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, θαυμασίως εἰργασμένου τοῦ ὑμένος
καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης. In
Alexander’s copy of the Pentateuch the name of God was written in gold
letters.[53]
On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing see
Chrysostom, _Hom. 32 in Joannem_: σπουδῆς περὶ τὴν τῶν ὑμένων λεπτότητα
καὶ τὸ τῶν γραμμάτων κάλλος. Ephraem Syrus commended this Christian
munificence, as is pointed out in the _Histor. Polit. Blätter_, 84, 2,
104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum on Ps. xlv. 10.
The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the use of
purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived from that in
Jerome’s Commentary on Job, and he founds on this an argument against
the genuineness of the Epistle.[54] In the Martyrium of Qardagh the
Persian, particular mention is made of the remarkable beauty and
whiteness of the parchment (σωμάτιον) on which he wrote his
epistles.[55]
For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not only
of rapid writers (ταχυγράφοι) but also of girls who could write
beautifully (καλλιγράφοι). Cassiodorus pleads—qui emendare praesumitis,
ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut potius ab
_Antiquariis_ scriptae fuisse judicentur.[56] We also find him making
proposals for expensive bindings in the _De Inst._, c. 30, a passage
which, according to Springer,[57] has been overlooked in the literature
on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.
On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, _Ueber die mit Gold
auf Purpur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamiltonschen
Bibliothek_, in the _Berliner Sitz.-Ber._, 7th March 1889, xiii.
143-156. Cf. _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 33, 34. This manuscript
purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but was rather
from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had the four Gospels
written with the finest gold. Boniface requested his English friends to
send him the Epistles of Paul written with gold in order therewith to
impress the simple-minded Germans (Ep. 32, p. 99), a fact of which
Gustav Freitag makes use in his _Ingo und Ingraban_, p. 476. (See _Die
Christliche Welt_, 1888, 22.) _Cf._ also the manuscripts of Theodulf in
Paris and Puy (see below, p. 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of
gold and silver bindings or clasps (firmacula) and also of different
colours.
[Sidenote: Illustration.]
Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manuscripts a
whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if H. Kothe is
right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 3,
8 (= Clem., _Strom._, i. 78, p. 364, Potter): πρῶτος δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ
βιβλίον ἐξέδωκε σὺν γραφῇ (“with a picture”: formerly read as
συγγραφῆς). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the obscene poems
of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to exist of the works
of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the botanist Dioscorides, of
the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer Ptolemy. A description of
the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by Victor Schultze in the
_Daheim_, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good facsimiles. On the horses in
the chariot of Elijah in a Greek manuscript of the ninth century in the
Vatican Library, and on the pictures of the horsemen in the codex of
Joshua also contained there, see F. aus’m Weerth in the _Jahrbuch des
Vereins von Altertums-Freunden im Rheinland_, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.
Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus—_i.e._ a manuscript of the Old Latin
Bible of large size—which contained pictures of the Tabernacle and the
Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius entitled
_Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex antiquitatibus Ebraeorum et
Christianorum illustrata cum figuris_, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the
same author, _Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen_, Lips. 1738, also
_Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata_,
Lips., 1741. See also Georg Thiele, _De antiquorum libris pictis capita
quattuor_, _Marburg_, 1897.
Palimpsests.
Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the Church.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quinisextum, 680-681),
in its 68th canon, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐξεῖναί τινι τῶν ἁπάντων βιβλία τῆς
παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας διαθήκης διαφθείρειν, forbids the sale of old
manuscripts of the Bible to the βιβλιοκάπηλοι or the μυρεψοί, or to any
persons whatever.[58] There was naturally a special aversion to letting
such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews; but yet there were
discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of Old Cairo, fragments
of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had been afterwards employed to
receive Jewish writing. Parchments of this sort were at first used only
for rough drafts and such like, instead of wax tablets from which the
writing could be erased again.
Punctuation.
A good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in Lk. i.
35, on which see p. 201. Compare also Lk. xxi. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 5, where
Lachmann punctuates καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος. By a different punctuation in
Heb. i. 9, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort make ὁ Θεός vocative and
nominative respectively. In the former case the Messiah is God, in the
other God is the one who anoints him. This difference was not observed
at first by O. v. Gebhardt. Similarly there is a difference between the
text and the margin of Westcott and Hort in verse 8, where by the
insertion or omission of the two commas before and after ὁ Θεός the
meaning is either that Messiah is God or that God is Messiah’s throne.
Considering the importance of such marks of division, the rule laid down
by Ephraem Syrus in the year 350, and again emphasized by Bengel and
Lagarde, should be carefully attended to in the New Testament: εἰ
κέκτησαι βιβλίον, εὐστιχὲς κτῆσαι αὐτό· μήποτε εὑρεθῇ ἐν αὐτῷ πρόσκομμα
τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι ἢ μεταγράφοντι (see Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter_, p.
24). Compare also what Chrysostom says regarding punctuation on Mt.
viii. 9: τινὲς δὲ καὶ οὕτως ἀναγινώσκουσι τουτὶ τὸ χωρίον· εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ
ἄνθρωπος ὤν, καὶ μεταξὺ στίξαντες ἐπάγουσιν· ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ὑπ’
ἐμαυτοῦ στρατιώτας. See also Victor (or whoever it is) on Mk. xvi. 9. On
the change of the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see
below, pp. 204(7), 276. J. A. Robinson thinks it probable that ὁ
Ἀγαπητός is a separate title of the Messiah, and would point ὁ υἱός μου,
ὁ Ἀγαπητός in Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 on the authority of the _Ascensio Esaiae_
and the Old Syriac (see Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, ii. 501).
Contents.
On the contents of Bible manuscripts see Zahn, _GK._ i. 62 f. According
to him Jerome’s Old Testament was in 14 volumes. In addition to some
entire Bibles Cassiodorus had the Scriptures written out in 9 codices.
Of these vol. VII. comprised the Gospels, VIII. the Epistles, and IX.
the Acts and Apocalypse. Leontius speaks of 6 books of the New
Testament, of which probably I. was Mt. and Mk., II. Lk. and Jn., III.
Acts, IV. Catholic Epistles, V. Pauline Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a
rule the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles made two codices.
In cod. א we find that the different parts of the New Testament display
a different type of text, from which we may conclude that the codex was
copied, not from a single manuscript but from several. Similarly, the
singular type of text exhibited by cod. Δ in Mark would show that this
codex, or that from which it was copied, was transcribed from different
rolls or codices, each containing one Gospel. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 63.
Bibliotheca.
On the designation _Bibliotheca_ and _Pandectes_ for Bible manuscripts,
see Zahn, _GK._ i. 65. On τεῦχος, _ibid._ 67. He informs us that the
earliest mention of a Christian _bibliotheca_ and its _armaria_ is in
the heathen protocol of the year 304, in the _Gesta apud Zenophilum_
given in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in
Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the Readers.
In Ruinart’s _Acta Saturnini_ a certain Ampelius is mentioned as “custos
legis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus conservator.” From
Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at that time the few existing
copies of the Scriptures were in the custody of the clergy, and were
only to be perused in their presence. (_Zusätze zu einer nötigen
Antwort._ Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this point see Zahn,
_GK._ i. 140.
(_a._) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.
[Sidenote: א]
א CODEX SINAITICUS, now in St. Petersburg, contains the entire New
Testament written in the fourth or more probably at the beginning of the
fifth century. The story of its discovery and acquisition is quite
romantic. When Tischendorf, under the patronage of his sovereign King
Frederick Augustus of Saxony, came to the Convent of St. Catherine on
Mount Sinai for the first time in 1844, he rescued from a basket there
forty-three old sheets of parchment which, with other rubbish, were
destined for the fire. In this way he obtained possession of portions of
one of the oldest MSS. of the Old Testament, which he published as the
Codex Frederico-Augustanus (F-A) in 1846. At the same time he learned
that other portions of the same Codex existed in the Monastery. He could
find no trace of these, however, on his second visit in 1853. But on his
third visit, undertaken with the patronage of the Emperor of Russia, the
steward of the monastery brought him, shortly before his departure on
the 4th February 1859, what surpassed all his expectations, the entire
remaining portions of the Codex comprising a great part of the Old
Testament and the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only
was the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty-seven
books, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the
so-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the greatest repute in early
Christian times, the Greek text of which was only partially extant in
Europe. Tischendorf managed to secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia,
at whose expense it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1862
on the thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire. In
return for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine for St.
Catherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and 2000 for the
monastery on Mount Tabor, while several Russian decorations were
distributed among the Fathers.
Unfortunately the art of photography was not so far advanced
thirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to be made of
the MS., and Tischendorf had to be content with a printed copy executed
as faithfully as the utmost care and superintendence would admit.
To what date does the manuscript belong? There is still extant a letter
of the first Christian Emperor Constantine dating from the year 331, in
which he asks Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to provide him
with fifty copies of the Old and New Testament for use in the principal
churches of his empire (πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις)
and puts two public carriages at the bishop’s disposal for their safe
transport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent along with these
Bibles, in which he consigns them ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσᾶ
καὶ τετρασσᾶ—_i.e._ “in expensively prepared volumes of three and four.”
With former scholars Tischendorf understood the expression τρισσᾶ καὶ
τετρασσᾶ of the number of sheets in the quires of the manuscripts, as
though they had been composed of ternions and quaternions of twelve and
sixteen pages respectively. Others took it as referring to the number of
columns on the pages, Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be
one of these fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to the
page. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, however, that it
indicates the number of volumes each Bible comprised, and means that
each Bible of three or four parts, as the case might be, was packed in a
separate box.[59] Tischendorf, as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus
one of these fifty Bibles. He also thought that א was the work of four
different scribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who had
written only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribe of Codex
Vaticanus. But other authorities bring א down to the beginning of the
fifth century.
One can understand how it was that Tischendorf was led to overrate the
value of this manuscript at first, and to call it by the first letter of
the Hebrew alphabet to signify its pre-eminence over all other
manuscripts. The claim is so far justified that it is at least one of
the oldest manuscripts, and of the oldest the only one that contains the
entire New Testament. The order is that of the Gospels, Pauline Epistles
(among which Hebrews is found after 2 Thess.), Acts, Catholic Epistles,
Apocalypse, after which come Barnabas and Hermas.[60] This same order is
observed in the Old Syriac Bible, and in the first printed Greek New
Testament, the Complutensian Polyglot. The fact that Barnabas is still
tacitly included in the books of the New Testament may be taken equally
as indicating the age of א itself or that of the exemplar from which it
was copied.[61] Jerome’s recension of Origen’s Lexicon of Proper Names
in the Greek New Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited
like the other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a very
old list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is even found
before the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is not found again in the
succeeding centuries.
[Transcriber’s Note: In this paragraph, there are two cases of letters
separated by a slash, as if describing arithmetic division, like “a/b”.
In the original book they are printed with the first item, “a”, raised
up, and the second item, “b”, printed below the first. In this e-book,
they are represented in this “a/b” form.]