א is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called =Ammonian Sections= and
=Eusebian Canons=. In order to facilitate the study of the Gospels,
Ammonius of Alexandria arranged, alongside of Matthew’s Gospel, the
parallel passages in Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was
obliged of course to dislocate these last.[62] Eusebius, however, simply
divided the four Gospels into 1162 sections—viz., 355 in Matthew, 233 in
Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in John. These he numbered consecutively in
each Gospel, and then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The
first contained those passages which are found in all the four Gospels;
the second, third, and fourth those common to any particular combination
of three; the fifth to the ninth comprised the passages common to any
two, and the tenth those peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon
was then set under that of the section in the margin, and the Table
inserted at the beginning or end of the manuscript. By this means it was
possible to know in the case of each section whether a parallel was to
be found in the other Gospels, and where. In the margin opposite John
xv. 20, _e.g._, we find the numbers ρλθ/γ, _i.e._ 139/3. This tells us
that this 139th section of John is also found in Matthew and Luke. For
on referring to Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to
John, Matthew, and Luke, and that this section numbered 139 in John, is
90 in Matthew and 58 in Luke. And the sections being numbered
consecutively in each Gospel, we easily ascertain that the former is
Matthew x. 24, and the latter Luke vi. 40. These, or similar numbers,
were afterwards inserted in the lower margin of manuscripts, as, _e.g._,
in Codex Argenteus of the Version of Ulfilas. They are still printed
alongside the text in our larger editions, though, of course, owing to
the introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they have
lost their main significance.
[Sidenote: Revisions.]
Now, a Codex like א represents to us not one manuscript only, but
several at once. It embodies first of all the manuscript from which its
text was immediately derived, and then also that or those by which it
was revised. That is to say, after the manuscript was written by the
scribe, either to dictation or by copying, it was, particularly in the
case of a costly manuscript, handed over to a person called the
διορθωτής and revised. This might be done several times over; it might
be done by a later owner if he were a scholar. But it might happen, as
in the case of א _e.g._, that the exemplar by which the manuscript was
revised was not the identical one from which it had been copied but a
different one, perhaps older, perhaps exhibiting another form of text
altogether. Tischendorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in
א. One of these, belonging, it may be, to the seventh century, adds a
note at the end of the book of Ezra to the following effect,—“This codex
was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by
the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus; which exemplar contained at the
end the subscription in his own hand: ‘Taken and corrected according to
the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected
it.’”[63] A similar note is found appended to the Book of Esther, where
it is also pointed out that variants occurred in the case of proper
names. Traces are still discoverable in the Psalms which go to prove
that the corrector’s Bible agreed with that of Eusebius, while the
manuscript itself had been copied from one that was very different.
A considerable number of scholars are of opinion that א was written in
the West, perhaps in Rome. (_See Plate I._)
Tischendorf: (1) _Notitia editionis_, 1860; (2) _Bibliorum Codex
Sinaiticus Petropolitanus_, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol. I.,
Prolegomena et Commentaria; Vol. IV., Novum Testamentum. (3) _N. T.
Sinaiticum_, Lips. 1863. (_Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel_, Lips.
1863; _Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel_, Lips. 1863.)
(4) _N. T. Graece ex Sinaitico Codice omnium antiquissimo_, Lips.
1865. _Collatio textus graeci editionis polyglottae cum Novo
Testamento Sinaitico. Appendix editionis Novi Testamenti
polyglottae_, Bielefeldiae. Sumptibus Velhagen et Klasing, 1894,
large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by Tischendorf.) On Kenyon’s
showing, the recent papyrus discoveries give no occasion for
abandoning the conclusions formerly come to regarding the age of
these parchment manuscripts (_Palaeography_, p. 120). Scrivener, _A
full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the
N. Testament_, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbot, “On the comparative
antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek
Bible,” _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. x., i.
1872, pp. 189 ff.
[Sidenote: A.]
A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS: middle or end of the fifth century: written
probably at Alexandria: contains a note in Arabic stating that it was
presented to the library of the Patriarch of Alexandria in the year
1098. The Codex was sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to
Charles I. of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the
British Museum on its foundation in 1753, where it has been ever since.
It has been employed in the textual criticism of the New Testament since
the time of Walton. It was printed in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from
wooden type. The Old Testament portion of it was also published in
1816-1828 by Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype
facsimile in 1879 and 1880.
The Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testament, the first
twenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being absent, as also two
containing John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii.
6. It also contains after the Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement
of Rome and a small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is
really an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts of
the New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents prefixed to the
entire work they are included with the other books under the title ἡ
καινη διαθηκη.[64] After them is given the number of books ὁμου βιβλια,
only the figures are now, unfortunately, torn away. The contents
indicate that the Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have
been lost with the rest of the manuscript.
A is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the use of capital
letters to indicate new sections. But in order to economize room and to
obviate spacing the lines, the first letter of the section, if it occurs
in the middle of a line, is not written larger, but the one that occurs
at the beginning of the next whole line is enlarged and projects into
the margin. (_See Plate I. 2._) Later scribes have copied this so
slavishly that they have written these letters in capitals even when
they occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts. The Egyptian
origin of this Codex is shown by its use of Coptic forms for A and M. In
several books A displays a remarkable affinity with Jerome in those very
passages where he deviates from the older Latin version.
The books in A follow the order—Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles,
Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. (Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D. xii.;
_Bible in the Church_, Appendix B.)
Woide, 1786; eiusdem, _Notitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur.
notasque adjecit_ G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, 1860, Hansell,
1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879; and in the
Facsimiles of the Palæographical Society, Pl. 106.
The mixed character of the text of A was early observed; see
Lagarde, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 94.
C. F. Hoole ascribes the Codex Alexandrinus to the middle of the
fourth century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891; see _Academy_, July
25, 1891, 73).
[Sidenote: B.]
B. CODEX VATICANUS _par excellence_, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at
Rome, inserted there shortly after its foundation by Pope Nicolas V.,
and one of its greatest treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of
the Old Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees. The
first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. 1-xlvi. 28, are now wanting, as well
as 20 from the Psalms containing Ps. cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.)
6. The New Testament is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks
off at καθα[ριει]. 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse
are, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manuscript may
have originally contained the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas as
well. Erasmus obtained some account of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus
V. made it the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was
published in 1586, thereby determining the _textus receptus_ of that
portion of the Bible.—Would he had done the same for the New Testament!
This task was undertaken afterwards, specially by Bentley and Birch.
Professor Hug of Freiburg recognised the value of the Codex when it was
removed from Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai
printed an edition of it between 1828 and 1838, which, however, did not
appear till 1857, three years after his death, and which was most
unsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led the way with the Codex
Sinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave orders for an edition, which was printed
between 1868 and 1872 in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did
the last volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable
commentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone, J. Cozza, C.
Sergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi.
Then at last the manuscript was photographed, the New Testament in 1889,
and the Old Testament, in three volumes, in 1890—a veritable ἡλίου
ἀνάθημα. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original beauty,
because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century—or as the Roman editors
say, a monk called Clement in the fifteenth century—went over the whole
manuscript, letter by letter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded
characters and at the same time adding accents and breathings in
accordance with the pronunciation of his time (ἄμαξα, for example, and
ἁλώπηξ, δἒ). The Old Testament is the work of at least two scribes, one
of whom wrote down to 1 Sam. ix. 11, and the other to the end of 2
Esdras. Tischendorf’s opinion with regard to the writer of the New
Testament has been already noticed. There can be no question that B is
more carefully written than א. In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits a
peculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respectively, which
is found also in Ξ; in the Acts there is a double division into 36 and
69.[65] The enumeration affixed to the Pauline Epistles shows that these
were copied from a manuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians,
though in B its position has been changed so as to follow 2
Thessalonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the Old
Testament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in his original.
In the New Testament the order of the books is Gospels, Acts, Catholic
Epistles, Pauline Epistles. An increased interest would be lent to this
manuscript if, as has been supposed, it represents the recension of the
Egyptian Bishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes mention in
two places. (Bousset, _Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament_, pp.
74-110, see especially p. 96.) On the Egyptian character of B, see also
Burkitt in _Texts and Studies_, v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p.
183 f. (_See Plate IV._)
Hug, _Commentatio de antiquitate codicis Vaticani_, 1810.
Vercellone, _Dell’ antichissimo codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca_,
1859; reprinted in his _Dissertazioni accademiche_, Roma, 1864, 115
ff. First facsimile reproduction, _Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex
Vaticanus ... collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone et Josephi Cozza
editus_, vol. v., Rome, 1868; vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed.
Henr. Fabiani et Jos. Cozza), 1881; _cf._ _ThLz._, 1882, vi. 9. A.
Giovanni, _Della Illustrazione dell’ edizione Romana del Codice
Vaticano_, Rome, 1869. Photographic edition, _Novum Testamentum e
Codice Vaticano 1209 ... phototypice repraesentatum ... curante Jos.
Cozza-Luzi_, Rome, 1889, fol.; see H. C. Hoskier, _The Expositor_,
1889, vol. x. 457 ff.; O. v. Gebhardt, _ThLz._, 1890, 16; Nestle,
_Sep.-St._, ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, _Alter und Heimat der
Vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift_ (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss.
zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp.
72-79). In this article Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and
order of the books in the Old and New Testaments contained in B
correspond exactly to the Canon of the Scriptures given by
Athanasius in his thirty-ninth Festal Letter of the year 367. In it,
Athanasius, after mentioning all the canonical books of the Bible,
including those of the N. T., cites the extra-canonical books of the
O. T. which are allowed to be read, putting them after the second
group, βίβλοι στιχήρεις, because two of these books, Wisdom and
Sirach, were to be written στιχηδόν. In the N. T. the Greek and
Syriac forms of the Festal Letter put Hebrews expressly between the
Epistles to the Churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic
version of the Letter, however, Hebrews stands before Galatians.
This latter arrangement is evidently the survival of a
pre-Athanasian order which has been longer preserved in the Sahidic
translation.[66] But if B is the work of Athanasius, it follows that
it cannot be one of the Bibles ordered by Constantine. In this case
it would rather be written in Egypt, and we should have in it the
Recension of Hesychius, as Grabe supposed was the case in the O. T.,
while Hug held the same view in regard to the N. T. text of this
manuscript (see below, c. III.). Against the theory of Rahlfs, see
O. v. Gebhardt in the _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899, n. 20.
[Sidenote: C.]
C. CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS, No. 9 in the National Library at Paris,
the most important of the palimpsests. This manuscript receives its name
from the fact that in the twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of
Ephraem, the Syrian Father (d. 373), were written over the original
text. After various attempts had been made at its decipherment by
Wettstein and others, Tischendorf in 1843 and 1845 published as much of
the New and Old Testaments as he was able to make out after eighteen
months’ labour, thereby establishing his reputation as a textual critic.
The manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the whole of 1 and 2
Thessalonians has been lost, as also some 37 chapters from the Gospels,
10 from the Acts, 42 from the Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There
is no trace of a chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This
last seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of about 120
small leaves, one of which had been displaced by some mistake. The Codex
dates from the fifth century, and may possibly have been written in
Egypt. Its earliest corrections are important, and were inserted in the
sixth century.
A detailed list of the contents of C is given by Scrivener, vol. i. 121.
Facsimile, _ibid._, Plate X. p. 121.
Tischendorf, _Th. St. und Kr._, 1841, 126 ff; N. T. edited 1843, O.
T. 1845. Lagarde, _Ges. Abhandlungen_, p. 94. The page of the O. T.
which Tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately
disappeared, as Martin points out in his _Description technique des
manuscrits grecs relatifs au N. T., etc._, Paris, 1884, p. 4. A.
Jacob, _Notes sur les MSS. grecs palimpsestes de la Bibliothèque
Nationale_, in _Melanges Julien Havet_, 759-770.
The foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts which once
contained the whole Bible. It will be observed that at the present time
they are distributed among the Capitals of the great branches of the
Christian Church—viz., St. Petersburg (Greek), Rome and Paris (Roman),
and London (Anglican). German scholars have taken a foremost place in
the work of their investigation.
[Sidenote: D.]
D. CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS, inferior to the foregoing in age,
compass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all of them in importance,
by reason of its unique character. The manuscript was presented to the
University of Cambridge in 1581 by Calvin’s friend Theodore Beza, “ut
inter vere christianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus
celeberrimae.” It is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth
century, but is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin
manuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacunæ, the
Gospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the concluding verses
of the Latin text of 3 John, followed immediately by the Acts, showing
that in this manuscript the Epistle of Jude either stood somewhere else
or was absent altogether. At least nine later hands can be distinguished
in it. The first scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and
therefore inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek
word, and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the mistakes he
makes in writing his manuscript.[67] Innumerable passages occur,
particularly in Luke and Acts, where the text of D differs in the most
remarkable manner from that of all the Greek manuscripts we are
acquainted with. It alone, _e.g._, contains after Luke vi. 4 the
incident of the man working in the field on the Sabbath day, to whom
Jesus said, “O Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou,
but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.”
It is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, “when ye pray,
use not vain repetitions as the λοιποί.” In Luke xxiii. 53, it says that
the stone before the grave of Jesus was of such a size ὃν μόγις εἴκοσι
ἐκύλιον, an addition in which it has the support of only one Latin MS.
and the Sahidic Version. Again in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording
that there were seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (κατέβησαν
τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαθμούς). Other examples might be given of similar peculiar
interpolations for the explanation of which reference must be made to c.
III. below.
Its companion Latin text d is not translated directly from its own Greek
but from the Greek of the parent manuscript. Seeing that the manuscript
was discovered in the Monastery of Irenæus at Lyons, and that its text
agrees with the Scripture quotations found in that Father even in the
matter of clerical mistakes, it is possible that the Greek text is
derived from his copy. The Greek occupies the left-hand page of the open
volume, which is the place of honour. (_See Plates II and III._)
Kipling, Facsimile edition, _Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigiensis_, 1793,
2 vols.; Scrivener, _Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in
ordinary type ... with critical introduction, annotations, and
facsimiles_. 4to, pp. lxiv + 453, 1864. Collation of the same by
Nestle, _Supplementum_, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University
Press, _Photographic facsimile_. _Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
Quattuor Evangelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine._
2 vols., pp. 830, 1899. 12 guineas. (See _Literature_, 29th April
1899, p. 451 ff.); Dav. Schulz, _Disputatio de Codice D._, 1827; K.
A. Credner, _Beiträge zur Einleitung_, vol. i., 1832, pp. 452-518;
J. R. Harris, _Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of
the N. T._ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1891; also
_Credner and the Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity
School, Cambridge, 19th Nov. 1892._ (_The Classical Review_, vol.
vii. 6, _June 1893_, pp. 237-243); Chase, _The Old Syriac Element in
the text of Codex Bezae_, London, 1893; also _The Syro-Latin Text of
the Gospels_, London, 1895; Nestle, _Some Observations on the Codex
Bezae_ in the _Expositor_, v. 2, 1895, p. 235; H. Trabaud, _Un
curieux manuscrit du N. T._ in the _Revue de théologie et de
philosophie_, Lausanne, 1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. _Die zwiefache
Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1894, p.
86 ff.); 2. _Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter.
Editio philologica_, Göttingen, 1895; 3. _Acta Apostolorum ...
secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1896; 4. _Ueber die
verschiedenen Textformen in den Schriften des Lukas_ (_Neue
Kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1895, p. 712); 5. _De duplici forma Actorum
Lucae_ (_Hermathena_, Dublin, 1895, p. 121); 6. _De variis formis
Evangelii Lucani_ (_Ibid._, Dublin, 1896, p. 291); 7. _Neue
Texteszeugen für die Apostelgeschichte_ (_Th. St. Kr._, 1896, p.
436); 8. _Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber
prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam_, Leipzig, 1897; B.
Weiss, _Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische
Untersuchung_, Leipzig, 1897, (= Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F.
Zweiter Band, Heft 1); F. Graefe, _Der Codex Bezae und das
Lucasevangelium_, _Th. St. Kr._, 1898, i. 116-140; compare
especially, _On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. 1. Codex Bezae
and cod. 1071_, by the Rev. K. Lake; _2. The Marginal Notes of
Lections_, by the Rev. F. E. Brightman in the _Journal of
Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900) pp. 441-454. Codex 1071 is a
minuscule on Mt. Athos, in which the text of the Pericope Adulterae
(John viii.) is essentially the same as the singular text exhibited
by D. It seems to have come from Calabria. The lectionary indicated
in the margin of D points to a mixed Greek and Latin population such
as that in the South of Italy.
In what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to their contents
as copies of the Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles,
or of the Apocalypse.
[Sidenote: Gospels.]
E. CODEX BASILIENSIS, by some ascribed to the seventh century, but
belonging more probably to the eighth: brought to Europe by Cardinal
John de Ragusio, who was sent on a mission to the Greeks by the Council
of Basel (1431): used by Mill, Bengel, and Wettstein: Luke iii. 4-15 and
xxiv. 47-53 wanting: has been in the University Library at Basel since
1559. (Scrivener, i. p. 131, Plate XI. 27.)
F. BOREELIANUS, written in the ninth century: so called as belonging at
one time to a Dutchman named John Boreel: now in Utrecht: has many
lacunæ, some of which have arisen since Wettstein collated the
manuscript in 1730. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 28.)
F^a. COISLINIANUS, of the seventh century, though some say the sixth and
others the eighth: consists of only 26 verses from Matthew, Luke, John,
Acts, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., and Heb., written on the margin of a
famous Parisian manuscript of the Octoteuch in Greek containing
Gen.-Deut., Josh., Jud., and Ruth. List of contents of F^a in Scrivener,
i. 134.
G. SEIDELIANUS, of the tenth century: part of it in the British Museum
in London and part in Trinity College, Cambridge: brought from the East
by Seidel and presented in 1718 by the Berlin Librarian La Croze to J.
Chr. Wolf, a clergyman in Hamburg who cut out half a page to send to
Bentley in 1721. (Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 29.)
H. SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg: bequeathed with
his library to his native city by Wolf, and rediscovered there in 1838.
(Scrivener, i, 134, Plate XII. 31.)
I. TISCHENDORFIANUS II., fragments of seven manuscripts in St.
Petersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of Mar Saba, near the
Dead Sea: consists of 28 palimpsest leaves with Greek writing of the
tenth century containing only 255 verses of the New Testament, of which
190 are from the Gospels: the three oldest leaves are of the fifth
century; some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible:
detailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f.
I^b. So indicated by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, formerly known
as N^b, of the fourth or more probably the fifth century: a threefold
palimpsest written first in Greek and afterwards twice in Syriac:
contains 17 verses from John’s Gospel: now in the British Museum: list
of verses in Scrivener, i. 141.
K. CYPRIUS, No. 63 in the National Library at Paris: middle of the ninth
century: purchased in Cyprus for Colbert in 1673: one of the six, or
including Ω seven, complete uncial manuscripts of the Gospels, the
others being א BMSU (Ω). Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153.
L. REGIUS, No. 62 in the National Library at Paris: of the eighth
century: contains the four Gospels complete with the exception of five
lacunæ in Matthew iv. v. and xxviii., Mark x. and xv., and in John xxi.:
important as showing the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel which is
exhibited as yet, except in versions, in only three other uncials (ד, ק,
and Ψ) and one minuscule (see Plate X.). Facsimile of L, Mark xvi. 8, 9,
in Scrivener, i., Plate IX. 21, p. 137. The conclusions, as found in L,
ד, ק, and Ψ, are printed and discussed in Swete’s _Gospel according to
St. Mark_, pp. xcviii, xcix. See also Westcott and Hort’s Introduction,
Appendix, p. 28 ff.; Scrivener, ii. 337; Hastings’ _Dictionary of the
Bible_, iii. p. 13.
M. CAMPIANUS, 48 in the National Library, Paris: of the ninth century:
presented to Louis XIV. by the Abbé François de Camps, 1st January 1706:
contains the four Gospels complete: one of the oldest manuscripts, with
the exception of D, that exhibit the pericope of the adulteress, John
vii. 53 ff. Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 134.
N. PURPUREUS, belonging to the end of the sixth century: one of the most
lovely manuscripts, consisting of 45 leaves, of which 6 are in the
Vatican Library at Rome, 4 in the British Museum, 2 in Vienna, and the
remaining 33 in the Monastery of St. John in Patmos, from which, in all
probability, the others were carried off. The manuscript is written with
silver letters on a purple ground, only the letters are not printed on
it with movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the similar
Codex Argenteus of Ulfilas. The contents are given in Scrivener, i. 139
f., and a facsimile at p. 98, Plate V. 182 other leaves belonging to
this manuscript were recently acquired in Cappadocia for Russia.
The Vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that
superb work, _Die Wiener Genesis_, edited by Wilh. Ritter von Hartel
and Franz Wickhoff: Supplement to vols. xv. and xvi. of the
_Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses_. Vienna, 1895. Hartel (p. 142) sees no reason why the
manuscript should not be ascribed to the fifth century.
The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has been
published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S. Cronin in
_Texts and Studies_, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a collation
of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae (Scriv.
473: Hort 81: Tisch. 2^{pe}: Greg. 565; see note on p. 151). See
Nestle in the _Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie_, 42 (1899), pp.
621-623.
Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in
Paris. See H. Omont, _Acad. des Inscr._, Mars-Avril 1900.
O. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the binding of a book:
contains 15 verses from John’s Gospel i. and xx.: written in the ninth
century.
O^{a-h}. Psalters, in which are found, after the Psalms among the poetic
selections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc
Dimittis from the first and second chapters of Luke’s Gospel. O^c is a
Greek Psalter of the sixth century written in Latin characters and is at
Verona. O^d is a purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. O^e at
St. Gall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latin and
partly in Greek.
P and Q. Two palimpsests at Wolfenbüttel, the former belonging to the
sixth and the latter to the fifth century. P, it appears, came from
Bobbio and was afterwards at Weissenburg, Mayence, and Prague. Q,
together with a portion of Ulfilas’s Gothic Bible, has been employed to
receive the works of Isidore of Seville. The codices were edited with
great care by Tischendorf in 1869.
R. NITRIENSIS, of the sixth century: in the British Museum: consists of
48 leaves containing some 516 verses from Luke’s Gospel, over which and
a manuscript of 4000 verses of the Iliad, the Syriac works of Severus of
Antioch were written in the ninth century. The palimpsest was brought
from the Nitrian Desert in 1847, and deposited in the British Museum.
(Scrivener, i. 145, Plate VI, 17.)
S. VATICANUS 354: one of the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New
Testament that bears an exact date. At the end is written, ἐγράφη ἡ
τιμία δέλτος αὕτη διὰ χειρὸς ἐμοῦ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ μηνὶ Μαρτίῳ
α’, ἡμέρᾳ έ, ὥρᾳ ϛ’, ἔτους ϛυνζ’, ἰνδικτιῶνος ζ’, _i.e._ at six o’clock
on Thursday, 1st March 6457 in the 7th Indiction[68] or 949 A.D.
T^a. Of the fifth century: in the Museum Borgianum at Rome: written
probably by a Coptic monk: unfortunately a mere fragment containing only
17 leaves from Luke and John: is written in two columns, that on the
left containing a Sahidic version. T^b, similar small fragments of John
in St. Petersburg of the sixth century. T^c, also of the sixth century,
a fragment of Matthew, formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri
Uspenski of Kiev, and now at St. Petersburg. T^d, of the seventh
century, in Rome, part of a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a
few verses from Matthew, Mark, and John. T^e, of the sixth century (?),
at Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T^h (T^k in
_TiGr._ p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and xxii. T^{i-r},
fragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek Gospels of the ninth and
tenth centuries, but possibly the seventh and eighth, published by
Amélineau in vol. xxxiv. of the _Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque
Nationale_, 1895, 363 ff.; _cf._ v. Dobschütz in the _Lit.
Cent.-Blatt._, 1895, 42, 1857. T^l contains the double conclusion of
Mark’s Gospel. T^{woi}, similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to
Woide, but by a different hand from T^a.
To these Græco-Coptic fragments there is now to be added two chapters of
John’s Gospel (iii. 5-iv. 49), in Greek and Middle Egyptian, written in
the sixth century. They are published by W. E. Crum and F. G. Kenyon in
the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 3 (April 1900), pp. 415-433.
The find contains no remarkable readings. The editors call its text
neutral, and think it helps to show that Egypt was the home of such
correct and upright texts. (T^w Greg.)
U. NANIANUS, so called from a former possessor: of the end of the ninth
or beginning of the tenth century: in Venice: a very beautiful and
complete manuscript of the Gospels, with ornamentations in gold.
(Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 22.)
V. Formerly at Mount Athos, now in Moscow: of the ninth century: first
employed by Bengel and Wettstein through the medium of G. B. Bilfinger.
W. Various small fragments: W^a of the eighth century in Paris: a
fragment of Luke. W^b of the eighth century (or the ninth) in Naples: a
palimpsest with parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. W^c of the ninth
century at St. Gall: a palimpsest, containing fragments of Mark and
Luke, perhaps once bilingual, Greek-Latin. W^d of the ninth century in
Cambridge. W^e of the ninth century: part of John, at Mount Athos,
Oxford, and Athens. W^f of the ninth century: in Oxford: fragment of
Mark. W^g of the ninth century: consisting of 36 palimpsest leaves with
497 verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the British Museum.
W^h of the ninth century: in Oxford: part of Mark. W^{i-m} in Paris, of
the seventh to the eighth or ninth century: fragments of Mark and Luke,
of which W^l and W^k are printed in Omont’s _Catalogue des Manuscrits
Grecs, Latins, Français, et Espagnols et des Portulans, recueillis par
feu Emmanuel Miller_, Paris, 1897. W^n of the seventh century, in
Vienna: fragments of John. W^o of the ninth century, in Milan: 16
mutilated palimpsest leaves, containing portions of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke.
X. MONACENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth
century, now in Munich, contains the Gospels, with lacunæ, and a
commentary, in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Scrivener, i. 343,
Plate XIII. 38; for contents see _ibid._, p. 152.
X^b. Fragment containing Luke i. 1-ii. 40, hitherto reckoned among the
minuscules and numbered 429; also in Munich.
Y. Belonging to the eighth century, in the Barberini Library at Rome: 6
leaves containing John xvi. 3-xix. 41.
Z. A palimpsest in Dublin of the fifth or sixth century, containing 295
verses of Matthew’s Gospel. Scrivener, i. 153; Plate VII. 18.
The Roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number of uncial
manuscripts, recourse was taken to those letters of the Greek and Hebrew
which have a distinct form from those already employed. It was proposed
by others to reserve the Greek letters for those manuscripts no longer
extant, whose text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred
manuscripts as their common archetype.
Γ. Of the ninth or tenth century: part in Oxford and part in St.
Petersburg, the former having been obtained from Tischendorf in 1855 and
the latter in 1859: contains the whole of Luke and John, but Mark is
defective from iii. 34 to vi. 20, while Matthew is still more defective.
The writing of the manuscript was finished on a certain Thursday, the
27th November, in the eighth year of an indiction. Tischendorf
accordingly fixed its date as 844. It was previously assigned by
Gardthausen to the year 979. Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 35.
Δ. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the
tenth century: now at St. Gall, where it was probably transcribed by an
Irish monk: has an interlinear Latin version, and was not, therefore,
like D, intended for church but for school purposes. The Codex has the
four Gospels complete with the exception of John xix. 17-35. In Mark the
text shows a closer agreement with CL than in the other Gospels. The
manuscript has been copied from one written _scriptione continua_, and
in consequence the words are often wrongly divided. See G_{3} below, p.
77.
Θ^{a-d}. Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf, of which
Θ^a belongs to the seventh century, and Θ^{bcd} to the seventh, sixth,
and seventh or eighth century respectively. The first is in Leipzig, the
others in St. Petersburg. Θ^{e-h} were formerly in the possession of
Bishop Porfiri of Kiev.
Λ. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels of Luke and John entire:
evidently the second part of a minuscule brought to St. Petersburg by
Tischendorf, No. 566^{evv} (Greg.)[69]: marginal scholia are affixed to
four passages in Matthew—viz. iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74,
giving the readings of τὸ Ἰoυδαϊκόν, _i.e._ the lost Gospel according to
the Hebrews, and its subscription runs, ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν
Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἁγίῳ ἀποκειμένων· ἐν
στίχοις βφιδ’ (2514) κεφαλαῖς τνε’ (345). The manuscript is in the
Bodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 30.
_Cf._ von Dobschütz, _Zwei Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter
Schriftart_ (_Th. Lz._, 1889, iii. 74 f.).
Ξ. ZACYNTHIUS, a palimpsest of the eighth century from Zante, now in the
Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London: the earliest
manuscript with a commentary: has the same system of chapter division as
B, and is oftener found supporting B against A than _vice versa_.
Π. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels almost complete: once the
property of a Greek of Smyrna called Parodos: procured by Tischendorf
for the Emperor of Russia.
Σ. Of the sixth century: written on purple with gold and silver
lettering and 17 miniatures, being the earliest manuscript to contain
such: rescued from obscurity in 1879 by Oscar v. Gebhardt and A.
Harnack, who discovered it at Rossano in Calabria: hence designated as
Codex Rossanensis: is nearly related to N. Scrivener, i. 124, Plate XIV.
43.
O. v. Gebhardt, _Die Evangelien des Matthäus und des Marcus aus dem
Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgegeben_ (T. und U., i. 4, 1883).
A. Haseloff, _Cod. Pur. Rossanensis. Die Miniaturen der griechischen
Evangelien-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photographischen Aufnahmen
herausgegeben._ Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles of the text
and 15 photographic plates). _Vide_ S. Berger in _Bull. Crit._,
1899, 6: also F. X. v. Funk, _Die Zeit. des Cod. Rossanensis_ in the
_Hist. Jahrbuch der Görresgeschellschaft_, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344.
Φ. CODEX BERATINUS, of the sixth century: at Berat in Albania: like the
last a purple Codex with silver writing: contains portions of Matthew
and Mark: seen and published by Batiffol. Scrivener, i. 166, Plate XV.
Ψ. Fragments of the eighth or ninth century at Athos: contains Mark ix.
5 to the end, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles, Romans to
Philemon, and Hebrews: exhibits after Mark xvi. 8 the same double
conclusion as is found in L and one Sinai manuscript. On some readings
of Ψ, see Lake in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, No. i. p, 88;
ii. pp. 290-292.
Ω. Of the eighth or ninth century: in the Monastery of Dionysius at
Athos: contains the Gospels entire.
The last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly collated, some
of them having been only recently discovered.
The following are indicated by Hebrew letters.
ב. Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St. Andrew at
Athos: contains the Gospels with lacunæ.
ג. GREGORIANUS, a purple manuscript from Cappadocia now admitted to be
part of N.
ד^{6-13}. Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century,
discovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by him (_Biblical
fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890): ד^{12} contains the double
conclusion of Mark: ד^{13} is a purple fragment of the seventh century
containing a few verses from the first chapter of Luke, perhaps only a
quotation.
ק. Swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above as T^l,
which exhibits the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. See his _Gospel
according to St. Mark_, pp. xcii., xcix.
ר. An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century, published by
Grenfell and Hunt, _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part I. with eight Plates,
London, 1898: contains only Mark x. 50 f. and xi. 10 f.: cited by Swete.
(T^g Greg.)
Part II. of _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment
of John’s Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a papyrus codex
written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one of the earliest fragments
that have been discovered of a papyrus _book_ (not a _roll_). It
exhibits already the abbreviations usually found in theological
manuscripts, such as Θ̅Σ̅, Ι̅Η̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Π̅Ν̅Α̅. The Codex agrees with א
in several readings not found elsewhere. (T^x Greg.) See _Addenda_, p.
xv.
[Sidenote: Acts and Catholic Epistles.]
The second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles which are distinguished from those in the first by affixing the
exponent _{2} at the bottom of the symbol.
א A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete:
E_{2} D have the Acts all but entire:
K L have the Catholic Epistles complete:
C P have the greater part of them.
For א A B C D F^a (a few verses of the Acts), see above.
E_{2}. LAUDIANUS 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the sixth century:
bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying the place of honour on the
left: breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29: the text very peculiar and somewhat
like that of D. The manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was
probably brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was
employed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his _Expositio_ of the Acts
and afterwards in his _Expositio Retractata_. Archbishop Laud presented
the manuscript with many others to the University of Oxford. Fell and
Mill made use of it. Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.
G_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg
containing Acts ii. 45-iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriac
manuscript.
G^b. Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome containing
portions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat. Gr. 2302.)
H_{2}. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some lacunæ.
I_{2}. Fragments in St. Petersburg of the fifth and seventh centuries:
four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.
K_{2}. Of the ninth century: brought to Moscow from Athos: contains the
Catholic and Pauline Epistles.
L_{2}. Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica Library
at Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the Catholic Epistles,
and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.
P_{2}. Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of Bishop
Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg: published by Tischendorf:
contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse, with
several lacunæ.
S_{2}. Of the eighth or ninth century: at Athos: contains Acts, Catholic
Epistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians.
ב_{2}. A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome: rediscovered by
Batiffol: consists of fragments of Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and
3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.
[Sidenote: Pauline Epistles.]
The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles. Of
these there is a comparatively large number, which may be taken as
indicating the important position ascribed to Paul even in early times.
א, however, is the only Codex that contains his Epistles complete; in D
L they are almost complete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part
of them.
For א A B C, see above.
A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6 inclusive.
B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and
Philemon are wanting.
D_{2}. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Clermont near Beauvais.
The manuscript was written in the sixth century, and is bilingual in
Greek and Latin, having the Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is
wanting in Rom. i. 1-7, 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal. v. 9
D_{2} reads δολοῖ, and in verse 14 ἐν ὑμῖν, in both places agreeing with
Marcion. At least nine hands are distinguishable in the manuscript, one
of whom corrected the text in over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth
century. Two leaves are palimpsest, their text being written over part
of a play of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the Codex
from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before it is a list of
“versus scribtuarum sanctarum,” one of the oldest stichometric
catalogues of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which is derived
from an early Greek original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in
Westcott’s _History of the Canon_, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his _Bible
in the Church_, App. B, p. 309. See also Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T.
Kanons_, II. 157-172, 1012; Jülicher, _Einleitung_, § 40. Thirty-five
leaves of Codex D_{2} were stolen by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards
restored by their purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in
1729. (_See Plates II. and III._)
E_{3}. SANGERMANENSIS, of the ninth century: also Greek-Latin: brought
from St. Germain de Près to St. Petersburg during the Revolution: in the
Greek merely an incorrect transcript of D_{2}, and may therefore be
dismissed. See p. 179 n. 1.
F_{2}. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-Latin manuscript:
defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii.
1-8; Philemon 21-25: Hebrews from the first only in the Latin. The
manuscript was formerly at Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It
was purchased by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at
Cambridge. An edition of it was published by Scrivener in 1859. For F^a,
see above, p. 66.
Scrivener, _An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis ... to which
is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various
portions of the Greek N. T._, 1859. F. Zimmer, _Der Codex Augiensis
eine Abschrift des Boernerianus_ (_ZfwTh._, 1887, i. 76-91).
G_{3}. BOERNERIANUS, of the ninth century, so called from Professor C.
F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705: now in Dresden. It is a
Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin being interlinear. It is manifestly
the second part of Δ, and has a close affinity with F_{2}, though the
Greek of F was not copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is
rather that both are derived from one and the same original, in which
_e.g._ ως γαγγρα ινα νομην εξει, sicut cancer ut serpat, was found in 2
Tim. ii. 17, and ημεθα δε δουλωμενοι, eramus autem servientes, in Gal.
iv. 3. This manuscript contains some interesting Irish verses.[70] At
the end of Philemon there stands the title προς Λαουδακησας, ad
laudicenses, but the Epistle that should have followed has been lost.
P. Corssen, _Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine
scriptos Augiensem, Boernerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se
comparavit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum_, 1887.
_Alterum_, 1889.
[Sidenote: Euthalian Recension.]
H_{3}. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable
manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were used in 975
and 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount Athos. Forty-one of these
have been rescued, of which 22 are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in
St. Petersburg, 3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain
portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians,
1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The value of the manuscript is
indicated in the subscription, which runs, “I, Euthalius,[71] wrote this
volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that
it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy
in the library at Cæsarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus the
saint.”[72] The subscription may of course have stood in the original of
H, and simply been copied into it along with the text, as in the case of
the minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of the Acts. But no matter, it serves to
locate the text of this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses
for the so-called =Euthalian Recension= of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles.
In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, afterwards
known as Bishop of Sulce,[73] published an edition of the Acts and
Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, following the rules laid down
by the Greek schools of oratory, the text was carefully broken up into
lines, the length of which depended on the sense (_sense-clauses_), and
divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also provided a system of
Church lections, added a summary of contents to the various chapters,
and catalogued the quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere in
the separate Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became a
sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made use of for
the Armenian version among the rest. The comparison of the manuscript
with those of Pamphilus, as well as other additions, would seem then to
have been made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however,
thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in Codex H, but
that Evagrius is to be read instead of Euthalius in the place where the
name has been erased. This view is combated by Dobschütz, and in part
rightly. Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian
sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius. But in a
parchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the Laura
at Mount Athos, Wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with
the inscription, Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σούλκης ὁμολογία περὶ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου
πίστεως, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in the second half
of the seventh century and that Sulce was in Sardinia. See G. Krüger in
the _Lit. Cent. Blatt_ 1899, No. 14.
Omont, _Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des
épîtres de S. Paul_, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_,
Texts and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 96,
8.) Th. Zahn, _Euthaliana_, _Theol. Lit. Blatt._, 1895, 593, 601.
Ehrhard, _Der codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus,
Eine palaeographisch-patrologische Untersuchung_ in the
_Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v.
Dobschütz, _Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage_, in the same magazine,
1893, pp. 49-70; _Euthaliusstudien_ in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154
(1898): also, _Euthalius_, in the PRE^3, v. pp. 631-633 (1898).
Islinger, _Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen
Bibeltext_, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, _On the Codex Pamphili and
date of Euthalius_, in the _Cambridge Journal of Philology_, xxiii.
241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, _The Harklean Version etc._, pp. 9, 27
(1889). See also J. A. Robinson, _Texts and Studies_, vi. 1; C.
Butler, _The Lausiac History of Palladius_, p. 104 ff., and note 2,
p. 188 below.
I_{2}, K_{2}, L_{2}, P_{2}: See above, p. 75.
M_{2}. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves written in bright
red ink or other colouring matter, two of them in London and the other
two in Hamburg.
N_{2}. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with portions of
Galatians and Hebrews: in St. Petersburg.
O_{2}. Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library containing
portions of 2 Corinthians.
O^b. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians: in Moscow.
Q_{2}. Of the fifth century, five _papyrus_ leaves with fragments of 1
Corinthians: in St. Petersburg.
R_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf with part of 2 Corinthians:
in Grotteferrata.
S_{2}. See above, p. 75.
T^g. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See _TiGr._, p. 441.
T^s. Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i. 22-29, written in the ninth
or tenth century, and published simultaneously with T^{i-r}. Gregory now
designates T^g as T^{a Paul}, and T^s as T^{b Paul}.
ב_{2}. See above, p. 75.
ד^{14}. A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians, cc. i.,
ii., iii., written in the fifth century.
The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been
published in _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part II. (pp. 8 f., Plate II.).
The fragment is probably a schoolboy’s exercise. It is written in a
large rude uncial hand, and dates from the first half of the fourth
century. In verse 7 it reads Κ̅Υ̅ Χ̅Ρ̅Υ̅ Ι̅Η̅Υ̅.
[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]
There are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is found entire only
in א A B, while C and P exhibit portions of it. In the Apocalypse,
however, it is to be observed that Codex B is not the famous Codex
Vaticanus 1209 but a much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of
the eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with some editors, to
call it Q or B_{2}.
Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as follows[74]:—
UNCIALS:
Gospels, 73
Acts and Catholic Epistles, 19
Pauline Epistles, 28
Apocalypse, 7
—-
Total, 127
CURSIVES, 3702
[Sidenote: Book-hand and hand of common life.]
In closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne in mind
that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest of them as
presenting the very form of the New Testament autographs. The books of
the New Testament, at all events the majority of them, were not
originally intended for publication at all, while the others were meant
for only a limited circle of readers. Now these recent papyrus
discoveries have shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even
in those days between the =book-hand= and what we may call the =hand of
common life= and business. A glance at Kenyon’s _Palæography of Greek
Papyri_ will show how fundamental is the distinction between literary
and non-literary papyri. That writer states that in many cases the
difference is just as marked as between handwriting and print at the
present day, and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand
and the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of course documents of this or
the other class may occasionally be found written in the hand that is
not the usual one, a prescription, _e.g._, in book-hand, or conversely a
literary text in the hand of common life. The greater part of
Aristotle’s work on the _Polity of the Athenians_, for instance, has
been preserved in the common hand. This papyrus, which is attributed to
the first century of the Christian era, is the work of four scribes. But
only one of these writes in a style approximating to the book-hand; the
other parts are written in a very cursive style on the back of an old
account, probably by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short
time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends or slaves.
Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illustration of the manner of
the origin and propagation of the New Testament books, and suggests that
this mode of propagation has to be considered in connection with times
of persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices, editions
de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age when the Church had
attained a position of affluence and power. The distinction referred to
above is one that has had but little attention paid to it hitherto, as
is shown by the illustration given in Harris’s excellent work on the New
Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that this
consideration is of great importance in trying to understand the origin
and dissemination of the various readings that occur in our manuscripts.
It is just a pity that Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript
of Aristotle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to
the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in 1891 by the
Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate published in the second
volume of the work of the Palæographical Society.
[Sidenote: Uncial and minuscule script.]
A further consideration is emphasised by means of these papyrus
discoveries—viz. that =no distinction of time= can be drawn between the
uncial and cursive hands found in the manuscripts. Even in the very
earliest documents the hand of common life displays a very cursive
character, and a fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not
necessarily later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat
different in the case of writing on parchment: here the old distinction
of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly maintained, only we must
guard against supposing that the minuscule hand and the cursive are
quite the same thing; nor must we forget that for a considerable time
the older uncial and the later minuscule scripts were in use
together.[75] The sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has
hitherto been drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament
between these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in
fact. The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey of
the position of things up to the present, and the following description
of the minuscules is subject to that limitation.
(_b._) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.
[Sidenote: Minuscules.]
When the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the editors had
necessarily to be content with indifferent and late minuscules, and even
those who followed them, like Bentley and Lachmann, thought they were at
liberty to disregard these altogether and to found their text
exclusively on the oldest uncials. They forgot that the text of a late
manuscript may be derived from a very early and good source through
comparatively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct
a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses.
Accordingly, in more recent times, English editors like Tregelles,
Burgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered great service in
the way of collating manuscripts, and the last-mentioned as well as
Gregory in Germany has also catalogued them. At the present moment a
systematic investigation in this department is being carried on in
Berlin. Most of the minuscules are still written on parchment which
began to be mixed with paper in the ninth century, and was ultimately
superseded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and other
additional matter, such as the List of the Seventy Apostles, short
Biographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of St. Paul, or
notes as to the date and place of the composition of the different
books. When dates are given in the manuscripts, they are still as a rule
computed in the Byzantine manner, reckoning from the Creation of the
world (5508 B.C.). In only a few cursives is the date reckoned from the
Birth of Christ.
Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts have been
indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each of the four groups
beginning with 1, so that one and the same manuscript may have three or
four numbers—18^{evv.} _e.g._ being 113^{Acts,} 132^{Paul,} and
51^{Apoc.,} while 209^{evv} is the same as 95^{Acts,} 108^{Paul,} and
46^{Apoc.} It is still more awkward that in the two principal works on
the minuscules, that of Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently
discovered manuscripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will
follow that of Scrivener.
MINUSCULES OF THE GOSPELS.
1 (Acts 1, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to others of the
twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful miniatures which
were stolen prior to 1860. The manuscript was borrowed by Reuchlin and
used by Erasmus for his second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX.
23.)
2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose the fifteenth:
also in Basel: formerly purchased for two Rhenish florins: printed by
Erasmus.
3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his second
edition.
[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]
4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38 were used by
Stephen. The most notable among them is 13, together with 69, 124, 211,
346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and 626, which are remarkable for their
very peculiar form of text and their additions.[76] Luke xxii. 43, 44 is
found after Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53—viii. 11 after Luke xxi.
38. The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in
Hebrew eight years after our Lord’s Ascension, and contained 2522 ρηματα
and 2560 stichoi, Mark ρωμαιστι ten years after the Ascension with 1675
ρηματα and 1604 stichoi, Luke ελληνιστι fifteen years after with 3803
(_lege_ 3083) ρηματα and 2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after
with 1938 ρηματα. These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype
by the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated the Ferrar
Group, and indicated by the letter Φ before that symbol was appropriated
to the Codex Beratinus. Most of them came from Calabria, and another has
lately been added to the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel
Harris shows, are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I
ventured to suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the
Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that he knew of
codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit
perversa contentio, quibus ... nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse,
cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse
quae addita (cod. E _edita_) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the
event of the so-called Syrian recension being the work of Lucian, which
Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules have preserved
to us a very early attempt to restore the text.
16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours according to
the contents. The continuous narrative is written in green, the words of
Jesus and the Angels are in red and occasionally in gold, the words of
His followers are in blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude,
and of the devil, are written in black.
28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some resemblance to
D.
33. Written about the tenth century: the “queen of the cursives”: its
text bears a greater resemblance to that of B, D, L than does that of
any other cursive. The manuscript is much damaged, but 34, which is
equally old, is still in splendid condition, as though it were fresh
from the hand of the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.)
38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Palæologus to St. Louis (d. 1270).
51. At Oxford: text resembles that of the Complutensian.
59. At Cambridge: has many points of connection with D.
61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the notorious Codex
Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives its name from one of its
later possessors. It was this manuscript, “codex apud Anglos repertus,”
that decided Erasmus to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage
of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. It was probably written
by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its twin brother, the
parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly numbered 110, and now in
Berlin, which also contains the passage, proves to be nothing more than
a transcript of the text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be
observed, continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing.
Melanchthon, _e.g._, wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three times in
Greek; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library hitherto cited as
56^{Paul} is nothing else than a copy of Erasmus’s printed edition of
1516 made by Zwingli in the following year.
69. _Cf._ 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, _Origin of the Leicester Codex
of the New Testament_, 1887. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 40.)
77 and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias Corvinus, King of
Hungary (d. 1490).
90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John, Luke, Matthew,
Mark.
106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since the time of
Wettstein.
140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of Cyprus. This
manuscript reads διηρθρώθη in Luke i. 64, therein agreeing with the
Complutensian.
146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.
154-156. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.
157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable resemblance to the
quotations found in the early Christian writer Marcion. See below, p.
211.
164. The subscription of this manuscript states that it was compared
with certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem.
205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation of Cardinal
Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New Testament, and was the
Cardinal’s own copy which he had with him at the Council of Florence in
1439.
218-225 are in Vienna.
226-233 are in the Escorial.
237-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at Dresden.
263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which was removed
thence to the British Museum.
274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark’s Gospel in the lower
margin. (See Plate X.)
405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to the Nani
family.
422-430. In Munich.
431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished at Strassburg,
in the war of 1870, like 180^{Acts.} This, however, is incorrect.
452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.
473. Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript with gold
lettering, said to have been written by the Empress Theodora. See under
N. above, and note, p. 151.
481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the Greek New
Testament bearing an exact date.
531. Written in a microscopic hand.
604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British Museum, exhibits
2724 variations from the Textus Receptus, and has besides 270 readings
peculiar to itself. It is the only witness we know that supports that
peculiar form of the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer found in
Marcion in the second century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth,
ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς (Luke xi.
2).[77]
743 has the double conclusion in Mark.
1071. See under D, p. 66.
In his _Gospel according to St. Mark_, Swete cites frequently, in
addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar Group, 1, 28,
33, 66, 109, 118, 131, 157, 209, 238, 242, 299, 435, 473, 475, 556, 570,
736.
ACTS.
2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.
7-10. Used by Stephen.
15, 83, 173. These, like א in the Old Testament and H_{3}, were compared
with the Codex of Pamphilus—_i.e._ were faithfully copied from such an
exemplar.
33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above, p. 86.
42. Closely related to the Complutensian.
52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the
Complutensian. It has now disappeared.
61 has been designated the most important minuscule of the Acts. This,
however, is an exaggeration.
137 supplements D E where these are defective.
158. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B in the
Pauline Epistles.
162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome: a bilingual in
Latin and Greek: contains the passage 1 John v. 7.
182. Numbered 110 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of the cursives.
220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the New
Testament.
232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called Andreas bestowed
three years’ labour.
246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus (d. 1487).
419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being divorced by
Constantine VI.
PAULINE EPISTLES.
7. Used by Erasmus.
56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of Erasmus’s printed
text. (See above under 61^{evv}).
67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having evidently
made use of an exemplar with a text very closely akin to that of B M.
80 bears a close resemblance to 69^{evv}.
APOCALYPSE.
1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus’s command for this part of
the New Testament. It is defective in the last chapter from verse 16 to
the end. For the rest it exhibits a fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.)
36. A text akin to א.
38 has a text resembling that of A C.
68. Resembles A.
95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being one of the
best minuscules of the Apocalypse.
The number of minuscules under each class is, according to Scrivener
(Miller), as follows:—
Gospels, 1326
Acts and Catholic 422
Epistles,
Pauline Epistles, 497
Apocalypse, 184
——
2429
A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England. Some are in the
possession of private individuals, like those at Parham Park in Sussex
belonging to Lord de la Zouche. In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts
brought with her from Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of
which sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the Ferrar
Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are 136 manuscripts of the
New Testament in the British Museum.
The number in Great 438
Britain is
In the National 298
Library of Paris,
In Germany, 140
In Italy, 644
For the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged according to
countries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff.
What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be examined is
shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz. Accompanied by Dr. G.
Wobbermin, he made a journey to Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and
there in that ancient Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found,
among about 1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some
250 codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have been
noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of the very utmost
importance, as witness the further statement of the same explorer. He
was looking through the manuscripts of the Apostolos, to which he and
his companion had to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on
one written in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following
note before the Pauline Epistles: γεγράφθαι ἀπὸ ἀντιγράφου παλαιοτάτου,
οὗ πεῖραν ἐλάβομεν ὡς ἐπιτετευγμένου ἐκ τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντων Ὠριγένους
τόμων ἢ ὁμιλιῶν εἰς τὸν ἀπόστολον ... ἐν οἷς οὖν παραλλάττει ῥητοῖς πρὸς
τὰ νῦν ἀποστολικά, διπλῆν τὴν λεγομένην παρεθήκαμεν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ
νομισθῇ κατὰ προσθήκην ἢ λεῖψιν ἡμαρτῆσθαι τουτὶ τὸ ἀποστολικόν. And
from the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn that
the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar from which
it was copied, was written by a monk called Ephraim. See further in von
der Goltz, _Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten
Jahrhunderts herausgegeben nach einem Kodex des Athosklosters Lawra. Mit
einer Doppeltafel in Lichtdruck._ Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und
Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.
LITERATURE.—On 2^{evv}, see Hoskier, above, p. 5.
On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, _Collation of four important Manuscripts of
the Gospels_, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J. P. P. Martin,
_Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on peut ajouter un cinquième_,
Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, _On the Origin of the Ferrar Group_,
London, 1894. K. Lake, “Some new members of the Ferrar Group of MSS.
of the Gospels,” in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. pp.
117-120. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran German Bible,
the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. 2, “in the
morning he came again into the temple,” after Luke xxi. 38, an
arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar
Group, in which John vii. 53-viii. 11 is found after Luke xxi. 38.
See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 1894, p. 390. See _Addenda_, p. xv.
On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in the _Journal
of the Exegetical Society_, 1886, 79-96.
On 892^{evv}, see Harris, “An Important Manuscript of the N. T.” in
the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, ix., 1890, 31 ff.
On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, _Textkritische
Studien_ in _T. und U._, xi. 4.
C. R. Gregory, “Die Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments”
(_Theologische Studien für B. Weiss._, Göttingen, 1897, 274-283).
E. J. Goodspeed, “A Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript” (_Biblical
World_, x. 4).
(_c._) LECTIONARIES.
[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]
Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Pericopae, were
even more neglected than the minuscules. And yet they are reliable
witnesses to the text of the Bible in the provinces to which they
belong, on account of their official character and because their
locality can be readily distinguished. The slight alterations of the
text occurring at the beginning of the pericopae, and consisting usually
in the insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory
clause, are easily recognisable as such, and deceive no one. It is not
always easy to determine the date of such books, because the uncial hand
was employed in this sort of manuscript much longer than in the others.
Among the oldest, perhaps, is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a
considerable number among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to
the seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to the
sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year 1890. When these
Lectionaries originated has not yet been clearly made out.[78] Up till
the present 980 Evangeliaria—_i.e._ Lessons from the Gospels—have been
catalogued, and 268 Apostoli or Praxapostoli—_i.e._ Lessons from the
Acts and Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed; some, alas,
have been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very beautiful codex;
and 162, in Siena, is perhaps “one of the most splendid Service-books in
the world.” 235 may have been written in part by the Emperor Alexius
Comnenus (1081-1118). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai,
dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the tradition of
the monks says that it was written by no less a personage than the
Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorf’s 352-360 are now in the
National Library at Paris. 355 is printed in Omont’s _Catalogue_ (see
above, p. 71). 45^{evl} is a fragment of black parchment inscribed with
gold letters preserved at Vienna.[79] 40 is kept in the Escorial along
with the reliques of St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.[80]
Bilingual Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example.
The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time and region
in which they were composed. Several fragments which were formerly
regarded as parts of manuscripts of the Gospels should perhaps be
classed among the Evangeliaria—_e.g._ the solitary leaf of a Bible
manuscript Württemberg is known to possess, and the Tübingen Fragment,
formerly classed among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now
enumerated as 481^{evl}. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be
considered under the head of the Versions.
For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener, to _TiGr._,
and now especially to Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. pp. 327-478.
2. VERSIONS.
[Sidenote: Versions.]
Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the
New Testament is the early Versions. The value of their testimony
depends on their age and fidelity. When did the first versions
originate? This question reminds us of the Inscription on the Cross, a
portion of which is still exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the
time of Christ was a country where the most diverse languages and
dialects came into contact with each other. In the last century B.C. a
transformation had occurred, which might be regarded as a counterpart to
the supplanting of Norman French by English, or of Low by High German.
Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, and after the
time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, and later still of Latin.
Some of the disciples of Jesus bore old Hebrew names, like James
(Ἰάκωβος) and John (Ἰωάννης); others had names wholly or partly Aramaic,
as Cephas (= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while
others, again, had Greek names, as Philip (Φίλιππος) and Andrew
(Ἀνδρέας). To the question what language Jesus Himself spoke, the most
probable answer is that it was Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. “Thou
art a Galilean, thy speech bewrayeth thee,” said the Jerusalem girl to
Peter. The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were
recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the
pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus certainly understood the Hebrew
of the Old Testament. But those words of His that have been preserved
are Aramaic—_talitha_, _abba_, and so is _sabaqtani_ in Matthew xxvii.
46, and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, and not
_asabthani_, as a number of manuscripts show.
In what language, however, the first record of the preaching of the
Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic Hebrew of the Old
Testament or in the Aramaic of the time, is still subject of
dispute.[81] But as this question is of moment only for the original
sources, and even then for only a certain part of the New Testament—viz.
the Gospels—it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only
with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and again with
those of them only that are important for the criticism of the text,
which are the oldest.
The versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or
four heads.
[Sidenote: East.]
In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian population, very
early became the centre of the new faith, which, indeed, obtained its
name there, and must very soon have established itself in Damascus and
Mesopotamia. In that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as
Syriac was spoken.
[Sidenote: West, South.]
In the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood, even in Rome. Paul
consequently, and others as well as he, wrote to Rome in Greek. At the
same time, the need must have existed, even in the second century, of
having the Gospel in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north
of Italy, and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps, the new
faith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a kind of centre of
religious culture, and so we find in Egypt not one but several versions
in various dialects.
The Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention as being the
oldest monument of Christianity among the Germanic people, and valuable
too in the criticism of the text.
L. J. M. Bebb, _Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic
Quotations_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde,
_De Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo_. Berlin
(1857); with slight alterations in his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, 1886,
pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. _Urtext_ (see p. 7). Copinger (see p.
6). An earlier bibliographical work is the _Bibliotheca Sacra post
... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine
disposita, emendata, suppleta, continuata ab A. G. Masch_. Halle,
1778-90, 4to. _Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II.,
De versionibus librorum sacrorum_ (3 Vols.). R. Simon, _Histoire
critique des versions du N. T._, 1690. _Nouvelles observations sur
le texte et les versions du N. T._, 1695.
(_a._) SYRIAC VERSIONS.
[Sidenote: Peshitto.]
The Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly borne the
honourable appellation of “the Queen of the Versions.” It was first
published in 1555 at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I. by J.
Albert Widmanstadt with the assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called
Moses, who came from Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for
this edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen. All the
branches into which the Syrian church was divided in the fifth century
have used the same translation of the Scriptures. To this day the Syriac
New Testament wants the five so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and
3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse—a sufficient proof that it goes back to
a time and a region in which these books were not yet reckoned in the
Canon of the New Testament. In place of these it contained in early
times an alleged Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and an
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul (_cf._ below, p. 142). To distinguish
it from other Syriac translations, this Version has been called by
Syriac scholars, since the tenth century, the Peshiṭto—_i.e._ the
“Simple” or perhaps the “Common,” which is sometimes pronounced Peshiṭtå
(פְשִׁיטתָא) and spelt simply =Peshitto=.
When and where was this translation made? An ancient Syrian tradition
asserts that it was done by the Apostle Thaddaeus, who came on a mission
to Abgar Uchama—_i.e._ Abgar the Black—King of Edessa, after the death
of Jesus, which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that
Abgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition ascribes it to
Aggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and it is even attributed to
Mark the Evangelist. It is also said that Luke was by birth a Syrian of
Antioch, a tradition which may preserve an element of truth.
The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius’s
_Ecclesiastical History_, iv. 22. That historian mentions that
Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the Gospel of the
Hebrews—_i.e._ of the Palestinian (?) Jewish Christians, and from the
Syriac (_sc._ Gospel), and particularly from the Hebrew dialect, showing
that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews (ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ’ Ἑβραίους
εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ
τίθησιν, ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἑβραίων ἑαυτὸν πεπιστευκέναι). This can hardly be
understood otherwise than as implying that a Syriac version was already
in existence. Whether it contained all the four Gospels or only one of
them, or Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as
Zahn has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether it
contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be established with
certainty.
From the middle of the present century manuscripts of this version have
found their way into European libraries in great numbers. Some of these
are inestimable. At least ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the
sixth century. This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small a
remnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved. G. H. Gwilliam is
at present engaged on an edition of the Syriac Tetraevangelium for the
University of Oxford on the basis of forty manuscripts. The task might
seem to be an easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts
display a far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any
written in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another
direction.
[Sidenote: Curetonian.]
In the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing considerable portions of
the Gospels was brought from Egypt and deposited in the British Museum.
It was afterwards published by Dr. Cureton in 1858 with the title
“Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac
hitherto unknown in Europe.” Cureton himself thought he had discovered
the original of St. Matthew’s Gospel in this version. While this was
easily shown to be a mistake, the question as to the relationship
between the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, whether the two texts
are independent of each other, or if not, which is the earlier and which
the recension, is not yet decided.
[Sidenote: Lewis.]
It seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight when fragments
of a Syriac palimpsest were discovered on Mount Sinai in February 1892
by Mrs. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be
part of a very old manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of
Cambridge recognised that their text was closely related to that of the
Curetonian. (_See Plate V._) A second expedition was made to Sinai in
the spring of 1893, when the fragments were transcribed by Professor
Bensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris. As Bensly died three days after
their return, the manuscript was published by the others in 1894, with
an introduction by Mrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady
completed the work of the triumvirate, and also published an English
translation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or
Lewis-Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to the
Peshitto? The problem becomes more complicated still by the introduction
of a fourth factor, the most important of them all.
[Sidenote: Tatian.]
From early sources it was known that Tatian,[82] a Syrian and a pupil of
Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels called the
=Diatessaron=—_i.e._ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον, an expression which may
be taken either as referring to the four Gospels or as a musical term
equivalent to _harmony_ or _chord_. This Harmony was in use among the
Syrians till the fifth century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us
that he destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek
diocese.[83] About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa (407-435)
instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that all the churches
possessed and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel—_i.e._ not mixed or
harmonised. The Lewis-Syriac bears this very title, _Gospel of the
Distinct_ or _Divided_, which is found also as the title of Matthew’s
Gospel in the Curetonian version. Tatian’s Harmony has not yet been
discovered in Syriac, but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it
has long been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arabic was published by
Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the Syriac made by Ibn
et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it. Again, in 1836 the Armenian
version of a Syriac Commentary by Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373) was
printed, and translated into Latin in 1876. [_Evangelii concordantis
expositio facta a S. Ephraemo doctore Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B.
Aucher, ed. G. Moesinger._ Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered in
the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between 337 and 345,
quotations which must be derived from this Harmony of Tatian; and
isolated quotations from Tatian are also found in later Syriac authors.
And so the materials are provided for deciding the question whether or
not Tatian made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation of
his Harmony, and how T^{(atian)}, Syr^{cu(reton)}, Syr^{sin} and
Syr^{sch(aaf)}[84] are related to each other. The most probable view
perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came to
Syria, that in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} we have two attempts to exhibit T
in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which were not
generally accepted, while Syr^{sch} actually succeeded and passed into
general use.
The interest attaching to this question may be learned from the form in
which the text of Matthew i. 16 is given in these witnesses. Syr^{sch}
agrees exactly with our present Greek text, but Syr^{cu} presents a form
which, when translated into Latin, reads, _Joseph cui desponsata virgo
Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that
present a form corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624
and 626, which differ in this respect even from the other members of the
Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four manuscripts the verse
reads, Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθῆσα (_sic_) παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν
λεγόμενον Χριστόν. In the Latin, however, this text is represented by a
number of the oldest manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the
word _virgo_, while two have _peperit_ instead of _genuit_, and τὸν
λεγόμενον is omitted. But in Syr^{sin} we find: _Joseph: Joseph autem
cui desponsata (erat) virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. The passage is
similarly cited in the recently published _Dialogue of Timotheus and
Aquila_,[85] along with two other forms, thus:—Ἰακὼβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ
τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστὸς, καὶ Ἰωσὴφ
ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.
The exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined, but it is
evident that of these three forms in which the verse is found, only one
or none can be the original. If we had no more than our oldest uncials
or the great body of our minuscules to go by, no one could have the
slightest suspicion that in our Greek text all is not in perfect order.
But here, in an old Syriac fragment from the far East, there suddenly
appears a reading which is also found in Latin witnesses from the far
West, and which is confirmed by four solitary Greek manuscripts, written
probably in Calabria at the close of the Middle Ages. How are these
facts connected, and how do they stand to the other two readings, that
of the common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac? The history of
the text of the New Testament presents many such problems.
[Sidenote: Philoxenus-Polycarp.]
But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of the New
Testament already mentioned. In the year of Alexander 819 (A.D.
508),[86] a new and much more literal version was made from the Greek at
the desire of Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug[87] (488-518), by his
rural Bishop Polycarp. Part of this version was published in England by
Pococke in 1630—viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena not included
in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Unfortunately this
edition was prepared from a somewhat inaccurate manuscript, which is now
in the Bodleian Library. The later European editions of the Syriac New
Testament took the text of these Epistles from Pococke’s edition, which
was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text. In 1886
Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of another manuscript of
this version (the Williams MS.), the property of a private gentleman in
America, and corrected from it the text of the Syriac New Testament
issued by the American Bible Society. The other parts of this version
have not yet been found, but the same American scholar thought he
discovered the Gospels in a ninth century manuscript belonging to the
Syrian Protestant College in Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the
Union Theological Seminary in New York.[88] Bernstein thought he made
the same discovery in 1853 in a manuscript belonging to the Angelica
Library in Florence.
[Sidenote: Thomas of Heraclea.]
On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in 1736 to Dr.
Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published, between 1778 and 1803,[89] a
version which he designated by the name of _Versio Philoxenia_, and
which still passes under this title. But this so-called Philoxenian
version is not the identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp,
but a revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in the year
616-7. This revision was made at Alexandria with the object of making
the Syriac text represent the Greek as closely as possible, even to the
order of the words and the insertion of the article. The critical
symbols used by Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, as
well as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicate the various
readings found in the manuscripts. And it is very remarkable to observe
that there were manuscripts in Alexandria at the beginning of the
seventh century which were regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly
well authenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree from the bulk
of our present manuscripts, and which, especially in the Acts, agree
almost entirely with Codex D, which occupies so singular a position
among Greek manuscripts. A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary
before any further use can be made of it in the criticism of the New
Testament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task, going on the basis of
sixteen manuscripts in England alone, but unfortunately he was unable to
bring it to a conclusion.
[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]
The Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Leyden, from a
manuscript that had been in the possession of Scaliger. It is found in a
few other manuscripts, in one, _e.g._, that was transcribed about this
same time for Archbishop Ussher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on
Mount Lebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testament, but the
later editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc. viii. 13, instead of “an
eagle in the midst of heaven” (ἐν μεσουρανήματι), the Syriac translator
took it as “in the midst with a bloody tail” (μεσος, ουρα, αιμα).
Another Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered
in 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford, and published
by him as the first book printed in Syriac at the Dublin University
Press. Still more interesting is it to know that in a manuscript, once
the property of Julius Mohl, and now in Cambridge, both the so-called
Epistles of Clement are found after the Catholic Epistles. This
manuscript, part of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p.
79), contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived, so
far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy of
Pamphilus.[90]
About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Tella translated one
of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament into Syriac almost as
literally as Thomas of Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the
construction of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the
textual criticism of the Old Testament.
[Sidenote: Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.]
Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of the New Testament,
the so-called _Jerusalem_ or _Palestinian Syriac_ (Syr^{hr} or
Syr^{hier}). This version, hitherto known almost solely from an
Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the year 1030, was edited by Count
Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was
published in 1892 in _Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae
quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent_. And now not only have two fresh
manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on Mount Sinai by J.
R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but
fragments of the Acts and Pauline Epistles have also been found and
published, as well as portions of the Old Testament and other Church
literature.[91] The dialect in which these fragments are written is
quite different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close
resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples. At what time
and in what region this entire literature took its rise is not yet
determined with certainty. The Greek text on which the Evangeliarium is
based has many peculiarities. In Matthew xxvii. 17, _e.g._, the robber
is called Jesus Barabbas, or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to
Origen, but now recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or
second hand.
What used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or Montana is not really
a version, but merely the Massoretic work of a monastery school intended
to preserve the proper spelling and pronunciation of the text of the
Bible.
No other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the Syrian,
faithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel. From the mountains
of Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the plains of Mesopotamia and the coast
of Malabar, and even from distant China there have come into the
libraries of Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the
textual criticism of the New Testament.
LITERATURE on the Syriac Versions:—
J. G. Christian Adler, _Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae, Simplex,
Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinatae et ad fidem
codicum manu scriptorum ... novis observationibus atque tabulis aere
incisis illustratae._ Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. _With eight Plates._
1789, 4to. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see my
_Litteratura Syriaca_ (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix
thereto in _Urt._, 227 ff.; R. Duval, _La Littérature Syriaque_.
Paris, 1899, pp. 42-67; _TiGr._, 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition,
ii. 6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane; _The Printed Editions
of the Syriac New Testament_, in the _Church Quarterly Review_,
1888, July, 257-297; G. H. Gwilliam, in the _Studia Biblica et
Ecclesiastica_ (Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 1891; F. C. Conybeare, _The
growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament_, in the
_American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the
_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring
to his forthcoming edition of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says
that he has had to go over the Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and
closes by saying, “I confess that I am unconvinced that what we call
the New Testament Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem’s day,
and I believe that we owe both its production and victorious
reception to the organizing energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop of
Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D.”
1. Till Gwilliam’s edition of the Gospels appears, which has been
promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of
Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, _Novum Domini
nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum cum versione latina cura et
studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones diligenter
recensitum et variis lectionibus magno labore collectis adornatum._
Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. _Acc. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum
concordantiale._ The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805; the
editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better
still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American Mission in
Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New York, 1868,
1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation). An edition
is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, _Nouveau Testament
Syriaque en petits caractères, d’après plusieurs manuscrits anciens,
éd. par le P. L. Cheikho_.
The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much neglected
in the present century. On the O.T., investigations, chiefly in the
form of dissertations on most of the books, have been published,
establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic text, the
Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this sort has been
done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time of Michaelis
and Löhlein. The question has never once been taken up how many
translators’ hands can be distinguished in the N.T.
J. D. Michaelis, _Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum
consectariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu versionis
Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_. Göttingen, 1755. C. L. E.
Löhlein, _Syrus Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica
denuo examinatus_, Erlangen, 1835.
2. Cureton’s _Remains_ (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt’s
new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen’s
Retranslation into Greek (_Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text
des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt_, Leipzig, 1885); and more
especially by Albert Bonus’s _Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti
evangeliorum Syriacorum cum codice Curetoniano_, Oxford, 1896; and
by Carl Holzhey’s _Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit
einem vollständigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaiticus
und Codex Curetonianus_, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, _The Sinaitic
Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac_, in the _Expository Times_,
May 1895, p. 380 ff. The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, _Fragmenta
Evangelica, Pars I., II._, 1870, 1872, and _Observations on the
Collations in Greek of Cureton’s Syriac Fragments_, 1872, contain
useful material, but there are a good many mistakes.
3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of
Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, _The Four Gospels in Syriac,
transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest ..._ Cambridge, 1894. To
this must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, _Some Pages of the
Four Gospels retranscribed_ (with or without an English
translation), London, 1896; further, _Last Gleanings from the Sinai
Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Aug. 1897, pp. 111-119; also, _An Omission
from the Text of the Sinai Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Dec. 1897, p.
472. On the discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, _How the
Codex was found, ..._ Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, _In the
shadow of Sinai, ..._ Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, _Our
Journey to Sinai, ... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest_.
London, 1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, _The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic
Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has been
translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a brief but
valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The second
part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See also
Gwilliam’s notice of the editio princeps in the _Expository Times_,
Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.
4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, _Evangelienharmonie_,
PRE^3, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his _Forschungen_, i. (1881),
_Tatian’s Diatessaron_, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); _Gesch.
des Kanons_, i. 387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, _The earliest Life
of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron
of Tatian_ (c. A.D. 160), _literally translated from the Arabic
Version_. Edinburgh, 1893. J. R. Harris, _The Diatessaron of Tatian,
a Preliminary Study_. Cambridge, 1890. _The Diatessaron, a Reply_,
in the _Contemporary Review_, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels,
in the _Nineteenth Century_, April 1895; also by the same writer,
_Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron_.
London, 1895.... J. H. Hill, _A Dissertation on the Gospel
Commentary of S. Ephrem the Syrian ..._ Edinburgh, 1896. J. A.
Robinson, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony_, in the
_Academy_, 24th March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, _The Diatessaron of
Tatian, with introduction and translation_, in the _Ante-Nicene
Library. Additional Volume ..._ edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh,
1897, pp. 33-138. W. Elliott, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern
Critics_. Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, _A Pair of Citations from the
Diatessaron_, in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, x. 2 (1891),
153-155. J. Goussen, _Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana_,
appended to the _Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica_, 1895. See
also Bäumer in the _Literarischer Handweiser_, 1890, 153-169; the
article _Tatian_ in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and Hastings’
_Bible Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 697 f.
5. On the later Syriac versions, see _Urt._, 228, 236 f.; Gwynn,
_The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles_,
_Hermathena_, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, _Die in der
Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Testamentes in arabischer der
Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung ..._ _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, _The
Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ..._ Cambridge,
1889. In this edition will be found the subscription mentioned
above, connecting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See
_Addenda_, p. xv.
6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see _Urt._, 228, 237. Zahn,
_Forschungen_, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, _Mitteilungen_, i. 111, iv. 328,
340. A. de Lagarde, _Erinnerungen an P. de Lagarde_, p. 112 ff.
Lewis and Gibson, _The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels
re-edited from two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde’s edition of
the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_, London, 1899. The Lectionary
published in the _Studia Sinaitica_, vi., contains, in the N.T.,
passages from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip.,
Col., 1 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the
_Expository Times_, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. _The Liturgy of the Nile_,
published by G. Margoliouth, 1896 (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society_, Oct. 1896, 677-731, and also published separately),
contains Acts xvi. 16-34. See also Woods, _The New Syriac Fragments_
in the _Expository Times_, Nov. 1893.
(_b._) LATIN VERSIONS.
[Sidenote: Jerome.]
The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions of the New
Testament is that of =Jerome= (Hieronymus). This scholar was born at
Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,[92] about the year 345, and
educated at Rome. After leading for some time a hermit life in
Palestine, Jerome returned to Rome, and it was during his residence
there, in the year 382, that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a
revision of the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. This he
did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following year, the first
instalment of the work, the Four Gospels, accompanied with a letter
beginning thus:—“Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old;
after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout
the whole world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were,
and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords with the truth
of the Greek; a pious task, verily, yet a perilous presumption, to pass
judgment on others and oneself to be judged by all.” He anticipates that
everyone, no matter who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and
finds a discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway
condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to or alter or
correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts himself with the
reflection that it is the High Pontiff himself that has laid this task
upon him, and that the testimony of his jealous opponents themselves
proves that discrepancies are an indication of error (verum non esse
quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur); for if they tell
us we are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first say
which, because there are almost as many versions as manuscripts (tot
enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices); if it is to be the majority of
these, why not rather go back to the Greek original which has been badly
rendered by incompetent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male
edita), made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful
correctors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius), and added
to or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormitantibus aut addita
sunt aut mutata). In a letter to his learned friend Marcella, written in
the year 384, he gives instances of what he complains of, citing,
_e.g._, Romans xii. 11, where _tempori servientes_ had hitherto been
read instead of _domino servientes_ (καιρῷ instead of κυρίῳ), and 1 Tim.
v. 19, “against an elder receive not an accusation,” where the
qualifying clause, “except before two or three witnesses,” was dropped,
and also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where _humanus sermo_ was given in place
of _fidelis_. In all three instances, our most recent critical editions
decide in favour of Jerome, against the Old Latin Version. In the last
instance cited, we know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has
ἀνθρώπινος instead of πιστός, and that only in c. iii. 1, viz. D*.
Jerome accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testament,
beginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made a careful
comparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum Graecorum emendata
conlatione sed veterum). In his version he was also careful only to make
an alteration when a real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in
all other cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the
order which has been the prevailing one since his day—Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John.
[Sidenote: Augustine.]
We learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who lived in Africa
about the same time (354-430), that there was an endless variety and
multitude of translators (latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,
interpretum numerositas). He tells us that while it was possible to
count the number of those who had translated the Bible—_i.e._ the Old
Testament—from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were
innumerable; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei
temporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek Codex, and
believe himself to have any knowledge of both languages, than he made
bold to translate it (ausus est interpretari). [Sidenote: Itala.] The
advice he himself gives is to prefer the _Italic_ version to the others,
as being the most faithful and intelligible (in ipsis autem
interpretationibus Itala praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum
perspicuitate sententiae. _De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 15).
[Sidenote: Vulgate.] On the ground of this passage, the pre-Jeromic
versions have been comprehended under the title of the =Itala=, as
distinguished from Jerome’s own work, which is called the =Vulgate=,
seeing that it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle
Ages. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have referred to a
particular version, and, according to the usage of that time, the word
cannot mean anything else than a version originating in or prevalent in
Italy—_i.e._ the North of Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not
difficult to understand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a
version in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose, Bishop of
Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the opinion that by Itala
Augustine means neither more nor less than Jerome’s Revision of the
Gospels. He demonstrates that Augustine’s _De Consensu_, written about
the year 400, is based on Jerome’s revised text. In this, Zahn[93]
agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far as this
point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White[94] will not admit the
inference that Augustine must have meant this Revision when he spoke of
Itala in the year 397, seeing that in his letter to Jerome,[95] written
in 403, he thanks God for the interpretation of the Gospel, “quasi de
opere recenter cognito,” while in his earlier letters to Jerome[96] he
makes no mention of it: “quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex annos
publici iuris facto eam collaudasset.”[97]
(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME.
[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]
Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at least were parts
of it, first translated into Latin? From the passage in Augustine quoted
above, we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest
times of the Christian faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place
where the Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek
was very commonly employed as the written language at Rome, especially
among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome have pure Greek names, and
even the first representative of the Roman Church with a Latin name, the
Clement that wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95,
even he wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin
Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their language, both
in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed with that found in African
writers of that age, and in some things agreed with these alone.
[Sidenote: African Latin.] It is, of course, a fact that the majority of
the writers of that age known to us are African. Till quite recently,
therefore, it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace
of the Latin Bible is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as
equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome and
Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which the Old Latin
Bible now exists, these all proceed from a common origin, or at most
from two sources, so that it was not quite correct to speak of a
“multitude of translators” in the very earliest times. The settlement of
this question is rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the
extant copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, they
are few in number, and for the most part mutilated. The reason of this
is not far to seek. For, as time went on and Jerome’s new version came
to be more and more exclusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version
lost their value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and
book covers. One has also to take into account how liable the text of
both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of an Old Latin Bible
inserting in the margin, or even interpolating in the text, various
passages from Jerome’s translation that seemed to him to be a decided
improvement, or conversely, by the scribe who should have written the
new rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in
from the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts of
Jerome’s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by Gregory.
Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in this field, examined
800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on the other hand, only 38
manuscripts of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament are known to
exist. The credit of collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions
of the Old and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that
time, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743, 3 vols.
folio).
In critical editions of the New Testament the manuscripts of the
pre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters of the Roman
alphabet. They are the following:—
1. GOSPELS.
a. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a document of the
eighth century this manuscript was written by Eusebius, Bishop of
Vercelli, who died in the year 370 or 371. Recent scholars, however,
date it somewhat later. It is written on purple with silver letters. The
order of the Gospels is that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.—viz.
Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in several
places.
The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in 1749
along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex. This
latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne’s
_Patrologia Latina_, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by
Belsheim; _Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum
latine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut
videtur quarto scripti, et ex Editione Iriciana principe denuo
ededit_ (sic) _Jo. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1894.
b. Veronensis: of the fourth or fifth century, also written with silver
on purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. The
manuscript is defective.
Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, _L’Evangeliario
Purpureo Veronese_. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell’
Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).
c. Colbertinus: in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but still
containing the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though exhibiting Jerome’s
version in other parts.
Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim; _Codex Colbertinus
Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post
editionem Petri Sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo.
Belsheim._ Christiania, 1888.
d. The Latin part of Codex D; see p. 64 ff.
e. Palatinus: of the fourth or fifth century, written like a b f i j on
purple with gold and silver letters: now in Vienna, with one leaf in
Dublin.
Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from a
transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was edited
by Belsheim, Christiania, 1896. See von Dobschütz in the _LCbl._,
1896, 28.
f. Brixianus, of the sixth century, in Brescia. In their new edition of
the Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the text of this manuscript
underneath that of Jerome for comparison’s sake as probably containing
the text most nearly resembling that on which Jerome based his
recension. But see Burkitt’s Note in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in
_Addenda_.
ff_{1}. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew alone.
The manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery of Corbey, near
Amiens, and with others was transferred to St. Petersburg during the
French Revolution.
ff_{2}. Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in Paris:
contains the Gospels with several lacunæ.
On Belsheim’s editions of ff_{1} and ff_{2} (1881 and 1887), see E.
Ranke in the _ThLz._, 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._,
1891, 302 f.
g_{1}. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris, exhibits a
mixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen for his Latin Bible of
1538.
g_{2}. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the tenth
century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).
h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in the Vatican:
has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The manuscript is defective at
the beginning down to Matt. iii. 15 and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii.
12.
Edited by Mai in his _Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio_, iii.
257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892.
i. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragments of Luke and
Mark written on purple with silver and gold.
Edited by Belsheim, _Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus ...
antiquissimae evangeliorum Lucae et Marci translationis Latinae
fragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim_. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).
j (z in _TiGr._). Saretianus or Sarzannensis, of the fifth century,
contains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manuscript was
discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, near Tortona, and is not
yet completely edited.
Compare G. Amelli, _Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureo
conservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona_. Milan, 1872.
k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most important of the
Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately contains only fragments of
Matthew and Mark. It is said to have belonged to St. Columban, the
founder of the monastery of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now
preserved at Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in the
_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f.
l. Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas von Rehdiger
in 1569. Matthew i. 1-ii. 15 and a good deal of John wanting.
Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: _Evangeliorum quattuor
vetus latina interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum edita_.
m. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should properly be
omitted here. It indicates the _Liber de divinis scripturis sive
Speculum_, a work mistakenly ascribed to Augustine, consisting of a
collection of proof-passages (testimonia) from the Old and New
Testaments. All the books of the latter are made use of except Philemon,
Hebrews, and 3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodicæans is cited among
the number.
_Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana
ex libro qui vocatur Speculum eruit et ordine librorum Novi
Testamenti exposuit J. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1899.
n o p. Are fragments at St. Gall: published in the Old Latin Biblical
Texts, see below, p. 131 f.
n. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been in the
Library at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains portions of
Matthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42.
o. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place of the
last leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20.
p. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or eighth
century.
a_{2}. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a leaf
containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found in the Episcopal
archives at Chur, and is preserved in the Rhætisches Museum there.
q. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came originally
from Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.
r or r_{1} and r_{2}. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The
former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and has
several lacunæ. r_{2} belongs to the ninth or tenth century and has an
Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r_{1}. It shows affinity
with Jerome’s text in Mark, Luke, and John, of which, however, only five
leaves remain.
Edited by T. K. Abbott, _Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana ex
codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani
alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata...._ Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts.
s. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth century. The
fragments came originally from Bobbio, and are now in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.
t. A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions of the
first three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century, and now at
Berne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.
v. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, _Pactus Legis
Ripuariæ_: exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in the Old Latin
Biblical Texts.
aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth century,
exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of Luke xxi. 8-30. An
inscription in old English states that the manuscript was purchased from
the heathen (the Danes?) by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church,
Canterbury, when Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (871-889). It
was afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really a
Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings. Published by
Belsheim in 1878.
δ. Is the interlinear Latin version of Δ (see p. 72), and is interesting
on account of its alternative readings given in almost every verse—e.g.
_uxorem vel conjugem_ for γυναῖκα, Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, _The
Codex Sangallensis_, Cambridge, 1891.
On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts
of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe zu den
vier Evangelien_. Leipzig, 1896 (_TU._, xv. 1). This has been
supplemented by von Dobschütz’s _Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte_. See
also Jülicher in the _GGA._, 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the _Revue
Critique_, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the _Th. Lz._, 1897,
xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, _Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den
Evangelien_ in the _ZfwTh._, 1897, iii. 432-444.
2. ACTS.
d m As for the Gospels.
e. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75.
g. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire Latin Bible
preserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin only in the Acts and
Apocalypse, the rest of the New Testament exhibiting Jerome’s version.
The manuscript was brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in
1648, along with the Codex Argenteus.
The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879.
On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the _ThLz._, 1880, col. 185. A new
collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson in
1891.