eleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen’s day, Acts
vi. 8-vii. 2, vii. 51-viii. 4.
Published by Ceriani in his _Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, i. 2, pp.
127, 128. Milan, 1866.
h. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the Abbey of Fleury
on the Loire, and now in Paris, written probably in the seventh century.
It contains fragments of the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1
John, in this order. (Tischendorf’s reg.: Blass’s f.)
The latest and best edition is that of S. Berger: _Le Palimpseste de
Fleury_. Paris, 1889.
p_{2}, written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with an
admixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. The manuscript came
originally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris, No. 321. It was used by
Blass.
Published by Berger: _Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apôtres_,
etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschütz in the _ThLz._, 1896, 4;
Haussleiter in the _Th. Lbl._, no. 9; Schmiedel in the _L. Cbl._,
no. 33; E. Beurlier, _Bull. Crit._, 1896, 32, p. 623.
s_{2}. Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at Vienna,
containing fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., and of James and 1
Peter.
x_{1}. Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the Acts with
the exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscript is preserved at Oxford
and is not completely published.
w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of the New
Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the fifteenth century, and
now at Wernigerode. In the main it exhibits Jerome’s text even to a
greater extent than p, but preserves elements of the Old Latin,
particularly in the latter half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to
that observed in the Provençal New Testament,[98] which is derived from
a Latin manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran
German Bible. (See _Urt._, p. 127 f.)
On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, _Der Cyprianische Text der Acta
Apostolorum_. Berlin, 1892.
3. CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
h m s. As above.
ff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century, contains the
Epistle of James.
Edited by Belsheim in the _Theologisk Tidsskrift for den
evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i Norge_ (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by
J. Wordsworth, _The Corbey St. James_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, i.
pp. 113-150. Oxford, 1885.
q. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich, contains
fragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. The text exhibits the passage
of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse
8.
Published by Ziegler in 1877, _Bruchstücke einer
vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung der Petrusbriefe_.
4. PAULINE EPISTLES.
m. As for the Gospels.
d e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.
gue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains fragments of Romans
cc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel. See p. 69.
Published by Tischendorf in his _Anecdota Sacra et Profana_, 1855,
pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_,
i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the
_Addenda_, p. xv.
r. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally from Freising,
and is now at Munich: contains portions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.
Ziegler, _Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe_. Marburg, 1876.
Wölfflin, _Neue Bruchstücke der Freisinger Itala_ (Münchener
Sitzungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).
r_{2}. Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and of 1
Thess. i.
r_{3}. In the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweih on the Danube: fragments of
Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v., written on leaves used as
a book cover.
Published by Rönsch in the _ZfwTh._, xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238.
x_{2}. At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline Epistles:
defective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.
See also Fr. Zimmer, _Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als
Grundlage für einen textkritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina_ in the
_Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen_. Königsberg, i.
(1887), pp. 1-81.
5. APOCALYPSE.
The only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g and h as for the
Acts, h exhibits only fragments of cc. i. and ii., viii. and ix., xi.
and xii., and xiv.-xvi.
For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth and White, see
below, p. 131.
[Sidenote: Latin Fathers.]
On account of the small number of these manuscripts the quotations of
the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially those of _Cyprian_ of
Carthage,[99] and after them the recently discovered citations in
_Priscillian_, who was the first to suffer death as a heretic in the
year 385. In the Apocalypse we have the quotations of _Primasius_,
Bishop of Hadrumet (ca. 550), who used in his commentary on the
Apocalypse not only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version
the same as that used by the African Donatist _Tyconius_. In attempting
to classify these witnesses it was found that the text of certain
manuscripts coincided with that of the Bible used by Cyprian—viz., in
the Gospels k especially, in Acts h, and in the Apocalypse Primasius and
h. This family has accordingly been designated the =African=.
_Tertullian_, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers to the
existence of a Latin Version in his time, but the quotations found in
his Latin works cannot be taken into account, for this reason, that in
citing the New Testament he seems to have made an independent
translation from the Greek for his immediate purpose.[100]
As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to resemble the text
of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the former, and that of q, r,
and r_{3} in the Epistles. To this group, therefore, the name =Italian=
has been given. It has, however, been deemed necessary to regard this
Italian family as being itself a revised and smoother form of a still
earlier version styled the =European=, which is thought to be
represented by g, g_{2}, and s in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and
by g in the Apocalypse.
[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]
As illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate from each
other, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, 11, and 13 as exhibited
by a b c d e f and the Vulgate (vg).
v. 4.—All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum est dum; but
after that there follows:—
(1) stuperent a c, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente consternatae
sunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f.
(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e, vg.
(3) ecce a c d f, vg; et ecce b e.
(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e, vg.
(5) adstiterunt a f, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt b e, vg.
(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg; eis d.
(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu
scoruscanti d.
(8) v. 5: timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad terram a; cum
timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram b e f, vg; conterritae
autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c; in timore autem factae
inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d.
(9) v. 11: et visa sunt a b c (visae) e f, vg; et paruerunt d.
(10) illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos c e, in conspectu eorum d,
coram illos f.
(11) tanquam a, sicut b e, vg; quasi c d f.
(12) delira a, deliramentum b e f, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f -ler-),
deliramenta c, derissus d.
(13) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.
(14) stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat stadia sexaginta
ab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis stadia sexag. c, iter
habentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod est ab hierosolymis stadia
septem e, quod aberat spatio stadiorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in
spatio stadiorum sexaginta ab hierusalem vg.
(15) cui nomen a, nomine b c d e f, vg.
(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg; alammaus d, ammaus
et cleopas e.
Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said: tot exemplaria, quot codices?
And when we take into account that all this variety in the Latin
manuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation, but that a
similar diversity exists in the Greek,[101] we can easily understand
what a task it is to extricate the original text from out these
conflicting witnesses. At the same time, we have evidence of the
singular position in which D stands to all the others; while the last
example also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might
arise. The reading ᾗ ὄνομα in verse 13 would preclude any possibility of
misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the translator had before
him a manuscript like D, in which the reading was ὀνόματι. What
happened, we shall suppose, was this. The phrase, “Emmaus by name,” was
taken as referring, not to the village, but to the subject of the
sentence; the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and
in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And accordingly we
find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two travellers are regularly
called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was just as Jerome said: a vitiosis
interpretibus male edita, a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata
perversius, a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.
(2.) THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME.
[Sidenote: Codex Epternacensis.]
It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of Jerome; first of
all because all our present manuscripts are derived from one and only
one source, secondly because the number of existing manuscripts is very
great, and lastly because some of them at least go back to the sixth
century. There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the Church
of St. Willibrord at Echternach, written by an Irish hand of the eighth
or ninth century, and containing a subscription copied from its original
to the following effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in
bibliotheca Eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi,
indictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo decimo.
That must have been in the year 558. [Sidenote: Codex Amiatinus.] Codex
Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong to the same
time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because it has been proved
that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth, who died at
Langres on the 25th September 716, on his way to Rome, where he intended
to present this Codex to the Pope. [Sidenote: Codex Fuldensis.] One of
the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda,
where it has been preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This
Codex Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of Bishop
Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It contains the whole of the
New Testament according to Jerome’s version, only in place of the four
separate Gospels it has a Harmony composed by Victor, who followed
Tatian’s plan, using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor’s Harmony in turn
became the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian.
[Sidenote: Wordsworth and White.]
The task of restoring the original text of Jerome’s version has been
undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, who has been at work
on all the available material for more than fifteen years. The edition
bears the title, _Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum
editionem sancti Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit
Johannes Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano
White_. Five parts of the first volume have already appeared, containing
the four Gospels with an _Epilogus ad Evangelia_.[102] In France, J.
Delisle, the Director of the Paris National Library, has rendered great
service by his work upon the manuscripts under his care; while Samuel
Berger has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the
Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle Ages and the
remotest provinces of the Church to bear upon the history of the Vulgate
and its text as well as on the origin and dissemination of the different
forms. In his compendious _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers
siècles du moyen âge_ (Paris, 1893), he has, _e.g._, indicated no fewer
than 212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament were
arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and thirty-eight varieties
in the order of the New Testament books. In Germany Bengel applied
himself to the reconstruction of the Latin text of the Bible in the last
century, and in this he was followed by Lachmann in the present century,
while Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge of the
history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has followed up the labours of
Ziegler and Rönsch in the particular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and
its text with a methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E.
v. Dobschütz has begun to publish _Studies in the Textual Criticism of
the Vulgate_. The valuable researches of Carlo Vercellone (1860-64) were
concerned almost exclusively with the Old Testament, and do not seem to
have been followed up in Italy. “Utinam Papa Leo XIII.,” says Gregory,
“tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se suscipiat
textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi; cura, opus ecclesia et
Papa dignum.” Meanwhile Wordsworth and White appear to have accomplished
as much as is possible at present in the field of the Gospels.[103]
[Sidenote: MSS. used by Jerome.]
The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of the text have
been already referred to, but what the early Greek manuscripts were that
he employed is not yet clearly made out. The relics of the material he
used are as scanty as those of his own work. He must, however, have been
able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius, seeing that
he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New Testament. But there are
certain readings in Jerome which we have not yet been able to discover
in any Greek manuscript that we know. For instance, he gives _docebit
vos omnem veritatem_ in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions
read ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, so that he would seem to have
read διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. As a matter of fact, this
reading does occur in two passages of Eusebius and in Cyril of
Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic version of Tatian, but it has not
been discovered in any Greek manuscript.[104] In the other parts of the
New Testament, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the year
386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from the Greek, but
contented himself with improving the grammar and diction of the Latin.
His work on the Old Testament was much more comprehensive, but does not
fall to be discussed here.
[Sidenote: History of the Vulgate.]
It was only by degrees that Jerome’s recension gained ground. In Rome,
Gregory the Great (d. 604) for one preferred it to the old, though at
the same time he says expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo
praesideo, utraque utitur. [Sidenote: Alcuin.] Owing to the use of both
forms the diversity of copies grew to such an extent that in 797 Charles
the Great ordered =Alcuin= to make a uniformly revised text from the
best Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches of his Empire. For this
purpose Alcuin sent to his native Northumbria for manuscripts, by which
he corrected the text of the Bible, and he was able to present the first
copy to the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of the superb
_Carolingian_ manuscripts, as they are called, which are found in our
libraries, contain Alcuin’s Revision, as for instance the Bible of
Grandval near Basel, which was probably written for Charles the Bald,
and which is now in the British Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible
presented to the same monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours,
which was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathedral treasury there
to Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris (B. N., Lat. 1); another written
in the same monastery of St. Martin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the
Vallicellian Library of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is
perhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible.
[Sidenote: Theodulf.]
Another revision was introduced into France by Alcuin’s contemporary
=Theodulf=, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He was a Visigoth, born in the
neighbourhood of Narbonne, and the type of text he introduced was taken
essentially from Spanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the
so-called Theodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the Cathedral
Church of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380); in its companion
volume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, and now in the British Museum
(24142); and in the Bible of St. Hubert, which came from the monastery
of that name in the Ardennes.
[Sidenote: Harding.]
A further revision was made by Stephen =Harding=, third Abbot of
Citeaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a standard Bible for his
congregation, in which the Latin text of the New Testament was corrected
by the Greek. At the same time the Old Testament was revised from the
Hebrew with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding’s copy of the
standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the Public
Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his monastery by William,
Abbot of Hirsau.
[Sidenote: Correctoria.]
Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of the so-called
=Correctoria Bibliorum=, in which those readings which were supposed to
be correct were carefully collected and arranged. The University of
Paris in particular did a great deal in this way, and such was its
influence, that by the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text
was the one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the invention of
printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the others.
[Sidenote: Printed text.]
The first fruits of the printing press are understood to be the undated
“forty-two line Bible,” usually called the _Mazarin_ Bible, seeing that
it was the copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted
the attention of bibliographers. The first dated Bible is of the year
1462. Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before the close
of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during the sixteenth. The first
edition in octavo, “for the poor man,” was issued at Basel in 1491 from
the Press of Froben, the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare
the first Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with various
readings was printed in 1504. In the following year Erasmus published
the _Annotationes_ which Laurentius Valla had prepared for the Latin
Bible as early as 1444. The year 1528 saw the first really critical
edition. It was brought out by Stephen, who used in its preparation
three good Paris manuscripts—the Bible of Charles the Bald already
referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth century, the
New Testament portion of which has now disappeared. He afterwards
published in 1538-40 another edition, for which he employed seventeen
manuscripts, and which became the foundation of the present authorised
Vulgate. [Sidenote: Henten.] About the same time John =Henten= published
a very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one manuscripts,
in the preparation of which he was assisted by the theologians of
Louvain. This was followed in 1573 and 1580 by two further editions
containing important annotations by Lucas of Brügge. [Sidenote:
Authorised Vulgate.] In the year previous to that in which Henten’s
edition appeared, the Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th
April 1546, decided “ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis
lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro
authentica habeatur,” and at the same time ordained “posthac sacra
scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam
emendatissime imprimatur.”
[Sidenote: Sixtine.]
The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in the papacy of
Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the work of revising the text
of the Bible, and a “Congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum” gave
twenty-six sittings to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have
allowed the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new commission for
the purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal Caraffa. The Pope himself
revised the result of their labours, which was printed at the Vatican
Press that he had founded. This edition, which takes its name from him,
was issued under the Bull “Aeternus ille” of the 1st March 1589, and
published in the following year. It is the first official edition of the
Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th August 1590, and was succeeded by four
Popes in the space of two years. [Sidenote: Clementine.] His fourth
successor in the Chair of Peter, Clement VIII., issued a new edition
under the name of the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull “Cum sacrorum”
of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a preface written by
Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for the former, and has continued
from that day without any alteration as the authorised Bible of the
entire Roman Church. The text of this second edition approximated more
closely to that of Henten, for which the Commission of Pope Sixtus had
also expressed their preference, though their printed edition went
rather by that of Stephen. The number of the variations between these
two editions has been estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are
superseded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may be added that
the first edition to contain the names of both the Popes upon the title
page is that of 1604. The title runs: “Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu
recognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.” Those printed at Rome
at the present day are entitled: “Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt.
Maxx. iussu recognita atque edita.” See below, p. 132.
An enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by
Tischendorf in his eighth edition, or even of the earliest and most
important of them, cannot be attempted. Those, however, mentioned by
Gebhardt in his _Adnotatio Critica_ are given here, with the notation
adopted by Wordsworth and White.
The best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English editors, are Codex
Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the one in the Ambrosian Library at
Milan (C 39 inf.), written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W.; not cited
by Tischendorf.)
am. Amiatinus (_vide supra_, p. 122), written ca. 700, is an excellent
manuscript, and particularly interesting as containing in the
introduction a double catalogue of the Books of the Bible resembling
that of the Senator Cassiodorus. See Westcott, _Bible in the Church_,
Appendix B; _Canon_, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.)
bodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belonging to the
Library of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in W.-W.)
demid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century, but copied
from an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons; present locality unknown;
not cited in W.-W.
em. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with splendid
miniatures: at Munich, Cimelie 55: not cited in W.-W.
erl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer’s Catalogue, 467): used
only indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited in W.-W.
for. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, and now at
Cividale, Friuli: fragments of it at Venice and Prague. (J in W.-W.)
fos. Of the ninth century: from St. Maur des Fossés, now in Paris. (Lat.
11959.)
fu. Fuldensis (_vide supra_, p. 122), written between 540 and 546:
contains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after Colossians: edited with
facsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in W.-W.)
gat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien’s in Tours: written in the eighth or
ninth century: stolen from Libri: purchased by Lord Ashburnham and now
in Paris: not cited in W.-W.
harl. Harleianus 1775, of the sixth or seventh century: in the British
Museum, formerly in Paris 4582: stolen from there by John Aymont in
1707. (Z in W.-W.)
ing. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the University Library
at Munich: defective. (I in W.-W.) See von Dobschütz, _Vulgatastudien_
(with two facsimiles).
mm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers, near Tours: in
the British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in W.-W.)
mt. Of the eighth or ninth century, from St. Martin’s, and still at
Tours: written in gold letters. (M̅, in W.-W.)
pe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at Perugia,
containing Luke i. 1-xii. 7. (P in W.-W.)
prag. The fragments cited under _for._ (see above).
reg. Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purple manuscript
inscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark, with lacunæ: at Paris
11955: not cited in W.-W.
rus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish scribe who
died in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version. (R in
W.-W.)
san. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21-John xvii. 18,
written by a scribe who says that he used two Latin and one Greek
manuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a palimpsest at St. Gall containing
Ephes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5, the Biblical text being the uppermost.
taur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels beginning
at Matthew xiii. 34: not cited in W.-W.
tol. Written in the eighth century: this manuscript, which was written
by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville to John, Bishop of
Cordova, who presented it to the See of Seville in 988: it was
afterwards at Toledo, and is now at Madrid. It was collated for the
Sixtine Recension by Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use.
(T in W.-W.)
In addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as cited by
Wordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regularly used by them, and
a great number are cited occasionally. For these reference must be made
to their edition, and for further particulars to Berger’s incomparable
work.
On the Latin Versions compare _TiGr._, 948-1108, 1313, and
especially Scrivener. The chapter on _The Latin Versions_ in the
Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J.
White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also _Urt._, 85-118,
which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the
_Old Latin Versions_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii.
47-62.
1. G. Riegler, _Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata_, Sulzbach, 1820;
Lean. van Ess, _Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im
Allgemeinen und zunächst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret_,
Tübingen, 1824; Kaulen, _Geschichte der Vulgata_, Mainz, 1868;
Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du
moyen âge_, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the
history of the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).
2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, _Die Lateinischen
Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus_,
Munich, 1879; Zycha, _Bemerkungen zur Italafrage_, in the _Eranos
Vindobonensis_, 1893, 177-184; Burkitt, _The Old Latin and the
Itala_ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).
3. On the language see Rönsch (d. 1888), _Itala und Vulgata_, 2nd
Edition, 1875; also _Die ältesten lateinischen-Bibelübersetzungen
nach ihrem Werthe für die lateinische Sprachwissenschaft_, by the
same writer in the _Collectanea Philologa_, Bremen, 1891, 1-20;
Kaulen, _Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematische Darstellung ihres
Sprachcharakters_, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, _De Bibliorum S. Vulgatæ
Editionis Graecitate_, Quedlinburg, 1891.
4. Editions of the Text:—Among the earlier works the most important
is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the Old
Testament at least, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ Versiones antiquæ,
seu Vetus Italica, et cæteræ quæcunque in codicibus MSS. et
antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri
Sabatier_, 3 vols. folio,[105] Rheims, 1743. Jos. Bianchini
(Blanchinus), _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, 2 vols. folio, Rome, 1749
(copies now cost about £4). After a long interval work in this field
has been resumed in the _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, published at the
Clarendon Press, Oxford, of which four parts have appeared:—1. _The
Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain MS._ (g_{1}),
_now numbered Lat. 11553 in the National Library at Paris, with
Introduction and five Appendices, edited by John Wordsworth, D.D._,
1883 (6/-). 2. _Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and
St. Matthew from the Bobbio MS._ (k), _now numbered G. VII. 15 in
the National Library at Turin, together with other fragments of the
Gospels from six MSS. in the Libraries of St. Gall, Coire, Milan,
and Berne (usually cited as n, o, p, a_{2}, s, and t). Edited, with
the aids of Tischendorf’s Transcripts and the printed Texts of
Ranke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with two facsimiles, by J. Wordsworth,
D.D., ... W. Sanday, D.D., ... and H. J. White, M.A._, 1886 (21/-).
3. _The Four Gospels, from the Munich MS._ (q), _now numbered Lat.
6224 in the Royal Library at Munich, with a Fragment from St. John
in the Hof-Bibliothek at Vienna (Cod. Lat. 502). Edited, with the
aid of Tischendorf’s Transcript (under the direction of the Bishop
of Salisbury), by H. J. White,_ _M.A._, 1888 (12/6). 4. _Portions of
the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the
First Epistle of St. Peter from the Bobbio Palimpsest_ (s), _now
numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Edited, with the
aid of Tischendorf’s and Belsheim’s printed Texts, by H. J. White,
M.A., with a Facsimile_, 1897 (5/-). (See notice in the _Expository
Times_, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)
5. Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate is noticed by
Berger in the _Bull. Crit._, 1899, viii. 141-144. It may be added
here, as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to
the later history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one
representative of a recension so important as that of the University
of Paris in the thirteenth century might have been collated, and
perhaps also the first printed edition, “the forty-two line” Bible.
On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, _Ein
Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892_, in
_Marginalien und Materialien_, 1893; also printed separately.
An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published by
M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above, p. 25),
entitled _Novum Testamentum Vulgatae Editionis. Ex Vaticanis
Editionibus earumque Correctorio critice edidit Michael Hetzenauer._
Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may be
made to the same writer’s _Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf
katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
offziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt._ Innsbruck, 1900.
(_c._) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
Next in importance to the Syriac versions from the East and the Latin
from the West are the =Egyptian= versions from the South. Here too we
find not one early version but several.
[Sidenote: Dialects.]
What used till lately to be called Coptic[106] is merely one of the
dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was divided. And here
we must distinguish three main branches—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and
the Middle Egyptian.
[Sidenote: Bohairic.]
(1) =Bohairic=[107] is the name given to the dialect that was spoken in
the Bohaira—_i.e._ the district by the sea and therefore Lower Egypt,
the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was the principal dialect, and being
that used for ecclesiastical purposes over the whole country, and,
moreover, that with which European scholars first became acquainted, the
versions written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The term
Memphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect, because it was
not till the eleventh century that the Patriarchate was transferred to
Cairo—_i.e._ the district of Memphis, and in early times a different
dialect was spoken there.
[Sidenote: Sahidic.]
(2) =Sahidic= is the name used to describe the dialect of Upper Egypt.
It is sometimes and not improperly spoken of as the Thebaic in
distinction to the Memphitic.
[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]
(3) Under the =Middle Egyptian=[108] we have to distinguish—
(_a_) The _Fayumic_, spoken in the Fayum—_i.e._ the district to the S.W.
of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated from the valley
of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert. It was in this district
that those recent papyrus discoveries were made which have enriched the
libraries and museums of Europe.
(_b_) The _Middle Egyptian proper_, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect which
has its home on the site of ancient Memphis.
(_c_) The dialect of _Achmim_, which preserves a more primitive form of
early Egyptian than any of those already referred to.
In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius specifies three
dialects of the Coptic language—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third
which he says was already extinct, and to which he gives the name of
Bashmuric; but whether this last is to be identified with the dialects
included above under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.
(1.) _The Bohairic Version._
[Sidenote: Bohairic.]
This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first used for the
New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who was indebted for his
knowledge of it to Marshall. It was afterwards employed by Mill for his
edition of 1707. It was first published in 1716 by Wilkins (or rather
Wilke), a Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, “Novum
Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum.” His edition was accompanied with
a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel obtained a few particulars regarding
this version from La Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the
Gospels by Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death the
Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boetticher, afterwards
distinguished under his adopted name of de Lagarde. About the same time
Tattam prepared a wholly uncritical edition of the entire New Testament,
including the Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this
version.[109] Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version
originated in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but
others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older
foundation. The order of the New Testament books was originally: (1) the
Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2)
the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the
seven Catholic Epistles, and (4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic
manuscripts are preserved in the libraries of Europe, and from these an
edition has been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with
exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).
The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded by present
critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called Western additions.
(2.) _The Sahidic Version._
[Sidenote: Sahidic.]
It was a long time before this version attracted any attention. In his
New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manuscripts, “lingua plane a
reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa,” and Woide in 1778 announced his
intention of editing certain fragments of the New Testament “iuxta
interpretationem superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur,” which were
afterwards published by Ford in 1799. At the close of last century and
the beginning of this, various other fragments were issued by Tuki,
Mingarelli, Münter, Zoega, and Engelbreth, but it was not till more
recent times that really important parts of the Old and New Testaments
were published by Amélineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero,
Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of the
Apocalypse.[110] This version, like the former, contained the entire New
Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, and originally
exhibited the Gospels in the same order—John, Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Hebrews, however, stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek
original was quite different from that of the Bohairic version. (See
Plate VIII.)
(3.) _The Middle Egyptian Versions._
[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]
Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions of Matthew
and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and Hebrews in the
Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bashmuric dialect, were first
published by Zoega in 1809, by Engelbreth in 1811, and especially by
Bouriant (1889) and Crum (1893).
Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the _Mitteilungen
aus der Sammlung der Papyrus des Erzherzogs Rainer_.
In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20 are the only
fragments that have been discovered as yet, and these have been
published by Crum. Whether these fragments are really parts of a
separate version, or merely dialectical modifications of the Sahidic, is
not quite certain.[111]
As to the =date= of these versions we have no definite information. It
has been understood from certain passages in the Life of St. Anthony,
who was born about the year 250, that in his boyhood he heard the Gospel
read in Church in the language of Egypt, but that need not imply the
existence of a written version, as the translation may have been made by
a reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century, however,
versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the South that the
first attempts at translation were made. Our oldest known manuscripts, a
Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii., and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude
17-20, date from the fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems
to have been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the
Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a question
requiring further investigation.
A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian versions
is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules, the task of most
importance at present for the textual criticism of the New Testament.
For the Sahidic version in particular represents a type of text found
hitherto almost exclusively in the West, and looked upon as the outcome
of Western corruption and licence, whereas it may really bear the most
resemblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its agreement
with the text of Codex D is remarkable. One might instance, _e.g._, the
mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the insertion of the Golden Rule in
its negative form in xv. 20, 29, the relation of the vision in xvi. 10,
and the description of the stone which twenty men could not roll away in
Luke xxiii. 53, all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic
manuscript. The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented
in European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule in the
Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs—_i.e._ according
to an era reckoned from August or September 284 A.D.
_TiGr._, 859-893. Scrivener^4, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with
additions by Headlam. H. Hyvernat, _Étude sur les Versions Coptes de
la Bible_ (_Revue Biblique_, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1
(1897) 48-74.) _Urt._, 144-147. Forbes Robinson, _Egyptian
Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. (1898)
668-673. W. E. Crum, _Coptic Studies_ from the _Egypt Exploration
Fund’s Report_ for 1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner’s
edition eclipses all others. It is entitled, _The Coptic Version of
the New Testament in the Northern dialect, otherwise called
Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and
literal English Translation. Vol. I. Introduction, Matthew and
Mark_, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898; _Vol. II. Luke
and John_, 548 pp., 1898. See notice by Hyvernat in the _Revue
Biblique_, 1899, pp. 148-150, and also W. E. Crum, _lib. cit._,
where reference is also made to the _Manuscrits Coptes au Musée ...
à Leide_, 1897. As Horner’s edition as yet only covers the Gospels,
the remaining portions of the New Testament must still be sought in
the two parts published by Lagarde after Schwartze’s death, _Acta
Apostolorum coptice_ (1852), and _Epistulae Novi Testamenti coptice_
(1852). On Brugsch’s _Recension_ in the _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vii. (1853) pp. 115-121, see
_ibid._, p. 456, and Lagarde, _Aus dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben_,
pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam’s Bohairic-Arabic edition was published by
the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in
Tuki’s _Rudimenta_ in 1778, and Woide’s editio princeps, announced
in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799.
Amélineau’s _Fragments Thébaines inédits du Nouveau Testament_ were
published in vols. xxiv.-xxvi. of the _Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Sprache_ (1886-1888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse were
issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his
_Studia Theologica_ (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and
Pseudepigraphical writings have also been discovered in recent
times, as, for example, the _Acta Pauli_ in a manuscript of the
seventh century, written in Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian
vocalisation. These are to be published by A. Schmidt. See
_Addenda_, p. xv.
See also Amélineau, _Notice des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque
Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament_, in
the _Athenæum_, No. 3601, p. 599.
The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the criticism of
the text. There are, however, one or two others which, though inferior
in value, are still interesting. Among these is—
(_d._) THE GOTHIC VERSION.
[Sidenote: Gothic.]
This is the work of =Ulfilas=—_i.e._ Wölflin—a Cappadocian by descent,
who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first Bishop of the
Goths.[112] While the tribe was still settled in the Crimea, he is said
to have invented an alphabet, and translated both the Old and the New
Testament for their use. In the Old Testament Ulfilas followed the
Septuagint according to the Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312),
which circulated in the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament
the text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of Latin
influence which were supposed to be discernible in the version, and
which may either have existed from the first or been introduced at a
later time, relate at most, perhaps, to matters of orthography.
(1) The Gothic version first became known through the so-called Codex
Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella’s secretary, and Mercator the
geographer saw in the Monastery of Werden in the sixteenth century. It
was afterwards seen at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it
was brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen
Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by Marshall de
la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited in the library at
Upsala, where it has since remained. Ten leaves were stolen from the
manuscript between 1821 and 1834, but restored, after many years, by the
thief upon his deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth
or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It now
comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments of the four
Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It was published for
the first time in 1665, from a transcript made by Derrer ten years
before.
(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbüttel palimpsest already referred to as
Q of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the Old Latin gue of Paul (see p.
118), contains some forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans. It was
first published in 1762.
(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian Library at Milan,
discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like Codex Carolinus, they are in
all probability from the Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the
Pauline Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations from
Hebrews are also found in a theological work. No portion of Acts,
(Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse has as yet been discovered.
Editions of the Gothic version have been published by Gabelentz and Löbe
(1836-1843), Stamm (1858), Heyne ^5(1872) ^9(1896), Bernhardt (Halle,
1875, 1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by Müller
and Höppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.
LITERATURE.—On Ulfilas, see Scott, _Ulfilas, the Apostle of the
Goths_, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, _The Goths_, in the “Story of the
Nations” Series, 1888. Gwatkin, _Studies of Arianism_, 1882. _Urt._,
pp. 119-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, _Ulfilas
und die gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel_, in Westermann’s _Illustr.
Monatshefte_, Dec. 1892, 403-407; Jostes, _Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas
und der Uebertritt der Gothen zum Arianismus_ (_Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives
383 as the date of Ulfilas’s death. On the other side, see
Kauffmann, _Der Arianismus des Wulfila_ in the _ZfdPhil._, xxx.
(1897) 93-113; Luft, _Die arianischen Quellen über Wulfila_ in the
_ZfdAltert._, xlii. 4; Vogt, _Zu Wulfilas Bekenntnis und dem Opus
imperfectum_, _ibid._ Kauffmann, _Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der
gotischen Bibelübersetzung_ in the _ZfdPhil._; (ii.) _das N. T._
(xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) _das gotische Matthäusevangelium und
die Itala_; (iv.) _die griechische Vorlage des gotischen
Johannesevangeliums_ (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the same
author, _Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis epistula
de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang der Dissertatio
Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben._ Strassburg, 1899. P.
Batiffol, _De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la version
gothique des écritures_ (_Revue Biblique_, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572),
see also _ThLz._, 1900, No. i.; _LCbl._, 1900, No. 28. On the
relation of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see
Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 131 ff., and
compare _Addenda_, p. xv.
On the Gothic language and writing, see Douse, _Introduction to the
Gothic of Ulfilas_. London, 1886; the grammars of Braune and Skeat,
and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt; see also
Luft, _Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alfabeten_, Gütersloh,
1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek
alphabet and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas’s own invention. On R.
Löwe’s _Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer_ (Halle, 1896), see the
story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (_Th. St. und
Kr._, 1897, 784 ff.).
To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken directly from
the Greek or influenced by one or other of those already described is
still subject of dispute.
(_e._) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.
According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the Ethiopic
version of the New Testament was made from the Greek previous to the
fifth century. Dillmann accepts this as correct, but Gildemeister would
assign it to the sixth or seventh century, and thinks that traces are
discernible of Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the
fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the usual
twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an Appendix
consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books called the Synodos, so
that the Ethiopian Church reckons in all thirty-five books in the New
Testament. In later times the version was undoubtedly corrected from
Arabic and Coptic texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in
1548-1549, but neither it nor those issued since are of any real
critical worth.
At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late origin, exist in
the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the oldest is preserved in
Paris. It dates from the thirteenth century, and exhibits the Gospels in
an unrevised text.
LITERATURE.—See _TiGr._, 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written
by Margoliouth. _Urt._, 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles,
_Ethiopic Version_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, i.
791-793. C. Conti Rossini, _Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle
Sacre Scritture in Etiopico_, in the _Z. für Assyriologie_, x. 2, 3
(1895). The view of Lagarde (_Ankündigung_, 1882, p. 28; _cf._ also
_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, lxi. 113), that this version may have
been made from the Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is
now generally rejected.
(_f._) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.
La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the “Queen of the
Versions.”
Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence was supreme
in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region first received the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the form of a translation
from the Syriac. But in the year 433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning
from the Synod of Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from
Constantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alexandria, to
have translated it into Armenian. According to another account this was
done by St. Sahak (390-428) about the year 406. The first edition of the
Armenian New Testament was brought out in Amsterdam in the year
1666[113] by Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years
previously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a defective
manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan supplied from the
Vulgate. A better edition was published in 1789 by Zohrab, who used
twenty manuscripts, and especially a Cilician Codex of the year 1310. He
was of opinion that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before
the eighth century. Zohrab’s text was collated for Tregelles by Rieu,
whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his editions.
The Armenian manuscripts display variations of several sorts. In some
John’s Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in others it is followed by the
Apocryphal “Rest of St. John.” The Apocalypse was not read in church
prior to the twelfth century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New
Testament, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of the
other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles,
with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In Moscow there is a
manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one
written in the year 986 and bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth
century. In the last-mentioned Codex the words, “of Ariston the
Presbyter,” are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows.
(_See Plate IX._) We learn from this, what is evidently correct, viz.,
that the present conclusion of Mark’s Gospel is due to a certain
Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion, the teacher of
Papias in the second century. The earlier Armenian version also
contained the two verses Luke xxii. 43, 44, which were omitted in the
later.
LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C.
Conybeare, _Armenian Versions of N. T._, in Hastings’ _Bible
Dictionary_, i. 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, c. v.;
_The Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius_, in
_Texts and Studies_, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see _Expositor_,
1894, p. 241, and below, p. 295.
(_g._) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.
This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought to have
been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though it may also be
derived from the Armenian. It contains the pericope adulteræ (John vii.
53-viii. 11), but places it immediately after ch. vii. 44, which is the
more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from
vii. 44 onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first printed
at Moscow in 1743.
Scrivener, ii. 156-158; re-written by F. C. Conybeare. _TiGr._, 922
f.
(_h._) THE ARABIC VERSIONS.
Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others from the Syriac
and the Coptic, while there are also manuscripts exhibiting a recension
undertaken at Alexandria in the thirteenth century, The New Testament
was even cast into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran.
As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars quoting
various passages of the New Testament, particularly the sayings
regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13, which they
understood of Mohammed. He himself, however, knew the Gospel narrative
from oral tradition only. The oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at
Sinai, written in the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the
text of Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. 1-ii. 9, in the
_Studia Sinaitica_, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by
Lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of various readings
were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, this last, _e.g._, being
adduced in support of a reading hitherto found only in D, one Old Latin
(g), and the Lewis-Syriac: οὔκ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι ... παρ’ οἷς
οὔκ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the
Gospels appeared at Rome in 1591. [Sidenote: Other versions.] In common
with the remaining versions of the New Testament, _Persic_, _Old High
German_, _Anglo-Saxon_, _Bohemian_, and _Slavonic_, these secondary
Arabic versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point of
view of the history of language and culture, but they are also valuable
here and there for the restoration of the original text. In the present
work, however, we cannot enter more fully into them.
LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. _Urt._,
150-155. F. C. Burkitt, _Arabic Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary
of the Bible_, i. 136-138, where see literature. Burkitt thinks that
the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript
formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as Cod.
Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in _TiGr._, which is generally
assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter,
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac.
Fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles,
are all that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscripts
of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the
Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic
manuscript cited as Θ^h, of which only four leaves have been
preserved (see above, p. 72). On a Græco-Arabic MS. connected with
the Ferrar Group (211^{ev}), see Lake in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied
by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the
year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions.
The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria,
by Hibat Allâh ibn el-Assâl, and a second towards the end of the
thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde’s edition are
derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic
Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered
154 in Mrs. Gibson’s Catalogue, is published by her in _Studia
Sinaitica_, vii. (1899).
For the remaining versions of the N. T., see Scrivener, ii. pp.
158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor
versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings’ _Bible
Dictionary_, under the general heading of Versions. See also _Urtext
und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_.
3. QUOTATIONS.
Our third source of material for the restoration of the text of the New
Testament is =Quotations= found in other books. These are of great
value, because they represent, for the most part, definite manuscripts
existing in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them, and
also because a large number of them belong to a time from which no
codices have come down to us. The value of their testimony depends, of
course, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 32)—viz., that the
author quoted accurately, and the copyist copied faithfully, and the
editor edited correctly. Quotations made by _Jewish_ writers as well as
by Christian will fall to be considered, only it is doubtful if in their
case we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17.
So, too, will the quotations made by _pagan opponents_ of Christianity,
particularly those of _Celsus_ in the second century, and of the Emperor
Julian. But here again we are not in possession of their complete works,
which can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less
uncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the
Apologists.[114] The books of those Christian Churches which were
isolated from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of
Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell
us.
Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was not so convenient
to turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy
printed editions.[115] In the case of longer passages and verbal
quotations generally, indolent copyists were sometimes content with
simply adding καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. In the _Apostolic Constitutions_, ii. 22, for
example, where the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the
copyist of a certain manuscript,[116] after writing the opening words
from Κύριε down to δικαίου, omitted all the rest, amounting to
thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς εὐχῆς ἃ
ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε. (See further, _Apost. Const._, i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8,
23; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 11; 29, 2). This, however, is not without its
parallel in modern times. As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing
out Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in
his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a
printed edition of the Textus Receptus. Another editor in Vienna, in
preparing an edition of Cyprian’s Works, preferred those very
manuscripts in which the Scriptural quotations had been accommodated to
the current text of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an
author several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on
the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, _e.g._, the context agrees
with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural passages like the
_Testimonia_ of Cyprian and the so-called _Speculum_ of Augustine are
also taken directly from manuscripts of the Bible.
Francis Lucas of Brügge was the first to explore the writings of the
Church Fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism. They are
referred to in four notes found in the Complutensian Polyglot. In his
edition of 1516, Erasmus cites a whole series of Patristic
witnesses—Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of
Nazianzen, Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics
have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been rendered for
Tertullian by Rönsch, and for Origen by Griesbach. For Augustine,
Lagarde is specially to be mentioned. Most of the Fathers were thus
cared for by Burgon, who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen
large volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after his
death. The only pity is that the works of those very Fathers that are of
most importance are not yet satisfactorily edited. All the more welcome,
therefore, is the appearance of the Vienna Academy’s _Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, of which forty volumes have been issued
since 1867, and of the Berlin Academy’s edition of the Ante-Nicene Greek
Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of Origen have made
their appearance.[117]
The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of the
_Canon_. That is to say, their evidence must be taken simply as showing
what New Testament writings they were acquainted with, and here the
_argumentum ex silentio_ is to be applied with caution. This is the case
with _Barnabas_ and _Clement_[118] in the first century, and _Ignatius_
and _Hermas_ in the first half of the second. Even with the much more
extensive writings of _Justin_, there is still considerable
dispute—_e.g._, as to what Gospels he made use of.[119] _Irenæus_ of
Lyons is valuable on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be
particularly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testament
with him from Smyrna[120] and if his writings were extant in Greek, and
not, as is the case with most of them, in Latin only. In Egypt _Clement
of Alexandria_ holds a prominent place, but by far the most
distinguished of all is the great Biblical scholar of antiquity,
_Origen_ (d. 248). Already we find these writers appealing to
manuscripts, and distinguishing them by such epithets as “good,” “old,”
“emended,” “most,” or “few.” In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
their locality is an important consideration, whether Antioch, Cæsarea
(_Eusebius_), Egypt, Constantinople (_Chrysostom_), or Cappadocia
(_Theodore_), etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the
so-called =Catenæ=, or continuous commentaries, in which the
interpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously like the
links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in these Catenæ that the
words of one writer are cited under the name of another. The evidence
afforded by the writings of the Heretics is no less valuable, if we
except those passages, which are not numerous, in which they are
understood to have altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of
_Marcion_ have been preserved for the most part in Latin by
_Tertullian_. They have recently been collected and restored by Zahn.
The Latin translator of Irenæus also belongs, in all probability, to the
time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This unknown
translator seems to have preserved the Scriptural quotations of Irenæus
with greater fidelity than the later Church Fathers who cite them in the
Greek. Of Latin writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian,
those of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are
_Cyprian_, _Hilary of Poictiers_, _Ambrose of Milan_, _Augustine_ and
his opponent _Pelagius_, and for the Apocalypse, _Tyconius_ and
_Primasius_. From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected no fewer than
29540 quotations from the New Testament in addition to 13276 from the
Old.
Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian writers. It
is only with their assistance, _e.g._, that it has been possible to
restore one of our oldest authorities—the Diatessaron of Tatian—which
dates from the second century.
(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature of
manuscripts and printed editions.
We find, _e.g._, in the voluminous commentary of the so-called
Ambrosiaster,[121] the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii.
9:—“Eye hath not seen, etc.”—“hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae
in apocryphis.” In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and
all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur—_i.e._ prior
to the year 1690—have “in Esaia propheta aliis verbis.”
Compare also what Zahn says in his _Einleitung_, ii. 314. “A
comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered
more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written
by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the
O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in the
N. T. _Cf._, also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah xii. 10,
found in John xix. 37.” The same writer says (p. 465): “In the
Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manuscripts
save one assert the peaceful death of John (ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀνεπαύσατο),
but this one says the very opposite, μαρτυρίου κατηξίωται, and goes
on to make certain other additions.” On the other hand, we must not
forget in this connection the testimony preserved by Eusebius to the
scrupulous care taken by Irenæus for the propagation of his writings
in the identical form in which he wrote them. According to that
historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works the following
note:—Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω καὶ κατορθώσῃς
αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον
τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.[122]
(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the
unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited.
How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by the
discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations in
the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see _Urt._, 76, 94; Preuschen,
in the _ThLz._ for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin
edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural
quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means
of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages from
the first volume of Origen recently published will show this, and
prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been hitherto.
This first volume of Koetschau’s new edition of Origen opens with
the _Exhortation to Martyrdom_ (εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικός), a work
which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of previous
editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel written in the
sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself a copy, and a
not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript written in the
year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen (P = suppl.
grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not transcribed with
sufficient accuracy, or the print was not superintended with
sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first printed
edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript (M = Venetus
Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now established that the
writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great number of
passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision of
Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, _e.g._, in citing a passage
gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The
_Panegyric_ of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this
manuscript omitting about 100 out of some 1200 lines of print. And
these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for
our Patristic quotations! To take an example:
On τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh
edition gave τοὺς ἐμούς (= my followers) as the correct reading,
observed that this reading, without λόγους, was supported by Dael
Or., i. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness
with which the quotation from Origen is employed here—sed præcedit
ουτε επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους λογους αυτου. But if we turn up this
passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 9
ff.): ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους οικειους αυτου η τους λογους
αυτου, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order
frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark
viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as
well as the words in the context, η τους οικειους αυτου. But now
everything is in order. The words ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον refer to
οστις δ’ αν απαρνησηται με in Matt. x. 33; η τους οικειους αυτου to
ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους in Luke ix. 26; and η τους
λογους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους, in
Mark viii. 38. So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions,
Tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen’s
context and his peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new
edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the
same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very
passage, as against a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the
verse in Luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with
the words τους εμους λογους. That the editor should have put λογους
in the first passage within brackets, or at least have pointed out
the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down, would
have been too much to expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen
gave no manner of ground for doing so; it is the duty of those who
investigate the Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to
such things. But there are also passages where the editor has
actually gone in the face of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered
the text of his Scriptural quotations, having evidently allowed
himself to be influenced by the printed text of the N. T., and
paying too little respect to the manuscripts.
An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke ix.
26, τους εμους = my followers, which is now established for Origen,
is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by
three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian
Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the
Sinai-Syriac could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis; see
_Some Pages_, p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the
passage in Origen’s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue’s
edition): ο μεν γαρ Ματθαιος ανεγραφε λεγοντα τον κυριον ... ο δε
Λουκας ... ο δε Μαρκος· ἀββᾶ ὁ πατὴρ, δυνατά σοι πάντα· παρένεγκε
κ.τ.λ. The passage is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly
with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark
xiv. 36. But in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus
shows us, the Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows
elsewhere, reads the words in the order δυνατὰ πάντα σοί, which is
exactly the order of the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no
other Greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive
473.[123] But there are even passages where Koetschau follows the
printed text of the N. T. in the scriptural quotations in despite of
both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt.
x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts after πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε the clause
δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσητε from Matt. x. 19, on
the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the
archetype of M P on account of the homoioteleuton. But they are also
omitted in Cod. D of the N. T. And this, moreover, is not the only
point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in
this quotation. There is, _e.g._, the omission of δέ in v. 17, the
reading παραδώσουσιν in v. 19, which Koetschau has altered to the
more grammatical παραδῶσιν, again without sufficient reason and in
defiance of both his manuscripts, and the omission of ὑμῶν in v. 20,
of which there is no mention in Tischendorf (see the Collation of D
in my _Supplementum_). Origen also agrees with D, though not
verbally, in reading κἂν ἐκ ταύτης διώκωσιν φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην
further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to me to have
unnecessarily inserted τὴν, which is omitted in his principal
manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where Origen
agrees with D in reading φέρωσιν (Luke xii. 11) instead of
εἰσφέρωσιν, read by our critical editions on the authority of א B L
X, or προσφέρωσιν by the _textus receptus_ with A Q R, etc. Both
concur, also, in the omission of the first ἢ τί in the same verse.
What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with
Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript
discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript
confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had χριστὸν
and not κύριον or θεὸν in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we
did not know—viz. that χριστὸν was the only reading known to Origen,
and that κύριον in the _Synodical Epistle_ addressed to Paul of
Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_,
iii.^2 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for
χριστόν. This is made out by Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180,
who concludes by saying that Clement, _Ecl. Proph._, 49, should not
be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that κύριον ought never again
to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put κύριον in their text
without so much as mentioning χριστόν in the margin, or among the
Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words
(Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a
consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let κύριον
stand in the text, but I have put χριστόν in the margin, as
Tregelles also did. In this instance the _textus receptus_ is
actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is
again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered
testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327),
pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly evident, as any
discerning person might have known, that many important readings
which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long
prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also
among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official
recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of
Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the
editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the
employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with
risks. See Koetschau, _Bibelcitate bei Origenes_, _ZfwTh._, 1900,
pp. 321-378.
(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a
_Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels_, on the ground of
Burgon’s Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this work
(Matthew v. 44) is given in his _Present State of the Textual
Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels_, which was printed for
private circulation, and may be had of the author.[124] In this
little pamphlet he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in
the _De Oratione_ 1 (De la Rue, i. 198; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22)
quotes from Luke (vi. 28) or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the
latter. Koetschau is of the opposite opinion, giving “Luke vi. 28
(Matthew v. 44).” In the case of Patristic quotations, it will be
seen that matters are frequently very complicated. It must be borne
in mind, too, that the various writers did not use the same copy of
the Scriptures all their life long. At different times and in
different localities they must necessarily have had different copies
before them.
(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial
writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine
against the Manichæans, the question must always be considered
whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made
by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the
writings they assail or refer to; and also whether the quotations
have been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the
works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without
acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in olden times
than it is even at present.
In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (_Stromata_,
ii. p. 476), and partly also in the _Epistle of Polycarp_ (c. 2), we
find the following quotation:—“Be ye merciful that ye may obtain
mercy: forgive that ye may be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be
done to you: as ye give, so shall it be given to you: as ye judge,
so shall ye be judged: as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to
you: with what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you.” We find
also in Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria
(_Stromata_, iii. p. 561), the quotation: “Woe to that man: it were
good for him if he had never been born, rather than that he should
offend one of my elect: it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea,
than that he should offend one of my little ones.” Neither of these
quotations is found literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly,
Rendel Harris concludes from the testimony of these various
witnesses that they must have been taken from an Urevangelium, now
perished (_Contemporary Review_, Sept. 1897). This view is combated,
it seems to me rightly, by H. T. Andrews in the _Expository Times_
for November 1897, p. 94 f. He thinks it probable that Clement of
Alexandria and Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome.[125]
(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of
the Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for
the textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections,
both ancient and modern, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate
the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been
scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not
yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to
elucidate the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted
at present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and
locality, of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to
ἀντίγραφα. In the new volumes of Origen, _e.g._, we find two such
references—κατά τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου (i.
113), and κατὰ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων (ii. 52).[126] The other
desideratum is a collection of all the passages in the biographies
of the Saints where mention is made of the writing of Biblical
manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius, _e.g._, in the _Historia
Lausiaca_ (c. 28 in Preuschen, _Palladius_, p. 111), εὐφυῶς γὰρ
ἔγραφε τὸν ὀξύρυγχον χαρακτῆρα, and the preparation of Biblical
manuscripts is also referred to in the _Vita Epiphanii_ (ed. Petav.
ii.), and in Cassiodorus, _De Institutione Divinarum Literarum_ (see
above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony see
the section _De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis_ in _TiGr._, 1129-1230.
An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon’s
_New Testament_, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates
of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions
of the N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174.[127] See also
_Urt._, p. 22, 56 f., 94. On the Old Latin _Didascalia_, see Ed.
Hauler in the _W.S.B._, 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ff., and the
_Mitteilungen_ of B. G. Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52.[128] On the
Biblical text of Filastrius (_C.S.E._, vol. xxxviii., 1898), see
Kroll in the notice of Marx’s edition in the _Berlin. Phil.
Wochenschrift_, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see _TU._, New Series, ii. 1,
etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian (Pseudo-Cyprian)
see Harnack in _TU._, xiii. 4.
Footnote 18:
Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 652; _Einleitung_, i. 153.
Footnote 19:
From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the
_Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_ 29 (1887), 453.
Footnote 20:
The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s “Tabellen
zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht über die
Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897.
Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).
Footnote 21:
See _e.g._ Plate I.
Footnote 22:
See _e.g._ Plate X.
Footnote 23:
See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, _Göttinger gelehrte Nachrichten_,
1898, i. 98-112.
Footnote 24:
_TiGr._, pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, _Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p.
47.
Footnote 25:
To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name
Evangeliarium. Εὐαγγελιστάριον means a Table of Lections. (See
Brightman, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, 1900, p. 448, and
now Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. p. 334 f.)
Footnote 26:
_Nat. Hist._, xiii. 11.
Footnote 27:
_Egitto_, 2nd ed., p. 125.
Footnote 28:
_Vide_ Th. Mommsen, _Das Diokletianische Edikt über die Warenpreise_
(Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in
Megalopolis, see W. Loring, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1890, 299;
also, _Revue Archéologique_, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.
Footnote 29:
Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of _litera_ and διφθέρα, see M.
Bréal, _Rev. des Et. grecques_, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and _Rev.
Crit._, 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the
διφθεράλοιφος.
Footnote 30:
_Cf._ Codex D, Mark i. 6.
Footnote 31:
_Cf._ Victor Schultze, _Rolle und Codex_, in the Greifswalder Studien,
Gütersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.
Footnote 32:
_Vide_ C. R. Gregory, _Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs_, Académie
des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v.
159 ff.
Footnote 33:
_E.g._ in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac
manuscripts.
Footnote 34:
_Vide_ G. Ebers, _Kaiser Hadrian_: also _The Writing Material of
Antiquity_, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov.
1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant
(Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de
Montfaucon, _Dissertation sur la plante appelée Papyrus, sur le papier
d’Égypte_, etc. Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et
Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig,
_Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur_,
Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is
found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily,
but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see _The Papyrus in Europe_,
in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the
etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained),
whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it
was first manufactured, _pa_ being the article in Egyptian; see his
_Mitteilungen_, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for
pronouncing the _y_ long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the
modern fashion is—papýrus, not pápyrus. _Cf._ Juvenal, iv. 24; vii.
101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, _Met._ xv.
753; _Trist._ iii. 10, 27.
Footnote 35:
See U. Wilcken, _Recto oder Verso_, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.
Footnote 36:
Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing
we must take καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγισμένον, according to Grotius
and Zahn. On ὀπισθόγραφον, _cf._ Lucian, _Vitarum Auctio_, 9; Pliny,
3, 5; _a tergo_ Juvenal, 1, 6; _in aversa charta_, Martial, 8, 22.
Footnote 37:
Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.
Footnote 38:
Deissmann, _Bibelstudien_, 26-54.
Footnote 39:
Hiller von Gaertringen, _Berl. Sitz.-Ber._, 21st July 1898.
Footnote 40:
See Wilcken, _Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland_. Heft
lxxxvi. p. 234; also the _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 26.
Footnote 41:
_Cf._ Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “postea publica monumenta
plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.”
Footnote 42:
_Jüdisches Literaturblatt_, 1889, 10.
Footnote 43:
_Cf._ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by
Ross in 1844:—
ἐγὼ χρυσόθρονος Ἶσις ...
ἀφαλέων Ἔρμανος ἀπόκρυφα σύμβολα δέλτων
εὑρόμενα γραφίδεσσιν ἅ τ’ ἔξυσε πᾶσι χαράξας
φρικαλέον μύσταις ἱερὸν λόγον....
Footnote 44:
See Nestle, _Bengel_, p. 105.
Footnote 45:
_Zeitschrift für das Humanistische Gymnasium_, 1896, p. 27.
Footnote 46:
O. Hoffmann, _Griechische Dialekte_, i. 107.
Footnote 47:
Probably pens of the first quality—μονογόνατοι.
Footnote 48:
Harris, _Last Words of Baruch_, vi. 17, p. 56.
Footnote 49:
_Vide_ Harnack, _T. und U._, ii. 5, p. 68.
Footnote 50:
Socin, _Arabic Grammar_, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.
Footnote 51:
_ZdmG._, xliii. 547.
Footnote 52:
Konstantin Oikonomos, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, Bk. iv. p. 975.
Footnote 53:
Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.
Footnote 54:
_Vide_ Harnack in the _ThLz._, 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.
Footnote 55:
Ed. Feige, p. 53.
Footnote 56:
_Divin. Lect._, c. xv.
Footnote 57:
_Sächs. Sitz.-Ber._ (1889), xi. 4, 369.
Footnote 58:
Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that τινὲς δι’
αἰσχροκέρδειαν βιβλίων τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐμπορευόμενοι ἀπήλειφον, and
he requests σημείωσαι ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς βιβλιοκαπήλους τοὺς ἀπαλείφοντας
τῶν θείων γραφῶν.
Footnote 59:
On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, _Canon_, c. ii. p. 426; _Bible
in the Church_, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T.
Kanons_, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was
contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case
the latter could not have been εὐμετακόμιστα, and moreover that
Constantine speaks of σωμάτια, which does not mean codices but
something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius
intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or
of the columns in which it was written. “The fifty Bibles might and
would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.” According to the view
taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. _Cf._ Scrivener,
i. p. 118, n. 2.
Footnote 60:
For the order of the books in א, see Westcott, _Bible in the Church_,
Appendix B, “Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, א,
D, Amiat.)”; _Hist. of the Canon_, Appendix D, “Catalogues of Books of
the Bible during the first eight Centuries.”
Footnote 61:
Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these
contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a
different conjecture in the _Literarisches Centralblatt_, 1897, n. 49
Footnote 62:
_Vide_ Wordsworth and White, _Epilogus_, p. 737, _De Sectionibus
Ammonianis in Evangeliis_.
Footnote 63:
Ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ
ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου· ὅπερ ἀντίγραφον πρὸς τῷ τέλει ὑποσημείωσίς
τις ἰδιόχειρος αὐτοῦ ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη
πρὸς τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ Ὠριγένους· Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν· Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα.
Footnote 64:
This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85),
which includes Κλήμεντος Ἐπιστολαὶ δύο among the Books of the New
Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, _Canon_,
Appendix D. iii. a.
Footnote 65:
On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18
sections respectively, see Kenyon in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, i. 149.
Footnote 66:
For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, _Canon_, App. D. xiv., p. 554;
_Bible in the Church_, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen’s _Analecta_, pp. 144
ff.; Burgess, _Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the
Syriac_, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the _Nachrichten_
mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form
of the Letter.
Footnote 67:
_E.g._ ΑΠΕϹΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 122_b_, 4.
Footnote 68:
An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from
1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine
the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.
Footnote 69:
See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under Λ. This minuscule seems to be omitted
from Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185.
Footnote 70:
“To Rome to come, to Rome to come,
Much of trouble, little of profit,
The thing thou seekest here,
If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not”; etc., etc.
See Scrivener, i. 180.
Footnote 71:
Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff.
Footnote 72:
Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ
ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν ... ἀντεβλήθη δὲ
ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου
Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.
Footnote 73:
Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.
Footnote 74:
See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.
Footnote 75:
Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books
and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the _Oxyrhynchus
Papyri_, p. 2 f.
Footnote 76:
Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s _Collation of
Four Important Manuscripts_ (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343,
Plate XIII, 40.
Footnote 77:
See Blass’s _Praefatio_ to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897),
and compare Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 144; Hoskier,
above, p. 5; below, p. 211.
Footnote 78:
Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as
early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. _Einleitung_, ii. 355,
on Luke i. 26.
Footnote 79:
On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49^{evl} (a Lectionary
of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the
Monastery of the Mother of God τοῦ βροντοχίου by Nicephorus,
Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Lacedæmon, in 1312) the lection
εἰς τὰς ἔξω ἐκκλησίας ended with this verse (15) and the words
attached to it, “And so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear,
let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read εἰς τὴν
μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the
words ἐν ὑπομονῇ (v. 15).
Footnote 80:
On the “Livre d’Évangiles réputé avoir appartenu à S. Jean
Chrysostome,” _cf._ Ch. Graux, in the _Revue de Philologie_, Avril
1887.
Footnote 81:
Cf. Eusebius, _Demons. Evan._, iii. 7, 15, βάρβαροι καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς
περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφὰς πατρίοις χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ φωνῇ
μετελάμβανον. Zahn, _GK._ i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii.
9.
Footnote 82:
The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year
110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings,
_Bible Dictionary_, ii. p. 697.
Footnote 83:
See below, p. 213, n. 3.
Footnote 84:
The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf,
1708-9.
Footnote 85:
_The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and
Aquila._ Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare
(Oxford, 1898; _Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII._).
See Notice in the _Lit. Cbl._, 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.
Footnote 86:
Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting
from the year 312 B.C.
Footnote 87:
Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.
Footnote 88:
I. H. Hall, _Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version_,
1883.
Footnote 89:
The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799,
and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.
Footnote 90:
In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as
Syr^{p(osterior)} or as Syr^{whit(e)}. It would be better to use the
symbol Syr^{po(lycarp)} for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp
for Philoxenus, and Syr^{tho(mas)} for Thomas of Harkel’s recension of
616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows:—Syr^a is the Curetonian; Syr^b
is the Peshitto; Syr^c is the Harklean, of which again Syr^{ct} is the
text, Syr^{cm} the margin, Syr^{c*} sub asterisco; Syr^d is the
Jerusalem Syriac; while Syr^{bodl} is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3
John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian
(Tischendorf’s Syr^{bodl}) by Syr^2, and the Harklean by Syr^3; for
the Gospels he would employ Syr^c, Syr^s, Syr^h; Syr^1, therefore, is
the Peshitto.
Footnote 91:
Land, in the _Anecdota Syriaca_, iv., 1875; Harris, _Biblical
Fragments from Mount Sinai_, 1890; Gwilliam, in the _Anecdota
Oxoniensia_, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896;
Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, _Studia Sinaitica_, vi.
Footnote 92:
See F. Bulié, _Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus?_ in the
_Festschrift für Otto Benndorf_. Vienna, 1898. Also _La patrie de S.
Jerome_ in _Analecta Bollandiana_, xviii. 3.
Footnote 93:
_Einleitung_, ii. 195.
Footnote 94:
_Epilogus ad Evangelia_, p. 656.
Footnote 95:
No. 71; 164 in Jerome’s letters.
Footnote 96:
No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).
Footnote 97:
Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago
by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, _De vi quam
antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV.
habent_ (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobschütz, _ThLz._, 1897, 135.
Footnote 98:
Photolithographed by Clédat from a MS. at Lyons.
Footnote 99:
J. Heidenreich, _Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit
dem Vulgatatext. Eine textkritische Untersuchung zu den h. Schriften
des Neuen Testamentes._ Bamberg, 1900.
Footnote 100:
This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that
Tertullian made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, _De
sermone Tertullianeo Quaestiones Selectae_ (1897), p. 6 (_de
Graecismis Tertulliani_) says, “Permultas enim (constructiones) T.
mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue studuit, vel
ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua
utebatur.” And to this he adds, “Quam multa vocabula graeca in
Tertullianeum sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione
redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto,
qui inscribitur, _Itala und Vulgata_, ed. sec., p. 238.” The Itala is
cited for _sciant quia_ (p. 18), _absque_ (p. 44), and for the use of
the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer
refers to Rönsch, p. 415, and adds, “ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens
assumpsisse videtur, quamquam in universum vitat.” _Cf._ Westcott,
_Canon_, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.
Footnote 101:
Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1)
απορεισθαι and διαπορεισθαι (or διαπορειν), (2) περι τουτου and περι
αυτου, (3) ιδου and και ιδου, (4) ανδρες δυο and δυο ανδρες, (5)
επεστησαν and παρειστηκεισαν, (7) εν εσθητι αστραπτουση (or λαμπρα)
and εν εσθησεσιν αστραπτουσαις (or λευκαις), (8) εμφοβων (or εν φοβω)
δε γενομενων και κλινουσων and ενφοβοι δε γενομεναι εκλειναν, (9) τα
προσωπα and το προσωπον (αυτων); in verse 11, (10) ενωπιον αυτων and
its omission; in verse 13, (14) εξηκοντα and εκατον εξηκοντα, (15) ᾗ
ονομα and ονοματι, (16) Εμμαους and ουλαμμαους. Of these (8), (15),
and (16) are found only in D. In the case of (15) the very same
variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in the two recensions represented by
_Codex Vaticanus_ and _Codex Sinaiticus_.
Footnote 102:
1889, 91, 93, 95, 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W.
Footnote 103:
On the _Epilogus_ to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see
especially S. Berger in the _Revue Critique_, 1889, pp. 141-144; and
on the whole, Burkitt, _The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus_,
in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp.
129-134.
Footnote 104:
Compare E. Maugenot, _Les manuscrits grecs des évangiles employés par
Saint Jerôme_, in the _Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques_, January
1900.
Footnote 105:
The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the
date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at
the end, p. 1115, which says, “E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.”
Romæ, 1713-19, in _TiGr._, p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of
the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new
title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from £15 to
£25.
Footnote 106:
The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called
Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος.
Footnote 107:
The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.
Footnote 108:
On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.
Footnote 109:
Westcott, _Canon_, Part II., chapter ii., § 1 _sub finem_.
Footnote 110:
H. Hyvernat, _Un fragment inédit de la version sahidique du Nouveau
Testament_ (Ephes. i. 6-ii. 8_b_). _Revue Biblique_, April 1900, pp.
248-253. The fragment is of the eighth or ninth century.
Footnote 111:
See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum
and Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70.
Footnote 112:
The dates of Ulfilas’ birth and death are uncertain. He certainly
lived till autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given
as 310-380 or 318-388. According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which
Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was that of Antioch, _De Encaeniis_,
341.
Footnote 113:
Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning.
Footnote 114:
Celsus’s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable
fragments are embedded in Origen’s Reply. See _Ante-Nicene Christian
Library_, vol. xxiii., (Clark, Edin.).
Footnote 115:
Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He
quotes Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.
Footnote 116:
Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the
year 1111, the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his
edition of the _Apostolic Constitutions_. Further examples of the
untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in
the small print at the end of this section.
Footnote 117:
See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.
Footnote 118:
On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of
Paul to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, _The Second and Third
Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians_. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.
Footnote 119:
Westcott, _Canon_, Part I., c. ii. 7.
Footnote 120:
_Ibid._, Part II., c. i. 1.; c. ii. 4.
Footnote 121:
Ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary
on the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed
to Ambrose. In recent times Dom G. Morin has raised the question
whether the writer may not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in
the papacy of Damasus. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and
afterwards returned to his former faith. See Dom G. Morin,
_L’Ambrosiaster et le juif converti Isaac, contemporain du pape
Damase_, in the _Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature religieuses_, iv.
2 (1899), 112. This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole
of Ambrosiaster will be brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a
very old manuscript from Monte Cassino. Morin believes that the text
of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is “fortement retouché, dont
on a éliminé la plupart des traits vraiment intéressants” (_ibid._, p.
121).
Footnote 122:
This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his
writings stand as he wrote them.
Footnote 123:
Called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort,
and 565 in _TiGr._ Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in
1885, with a collation of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable
cursive, as appears from what is said of it in W-H: “The most valuable
cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels is 81,
a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2^{pe} by Tischendorf, as standing
second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large
ancient element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient
readings are numerous enough to be of real importance.” See above,
under Codex N, p. 68.
Footnote 124:
The First Part has been issued: _A Textual Commentary upon the Holy
Gospels_. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell,
1899). See notice by Gwilliam in _The Critical Review_, May 1900. In
this work Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.
Footnote 125:
In the _Expository Times_ for October 1897, p. 13 ff., I have called
attention to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah
lii. 5) is given with remarkable similarity in the _Apostolic
Constitutions_, with its original (i. 10, iii. 5, vii. 204), in
Ignatius (_Ad Trallianos_, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.).
Similar things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, _e.g._, in
Mark i. 2, where a quotation from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between
the heading, “In the prophet Isaiah,” and the words taken from that
book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul, which has led
to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic
anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many
quotations from Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M.
Barnard, _The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles_. _Texts and Studies_, v. 5,
Cambridge, 1899.
Footnote 126:
See below, Appendix II., Ἀντίγραφα.
Footnote 127:
_Vide infra_, Appendix I.
Footnote 128:
Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.
CHAPTER III.
THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.[129]
There is no special theory of the textual criticism of the New
Testament. The task and the method are the same for all literary
productions. The task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to
communicate to his readers, and the method is simply that of tracing the
history of the document in question back to its beginning, if, and in so
far as, we have the means to do so at our command. Diversity of
treatment can only arise when the fortunes of one written work have been
more chequered and complicated than those of another, or when we have
more abundant means at our disposal to help us in the one case than in
the other. The task is very simple when we have only one completely
independent document to deal with, as in the case of several of the
recently discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary
texts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we read the
existing text correctly, and then by means of the so-called internal
criticism to determine whether the text so received can be correct.
[Sidenote: Internal Criticism.] Even when several witnesses are at our
command, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal criticism in
the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony, only it would be
unfortunate were we left with such a subjective criterion alone. For not
only in such a case would different scholars come to very different
conclusions, but even one and the same scholar would not be able to
avoid a certain amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases.
The principle laid down in the maxim, _lectio difficilior placet_, or,
as Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, _proclivi
scriptioni praestat ardua_, is perfectly sound; that reading is correct,
is the original reading, from which the origin of another or of several
others can be most easily explained. But how seldom can this be
established with certainty! Take an illustration:—
[Sidenote: Conclusion of the Apocalypse.]
How does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, conclude?
Leaving out of account additions like “Amen” or “Amen, Amen,” and
variations like “The grace of the Lord Jesus,” and “our Lord Jesus,” and
“the Lord Jesus Christ,” and “Christ” simply, we find that the following
forms are given:—
(1) μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν
(2) μετὰ πάντων ἡμῶν
(3) μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων
(4) μετὰ πάντων
(5) μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων
How are we to decide without external evidence which is the correct
form? Even supposing we know that the first two are out of the question,
and why they are so, it is very difficult on internal grounds alone to
decide between the other three. Lachmann, who did not know of (5),
decided in favour of (4). But so does Tischendorf, Weizsäcker, and
Weiss, the latter giving as his reason for doing so that (5), τῶν ἁγίων,
is explanatory of (4), πάντων, which is manifestly too general, and that
(3) is the result of a combination of these two. On the other hand,
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort favour (5), without so much as
mentioning (4) in their margin; while Bousset, the latest expositor of
the Apocalypse, regards (3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in
all probability both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who
is to decide when doctors disagree? Manifestly one might argue on quite
as good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to the very opposite
conclusion—viz. that a later writer who wished the Apocalypse, and with
it the New Testament, to conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as
possible, substituted the words “Grace be with all” in place of the
restricted and somewhat strange expression “Grace be with the saints.” I
did not observe that Bousset still defends the third form when I said in
the first edition of this work that this reading does not fall to be
considered at all. But my reason for saying so was not “because this
form proves to be a combination of the other two,” or “because the
authorities for it are later,” but because it could be shown that its
supporters follow a corrected text in other places as well as this; and
I concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and (5) could
not be made to depend solely on internal criteria either, but depended
on the decision come to regarding the general relationship between the
witnesses that support each one, in this instance between A, as
supporting (4), and א, as supporting (5).
(1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first
form of the benediction, “with you all,” was clearly translated into
Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a
single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still
propagated in the _textus receptus_ by the English Bible Society,
and even in the last revision of Luther’s German Bible it was
allowed to stand without demur. The English Authorised Version had
it in this form, but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form “with
the saints,” and puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect
that “two ancient authorities read ‘with all.’”
The second form, “with us all,” which was adopted by Melanchthon in
his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is just as arbitrary
an alteration. The third form, “with all the saints,” is read by the
Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minuscules, and the
Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth, “with all,” is
found in A and Codex Amiatinus, while the fifth, “with the saints,”
is given by א and the Old Latin g. In the Syriac version of the
Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth form seems to have been
brought to light, which Baljon, who himself decides for (5), cites
as μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ: Syr^{gwynn}. But the pronoun, which
in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is employed now and again
merely to represent the Greek definite article, so that this new
Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth form but only another
witness to the third. On the other hand, Gwynn mentions the omission
of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact that neither Tischendorf
nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he adduces lastly that a
manuscript of the Vulgate reads “cum omnibus _hominibus_.” One sees
from an illustration like this what an amount of pains is required
seriously to apply, even in a single point, Bengel’s principle that
the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that nothing must be
passed as gold that has not been proved to be such (_Introductio in
Crisin Novi Testamenti_, § 1, p. 572).