WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. cover

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I.

Chapter 32: Footnotes
By Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/ReferenceHistory - ReligiousReligion/Spirituality

About This Book

This volume presents principles and methods of textual criticism aimed at students, outlining palaeographic and codicological features used to evaluate manuscript evidence. It surveys and catalogs Greek uncial and cursive manuscripts, lectionaries, and manuscript service-books, illustrated by plates and organized by chapters that treat particular classes of texts. Separate sections address ancient versions and languages, practical collation techniques, systems of division and dating, and common variants, while appendices discuss facsimiles, indiction, and technical matters. Editorial additions and indexes provide cross-references to scribal hands, past owners, collators, and authorities to support further research.

Footnotes

1.
Unfortunately, it did not occur to us till after the work was nearly all in type to transfer the Lithographed Plates to places opposite the pages which they chiefly illustrate, and that in consequence a few expressions in the text ought to be altered. The advantage of this arrangement appears to be so great as to overbalance the slight inaccuracies alluded to, which cannot now be removed. The plates and their references will, it is hoped, be found easily from the explanations here given.
2.
In later manuscripts Proper Names are often distinguished by a horizontal line placed over them, but no such examples occur in these Plates.
3.
The reader will observe throughout these specimens that the breathings and accents are usually attached to the first vowel of a diphthong.
4.
“Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” Part i, Section 32.
5.
I cite from the late Canon Cureton's over-literal translation in his “Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac,” in the Preface to which (pp. xxxv-xxxviii) is an elaborate discussion of the evidence for this passage.
6.
But see Dean Burgon's “The Revision Revised,” pp. 358-361.
7.
The word ἡτακισμός or ἰτακισμός is said to have been first used by Cassiodorus (a.d. 468-560?). See Migne, Patr. Lat. t. 70, col. 1128.
8.
To this list of examples from the Book of Common Prayer, Dean Burgon (“The last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel Vindicated” p. 215) adds the Gospels for Quinquagesima, 2nd Sunday after Easter, 9th, 12th, and 22nd after Trinity, Whitsunday, Ascension Day, SS. Philip and James, All Saints.
9.
Dean Alford (see his critical notes on Luke ix. 56; xxiii. 17) is reasonably unwilling to admit this source of corruption, where the language of the several Evangelists bears no close resemblance throughout the whole of the parallel passages.
10.
The oldest manuscripts seem to elide the final syllable of ἀλλά before nouns, but not before verbs: e.g. John vi. 32, 39. The common text, therefore, seems wrong in Rom. i. 21; iv. 20; v. 14; viii. 15; 1 Cor. i. 17; vi. 11; ix. 27; xiv. 34; 1 Pet. ii. 25; Jude 9. Yet to this rule there are many exceptions, e.g. Gal. iv. 7 ἀλλὰ υἱός is found in nearly all good authorities.
11.
Tischendorf indeed (Nov. Test. 1871), from a suggestion of Granville Penn in loc., says, “ΚΥΡΙΩ omnino scribi solet ΚΩ,” and this no doubt is the usual form, even in manuscripts which have χρω ιηυ, as well as χω ιυ, for χριστῷ ἰησοῦ. Yet the Codex Augiensis (Paul. F) has κρν in 1 Cor. ix. 1.
12.
Especially, yet not always, at the end of a line. Και in καιρός is actually thus written in Cod. Sinaiticus (א), 1 Macc. ix. 7; xv. 33; Matt. xxi. 34; Rom. iii. 26; Heb. xi. 11; Apoc. xi. 18. So Cod. Sarravianus of the fourth century in Deut. ix. 20, Cod. Rossanensis of the sixth (but only twice in the text), the Zurich Psalter of the seventh century is Ps. xcvii. 11; cvi. 3; cxvi. 5, and the Bodleian Genesis (ch. vi. 13) of about a century later. Similarly, καινήν is written κνην in Cod. B. 2 John 5.
13.
My departed friend, Dr. Tregelles, to whose persevering labours in sacred criticism I am anxious, once for all, to express my deepest obligations, ranged various readings under three general heads:—substitutions; additions; omissions. Mr. C. E. Hammond, in his scholarlike little work, “Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the N. T., 1876, 2nd edition,” divides their possible sources into Unconscious or unintentional errors, (1) of sight; (2) of hearing; (3) of memory: and those that are Conscious or intentional, viz. (4) incorporation of marginal glosses; (5) corrections of harsh or unusual forms of words, or expressions; (6) alterations in the text to produce supposed harmony with another passage, to complete a quotation, or to clear up a presumed difficulty; (7) Liturgical insertions. While he enumerates (8) alterations for dogmatic reasons, he adds that “there appears to be no strong ground for the suggestion” that any such exist (Hammond, p. 17). Professor Roberts (“Words of the New Testament” by Drs. Milligan and Roberts, 1873) comprehends several of the foregoing divisions under one head: “Again and again has a word or phrase been slipped in by the transcriber which had no existence in his copy, but which was due to the working of his own mind on the subject before him.” His examples are ἔρχεται inserted in Matt. xxv. 6; ἰδοῦσα in Luke i. 29; ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in Rom. viii. 26 (Part 1. Chap. 1. pp. 5, 6).
14.
This source of variations, though not easily discriminated from others, must have suggested itself to many minds, and is well touched upon by the late Isaac Taylor in his “History of the Transmission of Antient Books to modern times,” 1827, p. 24. So Dr. Hort, when perplexed by some of the textual problems which he fails to solve, throws out as an hypothesis not in itself without plausibility, the notion of “a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic” (Gr. Test. Introduction, p. 177).
15.
“Novum Testamentum Textûs Stephanici a.d. 1550 ... curante F. H. A. Scrivener.” Cantabr. 1877 (Editio Major, 1887).
16.
In this manner we propose to indicate the dates of the birth and death of the person whose name immediately precedes.
17.
“Greek and Latin Palaeography,” Chaps. II, III.
18.
“Recent investigations have thrown doubts on the accuracy of this view; and a careful analysis of many samples has proved that, although cotton was occasionally used, no paper that has been examined is entirely made of that substance, hemp or flax being the more usual material.” Maunde Thompson, p. 44.
19.
Tischendorf (Notitia Codicis Sinaitici, p. 54) carried to St. Petersburg a fragment of a Lectionary which cannot well be assigned to a later date than the ninth century, among whose parchment leaves are inserted two of cotton paper, manifestly written on by the original scribe.
20.
“Ten Years Digging in Egypt,” pp. 120, &c.
21.
“Greek and Latin Palaeography,” p. 35; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xiii. 11.
22.
“Nam, quod in palimpsesto, laudo equidem parcimoniam,” Cicero, Ad Diversos, vii. 18, though of a waxen tablet. Maunde Thompson, p. 75.
23.
“Habeant qui volunt veteres libros, vel in membranis purpureis auro argentoque descriptos.” Praef. in Job. “Inficiuntur membranae colore purpureo, aurum liquescit in litteras.” Epist. ad Eustochium.
24.
Miniatures are found even as early as in the Cod. Rossanensis (Σ) at the beginning of the sixth century.
25.
This paragraph which has been rewritten, has been abridged from Mr. Maunde Thompson's “Greek and Latin Palaeography,” pp. 50-52, to which readers are referred for verification and amplification.
26.
“Greek and Latin Palaeography,” p. 49.
27.
Besides the Cod. Sinaiticus, the beautiful Psalter purchased by the National Library from the Didot sale at Paris has four columns (Mr. J. Rendel Harris), and besides the Cod. Vaticanus, the Vatican Dio Cassius, the Milan fragment of Genesis, two copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch at Nablous described by Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. § 11), the last part of Cod. Monacensis 208 (Evan, 429), and two Hebrew MSS. Cod. Mon. Heb. 422, and Cod. Reg. Heb. 17, are arranged in three columns. Tischendorf has more recently discovered a similar arrangement in two palimpsest leaves of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus from which he gives extracts (Not. Cod. Sinait. p. 49); in a Latin fragment of the Pentateuch, the same as the Ashburnham manuscript below, seen by him at Lyons in 1843; in a Greek Evangelistarium of the eighth century, and a Patristic manuscript at Patmos of the ninth (ibid. p. 10); so that the argument drawn from the triple columns must not be pressed too far. He adds also a Turin copy of the Minor Prophets in Greek (Pasinus, Catalogue, 1749), and a Nitrian Syriac codex in the British Museum “quem circa finem quarti saeculi scriptum esse subscriptio testatur” (Monum. sacra inedita, vol. i, Proleg. p. xxxi). To this not slender list Mr. E. Maunde Thompson enables us to annex B. M. Addit. 24142, a Flemish Latin Bible of the eleventh century. The late Lord Ashburnham in 1868 printed his Old Latin fragments of Leviticus and Numbers, also in three columns, with a facsimile page; and the famous Utrecht Psalter, assigned by some to the sixth century, by others to the ninth or tenth, is written with three columns on a page.
28.
“Uncialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, literis, onera magis exarata, quam codices,” Hieronymi Praef. in Job. From this passage the term uncial seems to be derived, uncia (an inch) referring to the size of the characters. Yet the conjectural reading “initialibus” will most approve itself to those who are familiar with the small Latin writing of the Middle Ages, in which i is undotted, and c much like t.
29.
The Cotton fragment of the book of Genesis of the fifth century, whose poor shrivelled remains from the fire of 1731 are still preserved in the British Museum, while in common with all other manuscripts it exhibits the round shapes of Ο and Θ, substitutes a lozenge [symbol] for the circle in phi, after the older fashion ([symbol somewhat like a squared Phi]). Phi often has much the same shape in Codex Bezae; e.g. Matt. xiii. 26, Fol. 42 b, 1. 13, and once in Codex Z (Matt. xxi. 26, Plate xlviii).
30.
Our facsimile is borrowed from the Neapolitan volumes, but Plate 57 in the Paléographie Universelle φιλοδημου περι μουσικη has the advantage of colours for giving a lively idea of the present charred appearance of these papyri.
31.
Cicero de Finibus, Lib. ii. c. 35. The same person is apparently meant in Orat. in Pisonem, cc. 28, 29.
32.
We prefer citing Cod. Frid.-August., because our examples have been actually taken from its exquisitely lithographed pages; but the facsimile of part of a page from Luke xxiv represented in Tischendorf's Cod. Sinaiticus, from which we have borrowed six lines (No. 11 b), will be seen to resemble exactly the portion published in 1846.
33.
Cod. A is found in the simpler form in the Old Testament, but mostly with the horizontal line produced in the New.
34.
See Maunde Thompson's “Greek and Latin Palaeography.”
35.
Codd. B of Apocalypse, Θa Λ (No. 30) of the Gospels, and Silvestre's No. 68, all of about the eighth century, slope more or less to the right; Cod. Γ (No. 35) of the ninth century, a very little to the left. Tischendorf assigns to the seventh century the fragments comprising Leipzig II. (see p. 39), though they lean much to the right (Monum. sacra ined. tom. i, pp. xxx-xxxiv, 141-176), and those of Isaiah (ibid. pp. xxxvi, xxxvii, 187-199).
36.
The earliest cursive Biblical manuscript formerly alleged, i.e. Evan. 14, on examination proves to have no inscription whatever. “On folio 392, in a comparatively modern hand, is rather uncouthly written ἐγράφη νικηφόρου βασιλεύοντος A. Z. What the initials A. Z. stand for I do not know.” (Dean Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 15, 1873.) The claim of priority for Cod. 14 being thus disposed of (though it must be noted that Dr. C. R. Gregory refers it without doubt to the tenth century), we may note that Cod. 429 of the Gospels is dated 978, Cod. 148 of the Acts 984, Cod. 5pe 994, and Λ, written partly in cursives, and partly in uncials is of the ninth century. But the date May 7, 835 a.d. is plainly visible on Cod. 481, which is therefore indisputably the earliest.
37.
See Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeology, chap. x. pp. 130, &c., and chap. viii. pp. 107, &c; Notices et Extracts des MSS. de la Bibliothèque Imperiale, Paris, plate xxiv. no. 21, pl. xlviii. no. 21 ter, xlvi. no. 69, e, xxi. no. 17, xiii. no. 5, xl. no. 62, xviii. 2, pl. xliv; Cat. Gr. Papyri in Brit. Mus. Palaeograph. Soc. ii. pl. 143, 144, Mahaffy, Petrie Papyri, pl. xiv, xxix. &c. (Cunningham Memoirs of R. Irish Academy).
38.
At the end of the Euclid we read εγραφη χειρι στεφανου κληρικου μηνι σεπτεμβριωι ινδ. ζ ετει κοσμου ς τ ω ζ εκτησαμην αρεθας πατρευς την παρουσαν βιβλιον: of the Plato, εγραφη χειρι ιω καλλιγραφου; ευτυχως αρεθη διακονωι πατρει; νομισματων βυζαντϊεων δεκα και τριων; μηνι νοεμβριωι ινδικτιωνος ιδ; ετει κοσμου ςυδ βαςιλειας λεοντος του φιλοχυ υιου βασιλειου του αειμνιστου. It should be stated that these very curious books, both written by monks, and indeed all the dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament we have seen except Canonici 34 in the Bodleian (which reckons from the Christian era, a.d. 1515-6), calculate from the Greek era of the Creation, September 1, b.c. 5508. To obtain the year a.d., therefore, from January 1 to August 31 in any year, subtract 5508 from the given year; from September 1 to December 31 subtract 5509. The indiction which usually accompanies this date is a useful check in case of any corruption or want of legibility in the letters employed as numerals. Both dates are given in Evan. 558, viz. a.m. 6938, and a.d. 1430.
39.
The writer of Burney 21 (rscr) a.d. 1292 (Evan. 571), ὁ ταπεινος Θεοδωρος ἁγιωπετριτης ταχα και καλλιγραφος as he calls himself (that is, as I once supposed, monk of the Convent of Sancta Petra at Constantinople, short-hand and fair writer), was the scribe of at least five more copies of Scripture now extant: Birch's Havn. 1, a.d. 1278 (Evan. 234); Evan. 90, a.d. 1293; Evan. 543, a.d. 1295; Scholz's Evan. 412, a.d. 1301; Evan. 74, undated. To this list Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) (Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1863, ii, Abhandlungen, pp. 217, 218) adds from Matthaei, Synaxarion in Mosc. Syn. Typograph. xxvi. a.d. 1295, and recognizes Hagios Petros, the country of Theodoros, as a town in the Morea, on the borders of Arcadia, from whose school students have attended his own lectures at Erlangen.
40.
Hence in the later uncials, some of which must therefore have been copied from earlier cursives, Β and Υ (which might seem to have no resemblance) are sometimes confounded: e.g. in Parham 18 (a.d. 980), υ for β, Luke vi. 34; β for υ, John x. 1, especially where β begins or ends a line: e.g. Evan. 59, John vii. 35. Evan. 59 has β for υ very often, yet there is no extra trace that it was copied from an uncial.
41.
The full signature not easily deciphered is ἐτελειώθη τὸ παρὸν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ τὴν κζ τοῦ ἰαννουαρίου μηνὸς τῆς [?] ω κ ζ ἐγχρονίας. Presuming that ς is suppressed before ω κ ζ this is 6827 of the Greeks, a.d. 1319.
42.
Compare also Buttmann's Greek Grammar (Robinson's translation) p. 467; Bast in (Schaefer's Gregorius Corinthius) tabb. ad fin.; Gardthausen, Palaeographie, p. 248, &c.
43.
Thus the type cast for the Royal Printing Office at Paris, and used by Robert Stephen, is said to have been modelled on the style of the calligrapher Angelus Vergecius, from whose skill arose the expression “he writes like an angel.” Codd. 296 of the Gospels, 124 of the Acts, 151 of St. Paul are in his hand.
44.
Yet Tischendorf (N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. cxxxiii) cites ηιδισαν from Cod. Bezae (Mark i. 34), ξυλωι (Luke xxiii. 31) from Cod. Cyprius, ωι from Cod. U (Matt. xxv. 15) and Cod. Λ (Luke vii. 4). Add Cod. Bezae πατρωιου Acts xxii. 3, Scrivener's edition, Introd. p. xix. Bentley's nephew speaks of ι ascript as in the first hand of Cod. B, but he seems to have been mistaken.
45.
In B-C iii. 10 (dated 1430), the whole manuscript being written by the same hand, we have ι ascript twenty-five times up to Luke i. 75, then on the same page ι subscript in Luke i. 77 and eighty-five times afterwards: the two usages are nowhere mixed. In Evan. 558, subscript and ascript are mixed in the same page, Luc. i. 75, 77.
46.
The invention of breathings, accents, and stops is attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium, 260 b.c.
47.
See below vol. ii. c. ix. 9. note, end. Dr. Scrivener appears not to have formed a positive opinion, which indeed in some of these cases is hardly possible.
48.
He is speaking (Quaestion. super Genes. clxii) of the difference between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31. “Fallit enim eos verbum Graecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur, sive ejus, sive suae: sed accentus [he must mean the breathings] dispares sunt, et ab eis, qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur” (Opera, Tom. iv. p. 53, ed. 1586, Lugdun.); adding that “suae” might be expressed by ἑαυτοῦ.
49.
In the Gale Evangelistarium (Trin. Coll. Camb. O. 4. 22) the interrogative clause is set between two such marks in red. Hence it seems not so much a stop as a vocal note. In the Armenian and Spanish languages the note of interrogation is set before the interrogative clause, and very conveniently too.
50.
The earliest known example of the use of two dots occurs in the Artemisia papyrus at Vienna (Maunde Thompson, p. 69), and other early instances are found in a letter of Dionysius to Ptolemy about b.c. 160, published by the French Institute, 1865, in “Papyrus grecs du Musée du Louvre,” &c. tom. xviii. 2e ptie, pl. xxxiv, pap. 49, and in fragments of the Phaedo of Plato discovered at Gurob. The same double points are also occasionally set in the larger spaces of Codd. Sinaiticus, Sarravianus, and Bezae, but in the last-named copy for the most part in a later hand.
51.
Abbot, ubi supra.
52.
Hoskier, Cod. 604, p. xiii.
53.
Even Codex Sinaiticus has ιηυ and ιυ in consecutive lines (Apoc. xxii. 20, 21), and χρυ Rom. vii. 4.
54.
See below p. 64, note 4.
55.
“Fragmenta pauca evangelii Johannis palimpsesta Londinensia [Evan. Ib or Nb]. In ceteris haec fere tria: Dionis Cassii fragmenta Vaticana—vix enim qui in his videntur speciem majorum litterarum habere revera differunt—item fragmenta palimpsesta [Phaëthontis] Euripidis Claromontana et fragmenta Menandri Porphiriana” (Tischendorf, Cod. Vatic. Proleg. p. xviii, 1867).
56.
The English word paragraph is derived from the παραγραφαί, which are often straight lines, placed in the margin to indicate a pause in the sense. Professor Abbot, ubi supra, p. 195, alleges not a few instances where these dashes are thus employed. A specimen is given in Scrivener's Cod. Sinaiticus, facsimile 3: see his Cod. Sin., Introduction, p. xl and note. Thus also they appear in Cod. Sarravianus (Tischendorf, Mon. sacra ined. vol. iii. pp. xiv, xx). In Cod Bezae [symbol] is set in the margin forty-nine times by a later hand, and must be designed for the same purpose, though the mark sometimes occurs where we should hardly look for it (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introduction, p. xxviii and note). In Cod. Marchalianus the dash stands over the capital at the beginning of a line, or over the first letter where there is no capital. Lastly, in Codd. Vatic. and Sinait. [symbol] is sometimes set in the middle of a line to indicate a paragraph break, followed by [symbol] in the margin of the next line.
57.
Many other examples of the use of στίχοι and versus in this sense will be found in that admirable monument of exact learning, now so little read, Prideaux Connections, An. 446. Stichometry can be traced back to nearly a century before Callimachus, who (b.c. 260) has been credited with the invention (Palaeography, p. 79). The term στίχοι, like the Latin versus, originally referring whether to rows of trees, or to the oars in the trireme (Virg. Aen. v. 119), would naturally come to be applied to lines of poetry, and in this sense it is used by Pindar (ἐπέων στίχες Pyth. iv. 100) and also by Theocritus (γράψον καὶ τόδε γράμμα, τό σοι στίχοισι χαράξω Idyl, xxiii. 46), if the common reading be correct.
58.
That we have rightly understood Epiphanius' notion of the στίχοι is evident from his own language respecting Psalm cxli. 1, wherein he prefers the addition made by the Septuagint to the second clause, because by so doing its authors ἀχώλωτον ἐποίησαν τὸν στίχον: so that the passage should run “O Lord, I cry unto Thee, make haste unto me || Give ear to the voice of my request,” τῆς δεήσεώς μου to complete the rhythm. This whole subject is admirably worked out in Suicer, Thesaur. Eccles. tom. ii. pp. 1025-37.
59.
In the Epistles of St. Paul, Euthalius seems to have followed a Syrian writer. Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 113; Zacagnius, Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae, Rome, a.d. 1698, pp. 404, 409.
60.
At the end of 2 Thess., in a hand which Tischendorf states to be very ancient, but not that of the original scribe, the Codex Sinaiticus has στιχων ρπ [180; the usual number is 106]: at the end of Rom., 1 Cor., 1 Thess., and the Catholic Epistles, there is no such note; but in all the other Pauline Epistles the στίχοι are numbered.
61.
So the margin of Gale's Evan. 66 contains readings cited by Mill and his followers, which a hand of the sixteenth century took, some of them from the Leicester manuscript, others from early editions.
62.
The following subscription to the book of Ezra (and a very similar one follows Esther) in the Cod. Frid.-August, (fol. 13. 1), though in a hand of the seventh century, will show the care bestowed on the most ancient copies of the Septuagint: Αντεβληθη προσ παλαιωτατον λιαν αντιγραφον δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του αγιου μαρτυροσ Παμφιλου; ὁπερ αντιγραφον προσ τω τελει υποσημειωσισ τισ ϊδιοχειροσ αυτου ϋπεκειτο εχουσα ουτωσ; μετελημφθη και διορθωθη προσ τα εξαπλα ωριγενουσ; Αντωνινοσ αντεβαλεν; Παμφιλοσ διορθωσα. Tregelles suggests that the work of the διορθωτὴς or corrector was probably of a critical character, the office of the ἀντιβάλλων or comparer being rather to eliminate mere clerical errors (Treg. Horne's Introd., vol. iv. p. 85). Compare Tischendorf, Cod. Sinait. Proleg. p. xxii.
63.
“Simile aliquid invenitur in codice Arabico epp. Pauli anno 892, p. Chr., quem ex oriente Petropolin pertulimus.” Tischendorf, Cod. Vat. Prolog. p. xxx. n. 3.
64.
Lat. breves, or τίτλοι: but τίτλος means properly the brief summary of the contents of a κεφάλαιον placed at the top or bottom of a page, or with the κεφάλαια in a table to each Gospel. The κεφ. minora = Ammonian Sections.
65.
This full explanation of a seeming difficulty was communicated to me independently by Mr. P. W. Pennefather of Dublin, and Mr. G. A. King of Oxford.
66.
And this too in spite of the lexicographer Suidas: Τίτλος διαφέρει κεφαλαίου; καὶ ὁ Ματθαῖος τίτλους ἔχει ξή, κεφάλαια δὲ τνέ. And of Suicer, s. v.
67.
Ὁ Τατιανός, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν; ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29.
68.
Ambros. in Prooem. Luc. seems to aim at Tatian when he says “Plerique etiam ex quatuor Evangelii libris in unum ea quae venenatis putaverunt assertionibus convenientia referserunt.” Eusebius H. E. iv. 29 charges him on report with improving not the Gospels, but the Epistles: τοῦ δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνάς, ὡς ἐπιδιορφούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν. Dr. Westcott's verdict is rather less favourable than might have been anticipated: “The heretical character of the Diatessaron was not evident on the surface of it, and consisted rather of faults of defect than of erroneous teaching” (History of the Canon, p. 354). From the Armenian version of Ephraem the Syrian's Exposition of Tatian's Harmony, printed in 1836, translated in 1841 by Aucher of the Melchitarist Monastery at Venice, but buried until it was published with notes by Moesinger in 1876, a flood of light is thrown upon this question, and it is now clear “that Tatian habitually abridged the language of the passages which he combined” (Hort, Gk. Test. Introduction, p. 283); and that apparently in perfect good faith.
69.
Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, πολλήν, ὡς εἰκός, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχώς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθείς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἠνέχθησαν φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς (taking the hint from Ammonius' as Dean Burgon rightly understands the expression), καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. Epist. ad Carpian. initio. I have thankfully availed myself on this subject of Burgon's elaborate studies in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 125-132; 295-312.
70.
This is the number given for St. Mark by Suidas and Stephen. It is an uncertain point: thirty-four manuscripts give 233, reckoning only to xvi. 8; while thirty-six give 341. See Burgon Twelve Last Verses, p. 311.
71.
I subjoin Eusebius' own words (Epist. ad Carpian.) from which no one would infer that the sections were not his, as well as the canons. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις; ἡ δὲ σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ βιβλίου [the sections]. Καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ κινναβάρεως πρόκειται [the canons], δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.
72.
Something of this kind, however, must be the plan adopted in Codex E (see Plate xi. No. 27) of the Gospels, as described by Tregelles, who himself collated it. “[It has] the Ammonian sections; but instead of the Eusebian canons there is a kind of harmony of the Gospels noted at the foot of each page, by a reference to the parallel sections of the other Evangelists.” Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 200. Yet the canons also stand in the margin of this copy under the so-called Ammonian sections: only the table of Eusebian canons is wanting. The same kind of harmony at the foot of the page appears in Cod. Wd at Trinity College, Cambridge, but in this latter the sections in the margin are not accompanied by the canons. Tischendorf states that the same arrangement prevails in the small fragment Tb at St. Petersburg; Dean Burgon adds to the list Codd. M. 262, 264 at Paris, and conceives that this method of harmonizing, which he regards as far simpler than the tedious and cumbersome process of resorting to the Eusebian canons (ubi supra, p. 304), was in principle, though not in details, derived to the Greek Church from early Syriac copies of the Gospels, some of which still survive (p. 306).
73.
To this list of manuscripts of the Gospels which have the Ammonian sections without the Eusebian canons add Codd. 38, 54, 60, 68, 117; Brit. Mus. Addit. 16184, 18211, 19389; Milan Ambros. M. 48 sup.; E. 63 sup.; Burdett-Coutts I. 4; II. 18; 262; III. 9. Now that attention has been specially directed to the matter, it is remarkable how many copies have the Ammonian sections without the corresponding Eusebian canons under them, sometimes even when (as in Codd. 572, 595, 597) the letter to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables stand at the beginning of the volume. To the list here given must now be added Codd. O, Υ, 185, 187, 190, 193, 194, 207, 209, 214, 217, 367, 406, 409, 410, 414, 418, 419, 456, 457, 494, 497, 501, 503, 504, 506, 508, 518, 544, 548, 550, 555, 558, 559, 564, 573, 575, 584, 586, 591, 592, 601, 602, 620: in all seventy-one manuscripts.
74.
No doubt they do serve, in the manuscripts which contain them and omit the canons, for marks of reference, like in kind to our modern chapters and verses; but in consequence of their having been constructed for a wholly different purpose, they are so unequal in length (as Burgon sees very clearly, pp. 297, 303), that they answer that end as ill as any the most arbitrary divisions of the text well could do.
75.
Sulci in Sardinia is the only Bishop's see of the name I can find in Carol. a Sancto Paulo's Geographia Sacra (1703), or in Bingham's Antiquities, Bk. ix. Chapp. II, VII. Horne and even Tregelles speak of Sulca in Egypt, but I have searched in vain for any such town or see. Euthalius is called Bishop of Sulce both in Wake 12 (infra, note 4), and in the title to his works as edited by L. A. Zacagni (Collectanea Monument. Veter. Eccles. Graec. ac Latin., Rom. 1698, p. 402). But one of Zacagni's manuscripts reads Σούλκης once, and he guesses Ψέλχη near Syene, which appears in no list of Episcopal sees.
76.
Καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιστολὴν προτάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, ἑνὶ τῶν σοφωτάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχρίστων πατέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην.
77.
Αὐτίκα δῆτα is his own expression.
78.
E.g. in Wake 12, of the eleventh century, at Christ Church, the title at the head of the list of chapters in the Acts is as follows: Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σουλκῆς ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων τῶν Πράξεων σταλῆσα (-εῖσα) πρὸς Ἀθανάσιον ἐπίσκοπον Ἀλεξανδρείας.
79.
In Wake 12 certain of the longer κεφάλαια are subdivided into μερικαὶ ὑποδιαιρέσεις in the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Romans, 1, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews only. For a similar subdivision in the Gospels, see Evan. 443 in the list of cursive MSS. given below.
80.
Διὰ τὴν τριμερῆ τῶν εἴκοσι τεσσάρων πρεσβυτέρων ὑπόστασιν, σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. See Matthaei, N. T. Gr. et Lat. vii. 276, note 4.
81.
Many manuscripts indicate passages of the Old Testament cited in the New by placing > (as in Codd. Vatican. Wd, &c., but in Sinait. more rarely), or [symbol with two greater-than marks], or some such mark in the margin before every line. Our quotation-marks are probably derived from this sign, the angle being rounded into a curve. Compare the use of [symbol like right double quotation mark] in the margin of the Greek Testament of Colinaeus, 1534, and Stephen's editions of 1546, -49, -50, &c. Evan. 348 and others have [symbol]. In Codd. Bezae, as will appear hereafter, the words cited are merely thrown a letter or two back in each line.
82.
The whole mystery is thus unfolded (apparently by Cosmas) in Lamb. 1178, p. 159: Καὶ γὰρ τὰ χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα; καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ ἔμπρακτον καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν [John i. 1-3] χαρακτηρίζει; τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον μόσχωι, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν [Luke i. 8] ἐμφανίζει; τὸ δὲ ἀνθρωποειδές, τὴν σάρκωσιν [Matt. i. 18] διαγράφει. τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον ἀετῶι, τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [Mark i. 2] ἐμφανίζει. More usually the lion is regarded as the emblem of St. Mark, the eagle of St. John.
83.
N. B. The στίχοι of the Acts and of all the Epistles except Hebr. are taken from the Codex Passionei (G or L), an uncial of the ninth century.
84.

The numbers of the Gospel στίχοι in our Table are taken from the uncial copies Codd. GS and twenty-seven cursives named by Scholz: those of the ῥήματα from Codd. 9, 13, 124 and seven others. In the ῥήματα he cites no other variation than that Cod. 339 has 2822 for St. Matthew: but Mill states that Cod. 48 (Bodl. 7) has 1676 for Mark, 2507 for Luke (Proleg. N. T. § 1429). In Cod. 56 (Lincoln Coll.) the ἀναγνώσματα of St. Matthew are 127, of St. Mark 74, of St. Luke 130 (Mill).

In the στίχοι, a few straggling manuscripts fluctuate between 3897? and 1474 for Matthew; 2006 and 1000 for Mark; 3827 and 2000 for Luke; 2300 and 1300 for John. But the great mass of authorities stand as we have represented.

85.
Our English version divides 2 Cor. xiii. 12 of the Greek into two, and unites John i. 38, 39 of the Greek. The English and Greek verses begin differently in Luke i. 73, 74; vii. 18, 19. Acts ix. 28, 29; xi. 25, 26; xiii. 32, 33; xix. 40, 41; xxiv. 2, 3. 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13; v. 14, 15; xi. 8, 9. Eph. i. 10, 11; iii. 17, 18. Phil. iii. 13, 14. 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12. Heb. vii. 20, 21; x. 22, 23. 1 Jo. ii. 13,14. 3 Jo. 14, 15. Apoc. xii. 18 or xiii. 1; xviii. 16, 17. In a few of these places editions of the Greek vary a little. The whole subject of the verses is discussed in Dr. Ezra Abbot's tract “De Editionibus Novi Testamenti Graece in versuum quos dicunt distinctione inter se discrepantibus” 1882, included in the Prolegomena for Tischendorf's N. T., eighth edition, pp. 167, &c.
86.
“I think it would have been better done on one's knees in the closet,” is Mr. Kelly's quaint and not unfair comment (Lectures on the Minor Prophets, p. 324), unless, as is not unlikely, he copied what was done before.
87.
Novum Testamentum Graecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bengelio. Tubingae 1734. 4to. The practice of the oldest Greek manuscripts in regard to paragraphs has been stated above (p. 49, note 2), and will be further explained in the next section under our descriptions of Codd. אBD.
88.
Coislin. 199 (Evan. 85); Vatic. 2080 (Evan. 175); Palat. Vat. 171 (Evan. 149); Lambec. 1 at Vienna (Evan. 218); Vatic. 1160 (Evan. 141); Venet. 5 (Evan. 205); its alleged duplicate Venet. 10 (Evan. 209); Matthaei k (Evan. 241); Moscow Synod. 380 (Evan. 242); Paris, Reg. 47 (Evan. 18); Reg. 61 (Evan. 263); Vat. Ottob. 66 (Evan. 386); Vat. Ottob. 381 (Evan. 390); Taurin. 302 (Evan. 339); S. Saba, 10 and 20 (Evan. 462 and 466); Laurent. 53 (Evan. 367); Vallicel. F. 17 (Evan. 394); Phillipps 7682 (Evan. 531); perhaps Scholz ought to have added Venet. 6 (Evan. 206) which he states to contain the whole New Testament, Proleg. N. T. vol. i. p. lxxii. In Evan. 180 all except the Gospels are by a later hand. Add (Evan. 622) also copies at Poictiers, Ferrara, and Toledo. Lagarde (Genesis, pp. 7, 8) describes another copy at Zittau, collated by Matthaei in 1801-2, apparently unpublished.
89.
I presume that the same order is found in Evan. 393, whereof Scholz states “sec. xvi. continet epist. cath. paul. ev.” Proleg. N. T. vol. i. p. xc.
90.
Hartwell Horne in the second volume of his Introduction tells us that in some of the few manuscripts which contain the whole of the New Testament the books are arranged thus: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles (p. 92, ed. 1834). This statement may be true of some of the foreign MSS. named in p. 69 note, but of the English it can refer to none, although Wake 34 at Christ Church commences with the Acts and Catholic Epistles, followed by the Apocalypse beginning on the same page as Jude ends, and the Pauline Epistles on the same page as the Apocalypse ends. The Gospels, which come last, may have been misplaced by an early binder.
91.
This is the true Western order (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introd. p. xxx and note), and will be found in the copies of the Old Latin a1, a2, b, e, f1, ff2, i, n, g, r to be described in vol. ii, and in the Gothic version. In Burdett-Coutts II. 7, p. 4, also, prefixed to the Gospels, we read the following rubric-title to certain verses of Gregory Nazianzen: χυ θαύματα; παρὰ ματθαίω ῒωάννῃ τὲ καὶ λουκᾶ καὶ μάρκω; κ.τ.λ.
92.
Tischendorf cites the following copies in which the Epistle to the Hebrews stands in the same order as in Codd. אABC, “H [Coislin. 202], 17, 23, 47, 57, 71, 73 aliique.” Add 77, 80, 166, 189, 196, 264, 265, 266 (Burdett-Coutts ii. 4). So in Zoega's Thebaic version. Epiphanius (adv. Haer. i. 42) says: ἄλλα δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἔχει τὴν πρὸς ἑβραίους δεκάτην, πρὸ τῶν δύο τῶν πρὸς Τιμόθεον καὶ Τίτον. So Paul 166, 281, and also Bp. Lightfoot's MSS. of the Memphitic except 7 and 16. In the Thebaic it follows 2 Cor. See below.
93.
They are also termed Εὐαγγέλια—evidently a popular, as well as a misleading name.
94.
Suicer, s. v.
95.
This was the word for a lection or lesson, and Suicer tells us that ἀνάγνωσις and ἀνάγνωσμα were employed as equivalents. But in modern textual criticism, ἀναγνώσματα is used to signify the marks indicating lections, which are found in the margin or at the head or foot of pages, or the computation of their number which is often appended at the end of a book. See pp. 67, note 1, 69.
96.
Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. x κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἢ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον. Traces of these Church-lessons occur in manuscripts as early as the fifth and sixth centuries. Thus Cod. Alexandrinus reads Rom. xvi. 25-27 not only in its proper place, but also at the end of ch. xiv where the Lectionaries place it (see p. 84). Codex Bezae prefixes to Luke xvi. 19 εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἐτέραν παραβολήν, the proper introduction to the Gospel for the 5th Sunday in St. Luke. To John xiv. 1 the same manuscript prefixes καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, as does our English Prayer Book in the Gospel for May 1. Even τέλος or τὸ τέλος, which follows ἀπέχει in Mark xiv. 41 in the same manuscript and other authorities, probably has the same origin.
97.
See the passages from Augustine Tract. vi. in Joan.; and Chrysost. Hom. vii ad Antioch.; Hom. lxiii, xlvii in Act. in Bingham's Antiquities, Book xiv, Chap. iii. Sect. 3. Chrysostom even calls the arrangement τῶν πατέρων ὁ νόμος. The strong passage cited from Cyril of Jerusalem by Dean Burgon (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 195) shows the confirmed practice as already settled in a.d. 348.
98.
August. Serm. cxliii de Tempore. The few verses Luke xxiii. 39-43, John xix. 31-37 are merely wrought into one narrative with Matt. xxvii, each in its proper place. See p. 85.
99.
Besides this special meaning, Synaxarion was also employed in a general sense for any catalogue of Church-lessons, both for daily use and for Saints' days.
100.
This was naturally even more the case in countries where the Liturgy was not in Greek. Thus in the “Calendar of the Coptic Church” translated from the Arabic by Dr. S. C. Malan (1873), the only Feast-days identical with those given below (pp. 87-89) are Sept. 14; Oct. 8; Nov. 8, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30; Dec. 20, 24, 25, 29; Jan. 1, 6 (the Lord's Baptism), 22; Feb. 2, 24; March 25; April 25; May 2; June 19, 24, 29; July 22; Aug. 6, 25. Elsewhere the day is altered, even if the festival be the same; e.g. St. Thomas' Day is Oct. 6 with the Greeks, Oct. 23 with the Copts; St. Luke's Day (Oct. 18), and the Beheading of the Baptist (Aug. 29), are kept by the Copts a day later than by the Greeks, since Aug. 29 is their New Year's Day.
101.
This system was introduced by Wetstein (N. T. 1751-52). Mill used to cite copies by abridgements of their names, e.g. Alex. Cant. Mont. &c.
102.
The pericope adulterae John vii. 53-viii. 11 is omitted in all the copies we know on the feast of Pentecost. Whenever read it was on some Saint's Day (vid. infra, p. 87, notes 2, 3).
103.
Lessons for the week in B-C. III. 24 are (2) 2 Cor. iii. 4-12. (3) iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6) 15-21.
104.
In B-C. III. 42 all the Gospels for this day run into each other without break, e.g. John xiii. 3-17 being read uno tenore. Just so in the same manuscript stands the mixed lesson for Good Friday evening.
105.
The more usual indiction, which dates from Sept. 1, is manifestly excluded by the following rubric (Burney, 22, p. 191, and in other copies): Δέοό γινώσκζιν ὅτι ἄρχδται ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς Κυριακῆς μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν; τότε γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἰσυμερία [i.e. ἰσημερία] γίνεται, ὃ καλεῖται νέον ἔτος. Ἤ ὅτι ἀπὸ τὰς [τῆς] κγ´ τοῦ σεπτευβρίου ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσαι.
106.
The lesson for the Sunday after Sept. 14 is the same as that for the 3rd Sunday in Lent.
107.
The ordinary lessons for week days stand thus in B-C. III. 24. Week ι´. (2) 2 Cor. iii, 4-12. (3) iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6) 15-21. ιζ´. (2) vi. 11-16. (3) vii. 1-11. (4) 10-16. (5) viii. 7-11. (6) 10-21. ιη´. (2) viii. 20-ix. 1. (3) ix. 1-5. (4) 12-x. 5. (5) 4-12. (6) 13-18. ιθ´. (2) xi. 5-9. (3) 10-18. (4) xii. 10-14 (5) 14-19. (6) 19-xiii. 1. κ´. (2) xiii. 2-7. (3)7-11. (4) Gal. i. 18-ii. 5. (5) ii. 6-16. (6) ii. 20-iii. 7. κα´. (2) iii. 15-22. (3) 28-iv. 5. (4) iv. 9-14. (5) 13-26. (6) 28-v. 5. κβ´. (2) v. 4-14. (3) 14-21. (4) vi. 2-10. (5) Eph. i. 9-17. (6) 16-23. κγ´. (2) ii. 18-iii. 5. (3) 5-12. (4) 13-21. (5) iv. 12-16. (6) 17-25. κδ´. (2) v. 18-26. (3) 25-31. (4) 28-vi. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-21. κε´. (2) Phil. i. 2. Hiat codex usque ad' λ´. (1) 1 Thess. i. 6-10. (3) 9-ii. 4. (4) 4-8. (5) 9-14. (6) 14-20. λα´. (2) iii. 1-8. (3) 6-11. (4) 11-iv. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-v. 5. λβ´. (2) v. 4-11. (3) 11-15. (4) 15-23. (5) 2 Thess. i. 1-5. (6) 11-ii. 5. λγ´. (2) ii. 13-iii. 5. (3) 3-9. (4) 10-18. (5) 1 Tim. i. 1-8. (6) 8-14. λδ´. (2) 1 Tim. ii. 5-15. (3) iii. 1-13. (4) iv. 4-9. (5) 14-v. 10. (6) 17-vi. 2. λε´. (2) vi. 2-11. (3) 17-21. (4) 2 Tim. i. 8-14. (5) 14-ii. 2. (6) 22-26.
108.
In the Menology, even Arund. 547 has μηνὶ σεπτεμβρίῳ α; ἀρχὴ τῆς ἰνδίκτου. So Burn. 22 nearly.
109.
Theodosia in Codex Cyprius (see p. 73), with the cognate lesson, Luke vii. 36-50, which lesson is read in Gale for Sept. 16, Euphemia and in Evst. 261 (B.M. Addit. 11,840). In Burdett-Coutts II. 7, John viii. 3-11 is used εἰς μετανοοῦντας: B-C. II. 30 adds καὶ γυναικῶν.
110.
So Cod. Cyprius, but the Christ's Coll. Evst. removes Pelagia to Aug. 31, and reads John viii. 1-11.
111.
The Proto-martyr Stephen is commemorated on August 2 in Evst. 3 (Wheeler 3).
112.
The same Saint is commemorated in the fragment of a Golden Evangelistarium seen at Sinai by the Rev. E. M. Young in 1864, and in B-C. III. 42 as μεγαλόμαρτυς ὁ τροπαιοφόρος; which (Evst. 286) is described in its place below.
113.
These fragments were published by Tischendorf in his Appendix Codd. cel. Sin. Vat. Alex. 1867. They consist of Gen. xxiii. 19-xxiv. 4; 5-8; 10-14; 17, 18; 25-27; 30-33; 36-41; 43-46; Num. v. 26-30; vi. 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18; 22-27; vii. 4, 5, 12, 13; 15-26. Another leaf of the same manuscript, containing Lev. xxii. 3-xxiii. 22, was also found at Sinai by Dr. H. Brügsch Bey, of Göttingen, and published by him in his Neue Bruchstücke des Codex Sinaiticus aufgefunden in der Bibliothek des Sinai Klosters, 1875, but is not, after all, part of Cod. א. Another morsel, containing Gen. xxiv. 9, 10, and 41-43, now at St. Petersburg, really belongs to it.
114.
J. Rendel Harris, New Testament Autographs, Baltimore (without date), an original and ingenious contribution to textual criticism; as is the Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887) Camb. Synd. by the same author, Fellow of Clare College, and Reader in Palaeography at Cambridge. Curious results in Bradshaw's spirit. Identity of hand with Caius Psalter.
115.
Abbot, Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, p. 195. Dean Burgon surrendered the position maintained in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.
116.
It has been suggested that this strange mode of division originated in the reluctance of scribes to begin a new line with any combination of letters which could not commence a Greek word, and to end a line with any letter which is not a vowel, or a liquid, or σ, or γ before another consonant, except in the case of Proper Names (Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863, p. 8). Certainly the general practice in Cod. א bears out the rule thus laid down, though a few instances to the contrary occur here and there (Scrivener, Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, Introd. p. xiv, note). Hort refers it to a grammatical rule not to end a line with οὐκ or οὐχ, or a consonant preceding an elided vowel, as ἀπ᾽, οὐδ᾽. New Testament in Greek, p. 315.
117.
But ΜΗ, ΝΗ, for μη, νη occur even in the Septuagint Cod. Sarravianus, also of the fourth century, in which copy numerals are quite constantly expressed by letters.
118.
Tischendorf, however, describes אa as “et formis et atramento primam manum tantum non adaequans,” and its writer has been regarded by some as little inferior in value to the first scribe. Thus Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 271), calling him the “corrector” proper, states that he “made use of an excellent exemplar, and the readings which he occasionally uses take high rank as authority.” Hort considers אb as mixed, אc as still more so.
119.

I am indebted for the following Memoranda on Cod. א to the kindness of the Dean of Derry and Raphoe.

i. It is demonstrable that the Eusebian Sections and Canons on the margin are contemporaneous with the text. For they are wanting from leaves 10 and 15. Now these leaves are conjugate; and they have been (on other grounds) noted by Tischendorf as written not by the scribe of the body of the N. T., but by one of his colleagues (“D”) who wrote part of the O. T. and acted as Diorthota of the N. T. It thus appears that, after the marginal numbers had been inserted, the sheet containing leaves 10 and 15 was cancelled, and rewritten by a contemporary hand. The numbers must therefore have been written before the MS. was completed and issued.

ii. The exemplar whence these numbers were derived, differed considerably from that which the text follows. For, in some cases, the sectional numbers indicate the presence of passages which are absent from the text. E.g. St. Matt. xvi. 2, 3, which is sect. 162, is wanting; and 162 is assigned to ver. 4, while the wrong canon (5 for 6) betrays the presence in the canonizer's exemplar of the passage omitted by the scribe. The same is true of St. Mark xv. 28 (in which case the scribe is “D”).

iii. The scribe who wrote the text was unacquainted with the Eusebian sections. For the beginning of a section is not marked, as in A and most subsequent MSS., by a division of the text and a larger letter. On the contrary the text is divided into paragraphs quite independent of the Eusebian divisions, which often begin in the middle of a line, and are marked merely by two dots (:) in vermilion, inserted no doubt by the rubricator as he entered the numbers in the margin. The fact that the numbers of the sections as well as of the canons (not as in other MSS. of the Canons only) are in vermilion, points the same way.

iv. From the above it follows, (1) That while Cod. א proves the absence from its exemplar of certain passages, its margin proves the presence of some of them in a contemporaneous exemplar; (2) that while on the one hand the Eusebian numbers, coeval with the text, show that the MS. cannot be dated before the time of Eusebius, on the other hand the form of the text, inasmuch as it is not arranged so as to suit them, and as it differs from the text implied in them, marks for it a date little, if at all, after his time—certainly many years earlier than A.

v. As regards the omission of the verses of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, it is not correct to assert that Cod. א betrays no sign of consciousness of their existence. For the last line of ver. 8, containing only the letters τογαρ, has the rest of the space (more than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and elaborate “arabesque” executed with the pen in ink and vermilion, nothing like which occurs anywhere else in the whole MS. (O. T. or N. T.), such spaces being elsewhere invariably left blank. By this careful filling up of the blank, the scribe (who here is the diorthota “D”), distinctly shows that the omission is not a case of “non-interpolation,” but of deliberate excision. John Gwynn, May 21, 1883.

120.
He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every day. Compare the performance of that veritable Briareus, Nicodemus ὁ ξένος, who transcribed the Octateuch (in cursive characters certainly) now at Ferrara (Holmes, Cod. 107), beginning his task on the 8th of June, and finishing it the 15th of July, a.d. 1334, “working very hard”—as he must have done indeed (Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873).
121.
This opinion, first put forth by Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxiii, was minutely discussed in the course of a review of that book in the Christian Remembrancer, October 1867, by the writer of these pages. Although Dr. Hort labours to show that no critical inferences ought to be drawn from this identity of the scribe of Cod. B with the writer of six conjugate leaves of Cod. א (being three pairs in three distinct quires, one of them containing the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel), he is constrained to admit that “the fact appears to be sufficiently established by concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, avoidance of contractions, and some points of orthography” (Introduction, p. 213). The internal evidence indeed, though relating to minute matters, is cumulative and irresistible, and does not seem to have been noticed by Tischendorf, who drew his conclusions from the handwriting only.
122.
Prothero (Memoir of H. Bradshaw, pp. 92-118) reprints a letter of Bradshaw from Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, worth studying:—“Simonides died hard, and to the very end was supported by a few dupes of his ingenious mendacity.” (p. 99.)
123.
A more favourable estimate of the ecclesiastical policy of Cyril (who was murdered by order of the Sultan in 1638, aet. 80) is maintained by Dr. Th. Smith, “Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario, Patriarcha Constantinopolitano,” London 1707.
124.
I.e. “Memorant hunc Librum scriptū fuisse ma-nu Theclae Martyris.” On the page over against Cyril's note the same hand writes “videantur literae ejusdé Cyrill: Lucar: ad Georgium Episco Cant” [Abbot]; Harl: 823, 2. quae extant in Clementis Epistolis ad Corinthios editionis Colomesii Lond. 1687 8o page 354 &c.
125.
Not to mention a few casual lacunae here and there, especially in the early leaves of the manuscript, the lower part of one leaf has been cut out, so that Gen. xiv. 14-17; xv. 1-5; 16-20; xvi. 6-9 are wanting. The leaf containing 1 Sam. xii. 20-xiv. 9, and the nine leaves containing Ps. 1. 20-lxxx. 10 (Engl.) are lost.
126.
Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the Pericope Adulterae, John vii. 58-viii. 11. Taking the Elzevir N. T. of 1624, which is printed without breaks for the verses, we count 286 lines of the Elzevir for the two leaves of Cod. A preceding its defect, 288 lines for the two which follow it; but 317 lines for the two missing leaves. Deduct the thirty lines containing John vii. 53-viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287.
127.
An excellent facsimile of A is given in the Facsimiles of the Palaeographical Society, Plate 106; others in Woide's New Testament from this MS. (1786), and in Baber's Old Test. (1816). Two specimens from the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, vol. i. p. 110, 1838 (1863); and one in Cassell's Bible Dict. vol. i. p. 49.
128.
Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis (Tregelles' Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 198), where the difference of hand in the leaves removed from their proper place is much more striking than any change in Cod. Alexandrinus. Yet even in that case it is likely that one scribe only was engaged. It should be stated, however, that Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, who, edits the autotype edition, believes that the hand changed at the beginning of St. Luke, and altered again at 1 Cor. x. 8. His reasons appear to us precarious and insufficient, and he seems to cut away the ground from under him when he admits (Praef. p. 9) that “sufficient uniformity is maintained to make it difficult to decide the exact place where a new hand begins.”
129.
Tischendorf, Septuagint, Proleg. p. lxv, cites with some approval Grabe's references (Proleg. Cap. i. pp. 9-12) to Gregory Nazianzen [d. 389], three of whose Epistles are written to a holy virgin of that name (of course not the martyr), to whose παρθενών at Seleucia he betook himself, the better to carry out his very sincere nolo episcopari on the death of his father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus: Πρῶτον μὲν ἦλθον εἰς Σελεύκειαν φυγὰς | Τὸν παρθενῶνα τῆς ἀοιδίμου κόρης | Θέκλας κ.τ.λ. “De vitâ suâ.”
130.
The last Arabic numeral in the Old Testament is 641, the first in the New Testament 667.
131.
Very interesting is Whitelock's notice of a design which was never carried out, under the date of March 13, 1645. “The Assembly of Divines desired by some of their brethren, sent to the House [of Commons] that Mr. Patrick Young might be encouraged in the printing of the Greek Testament much expected and desired by the learned, especially beyond seas; and an ordinance was read for printing and publishing the Old Testament of the Septuagint translation, wherein Mr. Young had formerly taken pains and had in his hand, as library keeper at St. James's, an original Teeta [sic] Bible of that translation” (Memorials, p. 197, ed. 1732).
132.
“MSm Alexandm accuratissime ipse contuli, a.d. 1716. Rich: Bentleius.” Trin. Coll. Camb. B. xvii. 9, in a copy of Fell's Greek Testament, 1675, which contains his collation. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. xxviii.
133.
See Bibliothèque du Vatican au Xme siècle, par Eugène Müntz et Paul Fabre, Paris. Thorn. 824 Lat., 400 Gr.
134.
The “Epistle” of Cardinal Carafa to Sixtus V, and the Preface to the Reader by the actual editor Peter Morinus, both of which Tischendorf reprints in full (Septuagint, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxvii), display an amount of critical skill and discernment quite beyond their age, and in strange contrast with the signal mismanagement in regard to the revision of the Latin Vulgate version under the auspices of the same Pope.
135.
In Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 1 Kings i. 1-xix. 11, there are forty-four lines in a column; and in 2 Paralip. x. 16-xxvi. 13, there are forty lines in a column.
136.
The writer of the Preface to the sixth volume of the Roman edition of 1881 (apparently Fabiani), is jubilant over his discovery of the name of this retracer (“eruditissimi et patientissimi viri,” as he is pleased to call him, p. xviii) in the person of Clement the Monk, who has written his name twice in the book in a scrawl of the fifteenth century. But mere resemblance in the ink is but a lame proof of identity, and Fabiani recognizes some other correctors, whom he designates as B4, posterior to the mischievous “instaurator.”
137.
Hug says none, but Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. p. 9) himself detected two in a part that the second scribe had left untouched; and not a very few elsewhere (N. T. Vatican. Proleg. pp. xx, xxi, 1867); though a break often occurs with no stop by either hand. In the much contested passage Rom. ix. 5, Dr. Vance Smith (“Revised Texts and Margins,” p. 84, note), while confidently claiming the stop after σαρκα in Cod. A as primâ manu, and noticing the space after the word in Cod. Ephraemi (C), admits that “in the Vatican the originality of the stops may be doubtful.” In the judgement of Fabiani, “vix aliqua primo exscriptori tribuenda” (Praef. N. T. Vat. 1881, p. xviii).
138.
The publication of the Roman edition (1868-81) enables us to add (Abbot, ubi supra, p. 193) that the blessings of the twelve patriarchs in Gen. xlix are in separate paragraphs numbered from A to IB, that the twenty-two names of the unclean birds Deut. xiv. 12-18, twenty-five kings in Josh. xii. 10-22, eleven dukes in 1 Chr. i. 51-54, each stand in a separate line. In Cod. א, especially in the New Testament, this arrangement στιχηρῶς is much more frequent than in Cod. B, although the practice is in some measure common to both.
139.
The Roman edition (1868-81) also makes known to us that in the Old Testament two columns are left blank between Nehemiah and the Psalms, which could not have been otherwise, inasmuch as the Psalms are written στιχηρῶς with but two columns on a page. Between Tobit and Hosea (which book stands first of the Prophetical writings) a column is very naturally left blank, and two columns at the end of Daniel, with whose prophecy the Old Testament concludes. But these peculiarities obviously bear no analogy to the case of the end of St. Mark's Gospel.
140.
See above, pp. 49-51.
141.
The writer of the Preface to the Roman edition (vol. vi. Praef. p. 9, 1881) vainly struggles to maintain the opposite view, because the Cardinal, in his Preface to the Complutensian N. T., speaks about “adhibitis Vaticanis libris,” as if there was but one there.
142.
Rulotta's labours are now printed in Bentleii Critica Sacra by Mr. A. A. Ellis, 1862, pp. 121-154.
143.
Thus the correspondence of Codex B with what St. Basil (c. Eunom. ii. 19) states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων, in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, though now read only in this and the Sinaitic manuscript primâ manu, and in one cursive copy (Cod. 67) secundâ manu, seems in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been raised is the position of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this argument can apply only to the elder document from which the Vatican MS. was taken, and wherein this book unquestionably followed that to the Galatians. In Cod. B it always stood in its present place, after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p. 74, note.
144.
Besides the twenty-five readings Tischendorf observed himself, Cardinal Mai supplied him with thirty-four more for his N. T. of 1849. His seventh edition of 1859 was enriched by 230 other readings furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855.
145.
“They would not let me open it,” he adds, “without searching my pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a passage too long the two prelati would snatch the book out from my hand.” Tregelles, Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the N. T., p. 84.
146.
The great gap in the Pauline Epistles is filled up from Vatic. 1761 (Act. 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century.
147.
Other editions of the Vatican N. T. appeared at Ratisbon; at Leyden (1860) by A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, with a masterly Preface by the latter; and at Berlin (1862) by Philip Buttmann, furnished with an Appendix containing the varying results of no less than nine collations, eight of which we have described in the text, the ninth being derived from Lachmann's Greek Testament (1742, 1850), whose readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much commend the accuracy of Buttmann's work.
148.
“Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rectè mandari posset:” Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Praef. p. 1. Tischendorf too, in his over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is not more than just in alleging “Angelum Maium in editionibus suis Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se praebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei palaeographicae scientiâ, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.” The defence set up for Mai in the Preface to the Roman volume of 1881, was that he intended to produce only a new edition of the “authentic” Septuagint of 1586-7, chiefly for the use of Greek-speaking Catholics.
149.
The Dean himself on Feb. 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days, “went twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilized most of the important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the Librarian, who “insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp. 310, 315.)
150.
“Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice edidit Ae. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsiae, 4to, 1867.
151.
To his hand Tischendorf assigns seven readings, Matt. xiii. 52; xiv. 5; xvi. 4; xxii. 10; xxvii. 4. Luke iii. 1 (bis), 7. “For some six centuries after it was written B appears to have undergone no changes in its text except from the hand of the ‘corrector,’ the ‘second hand’ ” (Hort, Introd. p. 270). What then of B2?
152.
It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the case of B2 or B3: “In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia continentur, et nihilo plus in primâ manu quam in secundâ inest auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaquaeque lectio ex se ipsâ spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hanc modo illam animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum est, non esse secundae manûs lectiones correctoris alicujus suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive illae sunt acutiores sive leviores, sed quidquid a secundâ manu correctum, mutatum, deletum esse Maius referat, id omne haud secus atque id quod prior manus dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (N. T. Vat. Praef. p. xxvi.)
153.
It may be mere oversight that in Matt. xxvii. 4 he does not say in 1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition (1865) he adjudges it to B2. In Matt. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32 εκφύη he gives to B3 in 1867 what he had assigned to B2 in 1865. The Roman Commentary gives no light in the other places, but assigns πιστεύητε to B2, B3.
154.
“Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Romae typis et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide,” square folio, 1868.
155.
The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by Tischendorf's Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which pamphlet we cannot highly praise.
156.
This practice is plainly confessed to in the Preface to the volume of 1881 (p. xvi) without any consciousness of the fatal mistake which it involves: “Facies libri Vaticani repraesentata est [ut] ea primum omnia apparerent, quae a priore codicis notario profecta adhuc manifesto perspiciuntur, tum ea tantum a posterioribus sive emendatoribus, sive instauratoribus commutata adderentur, quae sine scripturae confusione legi possent.”
157.
In 1 Cor. vii. 29 Vercellone joins ἐστιν and το closely, but Tischendorf leaves a space between them, with a middle point, which he expressly states to be primâ manu. Again, in ver. 34 Vercellone joins μεμερισται with the following και. Tischendorf in 1867 (but not in his last edition of the N. T.) interposes a point and space. In these minutiae Vercellone, who was not working against time, may be presumed to be the more accurate of the two. The editors of the sixth volume have no note at either place. Tischendorf detects an error of Vercellone, ειτε for ειχε Heb. ix. 1, but this has been corrected by the hand in some copies of the Roman volume, as also in the Commentary.
158.

His reasons for regarding the Sinaitic manuscript as the younger (see p. 89, note 2) are valid enough so far as they go (Praef. p. vi): its initial letters stand out more from the line of the writing; abridgements of words are fewer and less simple; it contains the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons instead of the antiquated divisions of its rival, and the text is broken up into smaller paragraphs. Tregelles, who had seen both copies, used to plead the fresher appearance of the Sinaitic, contrasted with the worn look of the Vatican MS.; but then its extensive hiatus proves that the latter had been less carefully preserved.

Eusebius sent to Constantine's new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. iv) πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (c. 36) ... ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (c. 37): on which last words Valesius notes, “Codices enim membranacei ferè per quaterniones digerebantur, hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria sunt folia simul compacta. Et quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas, terniones vero duodenas.” But now that we have come to know that Cod. B is arranged in quires of five sheets (see p. 105), that manuscript will hardly answer to the description τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (see p. 27, note 1) as Cod. א does. Indeed Canon Cook (Revised Version, &c., p. 162) objects to Valesius' explanation altogether, on the ground that his sense would rather require τριπλόα καὶ τετραπλόα, and that the rare words τρισσά (“three by three”) and τετρασσά (“four by four”) exactly describe the arrangement of three columns on a page in Cod. B, and four on a page in Cod. א. The Canon has since observed that the same view is maintained by O. von Gebhardt (“Bibel-text” in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie, Leipsic 1878, second edition). On the other hand Archdeacon Palmer, in an obliging communication made to me, comparing the words πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις (c. 36) with ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσιν τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων ἡμῶν, and interpreting Eusebius' compliance (c. 37) by means of Constantine's directions (c. 36), is inclined to refer τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά to σωμάτια, as if it were “we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly adorned cases, three or four in a case.” It will probably be thought that the expression is on the whole too obscure to be depended on for any controversial purposes. It is safer to argue that if the sections and canons extant in Cod. א be by a contemporary hand (see p. 93, and Dean Gwynn's Memoranda in our Addenda for that page), that circumstance, the great antiquity of the manuscript considered, will confirm the probability of Eusebius' connexion with it. Eusebius agrees also with א in omitting ἡ πύλη, Matt. vii. 13, and knew of copies, not however the best or with his approval, which inserted ἡσαΐου before τοῦ προφήτου in Matt. xiii. 35: א being the only uncial which exhibits that reading. So again Eusebius after Origen maintains the impossible number ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα of א and a few others in Luke xxiv. 13. Dr. C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 347, 348, inclines to the belief that B and א were among the fifty MSS. sent by Eusebius to Constantino about a.d. 331-2. Canon Cook's entire argument (Revised Version of the First Three Gospels (1882), pp. 160-165) should be consulted.

159.
Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620. Even Bishop Lightfoot, a strong and consistent admirer of the manuscript, speaks of its “impatience of apparently superfluous words” (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 316). Dr. Hort (Introduction, p. 235) pleads that such facts “have no bearing on either the merits or the demerits of the scribe of B, except as regards the absolutely singular readings of B,” whereas multitudes of these omissions are found in other good documents.
160.
Dean Burgon cites four specimens of such repetitions: Matt. xxi. 4, five words written twice over; ib. xxvi. 56-7, six words; Luke i. 37, three words or one line; John xvii. 18, six words. These, however, are but a few out of many. Nor is Tischendorf's judgement at variance with our own. Speaking of some supposed or possible gross errata of the recent Roman edition, he puts in the significant proviso “tamen haec quoque satis cum universâ scripturae Vaticanae vitiositate conveniunt” (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p. xvii).
161.
The latest Roman editors incline to an Egyptian origin, rather than one suggested in Magna Graecia, but the only fresh reason they allege can have very slight weight, namely, that two of the damaged leaves have been repaired by pieces of papyrus. The learned Ceriani of Milan believes that Cod. B was written in Italy, Cod. א in Palestine or Syria (Quarterly Review, April, 1882, p. 355). The supposed Eusebian origin of both has been already stated.
162.
As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to subjoin a full list of the passages it contains, that it may not be cited e silentio for what it does not exhibit: Matt. i. 2-v. 15; vii. 5-xvii. 26; xviii. 28-xxii. 20; xxiii. 17-xxiv. 10; xxiv. 45-xxv. 30; xxvi. 22-xxvii. 11; xxvii. 47-xxviii. 14: Mark i. 17-vi. 31; viii. 5-xii. 29; xiii. 19-xvi. 20: Luke i. 2-ii. 5; ii. 42-iii. 21; iv. 25-vi. 4; vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17; viii. 28-xii. 3; xix. 42-xx. 27; xxi. 21-xxii. 19; xxiii. 25-xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46-53: John i. 1-41; iii. 33-v. 16; vi. 38-vii. 3; viii. 34-ix. 11; xi. 8-46; xiii. 8-xiv. 7; xvi. 21-xviii. 36; xx. 26-xxi. 25: Acts i. 2-iv. 3; v. 35-x. 42; xiii. 1-xvi. 36; xx. 10-xxi. 30; xxii. 21-xxiii. 18; xxiv. 15-xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16-xxviii. 4: James i. 1-iv. 2: 1 Pet. i. 2-iv. 6: 2 Pet. i. 1-1 John iv. 2: 3 John 3-15: Jude 3-25: Rom. i. 1-ii. 5; iii. 21-ix. 6; x. 15-xi. 31; xiii. 10-1 Cor. vii. 18; ix. 6-xiii. 8; xv. 40-2 Cor. x. 8: Gal. i. 20-vi. 18: Eph. ii. 18-iv. 17: Phil. i. 22-iii. 5: Col. i. 1-1 Thess. ii. 9: Heb. ii. 4-vii. 26; ix. 15-x. 24; xii. 15-xiii. 25: 1 Tim. iii. 9-v. 20; vi. 21-Philem. 25: Apoc. i. 2-iii. 19; v. 14-vii. 14; vii. 17-viii. 4; ix. 17-x. 10; xi. 3-xvi. 13; xviii. 2-xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2 Thess. are entirely lost; about thirty-seven chapters of the Gospels, ten of the Acts, forty-two of the Epistles, eight of the Apocalypse have perished. The order of the books is indicated, p. 74.
163.
The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Royal Library by the same means; Evan. 16, 19, 42, 317. Act. 12, 126. Paul. 164. It appears therefore that Cod. C was not one of the manuscripts bought of Marshal Strozzi (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 202), which were only 800 out of the 4,500 which belonged to the Queen (ibid. p. 204).
164.
Bp. Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. Part iv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein's statement (Bentley's Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him two hours to read one page; so that his £50 were not so easily earned, after all. This collation is preserved in Trinity College Library, B. xvii. 7, 9.
165.
Dr. Hort, with his ever ready acuteness, draws certain inferences to be discussed hereafter from the fact that a displacement in the leaves of the exemplar wherefrom the Apocalypse in Cod. C was copied, which the scribe of C did not notice, proves it to have been a book of nearly 120 small leaves, and accordingly that it “formed a volume either to itself or without considerable additions” (Introduction, p. 268).
166.
Very remarkable is the language of the University in returning thanks for the gift: “Nam hoc scito, post unicae scripturae sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni memoriâ temporum scriptores extitisse, quos memorabili viro Johanni Calvino tibique praeferamus.” Scrivener's Codex Bezae, Introd. p. vi.
167.
Matt. i. 1-20; vi. 20-ix. 2; xxvii. 2-12: John i. 16-iii. 26: Acts viii. 29-x. 14; xxi. 2-10; 15-18 (though Ussher, Mill, Wetstein and Dickinson cite several readings from these verses, which must have been extant in their time); xxii. 10-20; 29-xxviii. 31 in the Greek: Matt. i. 1-11; vi. 8-viii. 27; xxvi. 65-xxvii. 1: John i. 1-iii. 16: Acts viii. 20-x. 4; xx. 31-xxi. 2; 7-10; xxii. 2-10; xxii. 20-xxviii. 31 in the Latin. The original writing has perished in the following, which are supplied by a scribe of not earlier than the ninth century: Matt. iii. 7-16: Mark xvi. 15-20: John xviii. 14-xx. 13 in the Greek: Matt. ii. 21-iii. 7: Mark xvi. 6-20: John xviii. 2-xx. 1 in the Latin. A fragment, containing a few words of Matt. xxvi. 65-67 (Latin) and xxvii. 2 (Greek), (Fol. 96, Scrivener), was overlooked by Kipling.
168.
It is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of Cod. D with Stephen's β´. No other manuscript has been discovered which agrees with β´ in the many singular readings and arbitrary additions in support of which it is cited by Stephen. That he omitted so many more than he inserted is no argument against their identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his α´ (the Complutensian Polyglott) and η´ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great inaccuracy of Stephen's margin (the text is much better revised) is so visible from these and other well-ascertained instances that no one ought to wonder if β´ is alleged occasionally (not often) for readings which D does not contain. On a careful analysis of all the variations imputed to β´ by Stephen, they will be found to amount to 389 in the parts written in the original hand, whereof 309 are alleged quite correctly, forty-seven a little loosely, while in eight instances corrected readings are regarded in error as from the original scribe. Of the twenty-five places which remain, all but three had been previously discovered in other copies used by Stephen, so that β´ in their case has been substituted by mistake for some other numeral. One of the three remaining has recently been accounted for by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, who has found καὶ περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται αὐτῷ (Luke viii. 18 from Matt. xiii. 12) in Stephen's θ´ or Coislin 200 at Paris (No. 38, of the Gospels). I do not find β´ cited by Stephen after Acts xx. 24, except indeed in Rom. iii. 10 (with α´), in manifest error, just as in the Apocalypse xix. 14 ε´ (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not contain this book, is cited instead of ιε´; or as ια´ is quoted in xiii. 4, but not elsewhere in the Apocalypse, undoubtedly in the place of ιϛ´; or as ιϛ´, which had broken off at xvii. 8, reappears instead of ιε´ in xx. 3. In the various places named in the last note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β´ is cited only at Matt. xxvii. 3, beyond question instead of η´; and for part of the reading in Acts ix. 31, δ´ (to which the whole rightly belongs) being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6, indeed, where the original Greek is missing, β´ is cited, but it is for a reading actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex D's defects.
169.
“Ils s'emparèrent des portes et de tous les lieux forts ... non pas sans leur impiétes et barbaries accoutumées envers les choses saintes” (Mézeray, Hist. de France, tom. iii. p. 87, 1685). Accordingly, travellers are shown to this day the bones of unclean animals which the Huguenots, in wanton mockery, then mingled with the presumed remains of St. Irenaeus and the martyrs of Lyons.
170.
One cannot understand why Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. vol. i, 30) should have supposed that Beza prevaricated as to the means whereby he procured his manuscript. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of spoiling the Philistines, and the bare mention of Lyons in connexion with the year 1562 would have been abundantly intelligible scarce twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable that in the last edition of his Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex Lugdunensis, but Claromontanus (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx. 3); for, though it might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of age and after the lapse of so long a time, should confound the Lyons copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul's Epistles (D); yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex Bezae being collated in Italy for Stephen, is by adopting Wetstein's suggestion that it was the actual copy (“antiquissimum codicem Graecum”) taken to the Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm the Latin reading in John xxi. 22 “sic eum volo,” which D alone may seem to do. Some learned man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son Henry) might have sent to Robert Stephen from Tren the readings of a manuscript to which attention had been thus specially directed.
171.
Not more than eighty-three typographical errors have been detected in Kipling throughout his difficult task, whereof sixteen are in his Annotations, &c.
172.
In St. Luke 136 (143 Lat.): in what remains of St. Matthew 583 (590 Lat.), of St. Mark 148, of St. John 165 (168 Lat.), of the Acts 235. The later παραγραφαί, indicated by [symbol] (see p. 51, note 3), though forty-five out of the forty-nine are firmly and neatly made, and often resemble in colour the ink of the original scribe, can be shown to be full four centuries later (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introd. p. xxviii).
173.
Bradshaw (Prothero's Memoirs, p. 97) in a letter to the Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, writes thus:—“I saw Cod. א at Leipsig per Tischendorf. I had been curious to know whether it was written in even quaternions throughout, like the Cod. Bezae, or in a series of fasciculi, each ending with a quire of varying size, like the Cod. Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the-bye, is sufficient to prove”—why, is not quite clear—“that it cannot be the volume which Dr. Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos.”
174.
Yet Φ (Beratinus) and Σ (Rossanensis) contain St. Matthew and St. Mark, and are probably a little older than D.
175.
H. C. Hoskier, Collation of Cod. 604, &c. Appendix F. Mr. Hoskier saw the MS. on May 18, 1886.
176.
In our facsimile (No. 21), over against the beginning of Mark xvi. 8, is set the number of the section (ΣΛΓ or 233), above the corresponding Eusebian canon (B or 2).
177.
Dr. Hort more exactly reckons that these leaves apparently contain Mark vi. 53-vii. 4; vii. 21-viii. 32; ix. 1-x. 43; xi. 7-xii. 19; xiv. 25-xv. 22 (Addenda and Corrigenda to Tregelles's N. T., p. 1019), adding that Tischendorf had access also to a few verses preserved in the collections of the Russian Bishop Porphyry. They are published in Duchesne's “Archives des Missions scientifiques et littéraires” (Paris, 1877), 3e sér. tom. iii. pp. 386-419.
178.
These songs, with thirteen others from the Old Testament and Apocrypha, though partially written in uncial letters, are included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns, whose prevailing character is early cursive.
179.
From Tischendorf's copy of Od Dr. Caspar René Gregory has gathered readings in Heb. v. 8-vi. 10, and sent them to Dr. Hort.
180.
I.e., twenty lines on a page, according to the form used in this edition.
181.
They had been previously described in a tract “Jac. Frid. Heusinger, de quatuor Evan. Cod. Graec. quem antiqua manu membrana scriptum Guelferbytana bibliotheca servat.” Guelf. 1752.
182.
Codex P contains Matt. i. 11-21; iii. 13-iv. 19; x. 7-19; x. 42-xi. 11; xiii. 40-50; xiv. 15-xv. 3; xv. 29-39: Mark i. 1-11; iii. 5-17; xiv. 13-24; 48-61; xv. 12-37; Luke i. 1-13; ii. 9-20; vi. 21-42; vii. 32-viii. 2; viii. 31-50; ix. 26-36; x. 36-xi. 4; xii. 34-45; xiv. 14-25; xv. 13-xvi. 22; xviii. 13-39; xx. 21-xxi. 3; xxii. 3-16; xxiii. 20-33; 45-56; xxiv. 1, 14-37; John i. 29-41; ii. 13-25; xxi. 1-11.
183.
Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34-v. 4; vi. 10-26; xii. 6-43; xv. 14-31; xvii. 34-xviii. 15; xviii. 34-xix. 11; xix. 47-xx. 17; xx. 34-xxi. 8; xxii. 27-46; xxiii. 30-49: John xii. 3-20; xiv. 3-22.
184.
Published in the Jahrbücher (Vienna) d. Lit. 1847.
185.
Codex R contains Luke i. 1-13; i. 69-ii. 4; 16-27; iv. 38-v. 5; v. 25-vi. 8; 18-36, 39; vi. 49-vii. 22; 44, 46, 47; viii. 5-15; viii. 25-ix. 1; ix. 12-43; x. 3-16; xi. 5-27; xii. 4-15; 40-52; xiii. 26-xiv. 1; xiv. 12-xv. 1; xv. 13-xvi. 16; xvii. 21-xviii. 10; xviii. 22-xx. 20; xx. 33-47; xxi. 12-xxii. 15; 42-56; xxii. 71-xxiii. 11; xxiii. 38-51. A second hand has supplied ch. xv. 19-21.
186.
For the Coptic style of the letters Tischendorf compares a double palimpsest leaf in the British Museum, containing 1 Kings viii. 58-ix. 1, which he assigns to the fifth century, although the capital letters stand out a little, and are slightly larger than the rest (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. ii. Proleg. p. xliv). But both Dr. Wright and Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, from their great experience in this style of writing, have come to suspect that it is usually somewhat less ancient than from other indications might be supposed.
187.
Tischendorf found breathings also in the palimpsest Numbers (Monum. sac. ined. ubi supra, p. xxv).
188.
I say almost, for Bengel's description makes it plain that this is the Moscow manuscript from which F. C. Gross sent him the extracts that Wetstein copied and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states that the cursive portion from John vii onwards bears the date of 6508 or a.d. 1000. Scholz was the first to notice this identity (see Evan. 250).
189.
Notwithstanding, the Eusebian canons have been washed out of Wb, a strong confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 61.
190.
Codex X contains Matt. vi. 6, 10, 11; vii. 1-ix. 20; ix. 34-xi. 24; xii. 9-xvi. 28; xvii. 14-xviii. 25; xix. 22-xxi. 13; 28-xxii. 22; xxiii. 27-xxiv. 2; 23-35; xxv. 1-30; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 12; Mark vi. 47-Luke i. 37; ii. 19-iii. 38; iv. 21-x. 37; xi. 1-xviii. 43; xx. 46-John ii. 22; vii. 1-xiii. 5; xiii. 20-xv. 25; xvi. 23-xxi. 25. The hiatus in John ii. 22-vii. 1 is supplied on paper in a hand of the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61-64; xiv. 72-xv. 4; xv. 33-xvi. 6 are illegible in parts, and xvi. 6-8 have perished. Matt. v. 45 survives only in the commentary.
191.
Codex Z contains Matt. i. 17-ii. 6; ii. 13-20; iv. 4-13; v. 45-vi. 15; vii. 16-viii. 6; x. 40-xi. 18; xii. 43-xiii. 11; 57-xiv. 19; xv. 13-23; xvii. 9-17; 26-xviii. 6; xix. 4-12; 21-28; xx. 7-xxi. 8; 23-30; xxii. 16-25; 37-xxiii. 3; 15-23; xxiv. 15-25; xxv. 1-11; xxvi. 21-29; 62-71.
192.
Not in moveable type, as a critic in the Saturday Review (Aug. 20, 1881) seems to suppose.
193.
Mr. E. H. Hansell prints in red these additional readings thus fresh brought to light in the Appendix to his “Texts of the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament,” Oxford, 1864.
194.
“Barrett's edition shows that of the sixty-four pages of the MS. fifty had originally twenty-one lines to the page, and fourteen had twenty-three.” Dr. Ezra Abbot.
195.
These are Matt. vi. 16-29; vii. 26-viii. 27; xii. 18-xiv. 15; xx. 25-xxi. 19; xxii. 25-xxiii. 13; John vi. 14-viii. 3; xv. 24-xix. 6.
196.
In the St. Petersburg portion are all the rest of St. John, and Matt. i. 1-v. 31; ix. 6-xii. 18; xiv. 15-xx. 25; xxiii. 13-xxviii. 20; or all St. Matthew except 115 verses.
197.
Dr. Gregory, Tisch. Prolegomena, p. 401, quotes Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeogr., Lipsiae, 1879, pp. 159, 344, as assigning a.d. 979 as the date.
198.
The edition was posthumous, and has prefixed to it a touching “Life” of two pages in length, by his brother and pupil, dwelling especially on Rettig's happy change in his later days from rationalism to a higher and spiritual life.
199.
Viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 15. Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited eight times in Δ, about sixteen in G. This personage was Bishop of Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who died a.d. 941; a fact which does not hinder our assigning Cod. Δ to the ninth century, as Rettig states that all notices of him are by a later hand. There is the less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has observed, a circumstance which demonstrates to a certainty the identity of Cod. Δ and G. When he was at Dresden he found in Cod. G twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same hand as several that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to Cod. Δ. “Thus,” he says, “these MSS. once formed one book; and when separated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing attached to the former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles' Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 197).
200.
The portion of this manuscript contained in Paul. G was divided into στίχοι on the same principle by Hug (Introduction, vol. i. p. 283, Wait's translation).
201.
Λ (1) is really an Evangelistary. See Evst. 493.
202.
The subscription to St. Matthew stands in both: ευανγελιον κατα ματθαιον. εγραφη και αντεβληθη εκ των [sic] ἱεροσολυμοις παλαιων αντιγραφων; των εν τω ἁγιω ορει αποκειμενων; εν στιχοις βφιδ; κεφφ. τνε. Very similar subscriptions occur in Codd. 20, 215, 300, 376, 428, 573.
203.
Cod. Ξ contains Luke i. 1-9; 19-23; 27, 28; 30-32; 36-66; 77-ii. 19; 21, 22; 33-39; iii. 5-8; 11-20; iv. 1, 2; 6-20; 32-43; v. 17-36; vi. 21-vii. 6; 11-37; 39-47; viii. 4-21; 25-35; 43-50; ix. 1-28; 32, 33; 35; 41-x. 18; 21-40; xi. 1, 2; 3, 4; 24-30; 31; 32, 33.
204.
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 1. Bd. 4. Hft., 1883, Leipsig. Also see Church Quarterly, Jan. 1884. Prof. Sanday in Studia Biblica, i. p. III. “Would delight the heart of the Dean of Chichester.” Athenaeum, No. 302, Sept. 19, 1885.
205.
Dean. Gywnn of Raphoe is so good as to remind me that among the other proper names enumerated by Wetstein and Semler as written on the reverse of the last leaf of this manuscript, ΘΕΩΔΟΡΟΣ stands by itself in a hand which may be as old as the seventh century. Common as the name is, the fact is interesting and suggestive. For the orthography compare κωλονια Acts xvi. 12 in Cod. E.
206.
It is probable that Mill got this from “Nouvelles Observations sur le Texte et les Versions du Nouveau Testament,” par R. Simon, Paris, 1695.
207.
I see no force in Tischendorf's objection, that if Theodore had brought Cod. E to England, Bede would have used it before he came to write his “Expositio Retractata.”
208.
The names and order of the books of the New Testament in this most curious and venerable list stand thus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1, 2 Corinth., Galat., Ephes., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Colos., Filimon, 1, 2 Pet., James, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Barnabas' Ep., John's Revelation, Act. Apost., Pastor [Hermas], Actus Paul., Revelatio Petri.
209.
Facsimiles of this manuscript are given by Semler in his edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena (1764, Nos. 8, 9). Bianchini's estimate of its age (Evangeliarium Quadruples, tom. ii. fol. 591, 2), as of the seventh century, is certainly too high.
210.
Facsimile of 1 Tim. vi. 19-2 Tim. i. 5 is given in Pal. Soc. Pt. ix (1879), Pl. 127.
211.
So 1 Cor. xii. 2. For ἄφωνα, Vulg. muta, Cod. Aug. ἄμορφα. Rom. viii. 26. For ἀσθενείαις, Vulg. infirmitatem orationis nostrae, Cod. Aug. τῆς δεήσεως, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. Infinitives for Imperatives.
212.
He betrays his nationality by placing “waltet” primâ manu over the first εξουσειαζει, 1 Cor. vii. 4.
213.
In 1 Tim. iv. 2 the Latin h is inserted secundâ manu before υποκρισι.
214.
Boerner's son tells the tale thirty years afterwards with amusing querulousness in his Catalogus Bibl. Boern. Lips. 1754, p. 6, cited by Matthaei Cod. Boern. p. xviii. But there must have been some misunderstanding on both sides, for it appears from a manuscript note in his copy of the Oxford N. T. of 1675 (Trin. Coll. B. xvii. 8), that Bentley considered Cod. G his own property; since after describing Cod. F before the Epistle to the Romans as his own, and as commencing at Rom. iii. 19, he adds “Variae lectiones ex altero nostro MSto, ejusdem veteris exemplaris apographo.”
215.
viz. ημας for υμας, Rom. xvi. 17; μετρους for μερους, Eph. iv. 16; εσκοτισμενος for -μενοι, iv. 18. Add to these στωμα for σωμα, 1 Cor. ix, 27, as cited by Bentley (Ellis, Critica Sacra, p. 36).
216.

By John O'Donovan, Editor of Irish Annals. I have been favoured with corrections by the late Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, Dublin, and recently by the Rev. Robert King of Ballymena, whose version I have ventured to adopt.

Téicht do róim [téicht do róim]: To come to Rome, to come to Rome,
Mór saido becic torbai: Much of trouble, little of profit,
Inrí chondaigi hifoss: The thing thou seekest here,
Manimbera latt ni fog bai: If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not.

Mór báis mór baile: Great folly, great madness,
Mór coll ceille mór mire: Great ruin of sense, great insanity,
Olais airchenn teicht dóecaib: Since thou hast set out for death,
Beith fó étoil maic Maire.: That thou shouldest be in disobedience to the Son of Mary.

The second stanza intimates that as the pilgrimage to Rome is at the risk of life, it is folly not to be at peace with Christ before we set out. The opening words “To come to Rome” imply that the verses were written there by some disappointed pilgrim. Since the handwriting resembles that of the interlinear Latin, Mr. King suggests that both may have been the work of the Scottish Bishop Marcus, or of his nephew Moengal (Rettig, Cod. Δ, Prolegomena, p. xx), who called at St. Gall on their return from Rome, whence Marcus went homewards, leaving his books and Moengal behind him.

217.
Here αου standing to represent au shows that the Greek is derived from the Latin, not vice versâ.
218.
That Cod. G cannot have been taken from Cod. G appears both from matters connected with their respective Latin versions, and because F contains no trace of the vacant lines left in G at the end of Rom. xiv to receive ch. xvi. 25-27. But Dr. Hort (Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 5, pp. 67, 68 note) has come to think that F is a mere transcript of G, the scribe of the former being by far the more ignorant of the two. He meets our argument to the contrary stated above in the text, by alleging that in respect to the division of words F is free from no outrageous portent found in G, while it has to answer for many of its own. But (to take our examples from one open leaf) if the writer of F were so helplessly ignorant as Dr. Hort represents, how could he have set right G's error in 1 Tim. iv. 7, reading και · γραωδεις for G's και αιγραωδεις? Again, if F had before him an undivided manuscript, one can easily account for such monsters as in 1 Tim. iv. 2 και · καυτη ριασ μενων· F (photographed page), but no one could possibly have so written with G's κεκαυτηριασμενων before him. That the two copies were compared together in after times seems evident from the fact stated in p. 179, that Latin renderings from G stand in eighty-six places above the Greek of F. It was at the same time perhaps that some ill-divided words in F were corrected by means of a loop from the Greek of G: e.g. 2 Cor. i. 3 οικτιρμων G, οικ [symbol] τιρμων F; ii. 14 θριαμβευοντι G, θριαμ [symbol] βεὐοντι F; iv. 9 ενκαταλιμπαννομενοι G, εν · καταλιμπαν [symbol] νομενοι F; ver. 15 πλεονασασα G, πλεονα [symbol] σασα F. 'Mr. Hort's view, that F was copied directly from G' (writes Bishop Lightfoot very gently, Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 6, p. 210, note), “deserves consideration, and may prove true, though his arguments do not seem quite conclusive.” Lightfoot elsewhere pronounces that “the divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts” seem unfavourable to Dr. Hort's hypothesis (Ep. to Coloss. p. 355, note 2). But the latter still adheres to it with characteristic firmness: “we believe F to be as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G [as E is of D]; if not, it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar” (Introd. p. 150). Yet why “inferior”?
219.
Epistularum Paulinarum codd. Gr. et Lat. scriptas Augiensem Boernerianum Claromontanum examinavit, &c. Petrus Corssen, H. Fienche Kiliensis, 1889.
220.
See p. 63, note 1.
221.
Scholz describes Codd. 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as also written in red ink. See too Evan. 254.
222.
Dr. C. R. Gregory has read a few words more of this MS. Griesbach and Scholz number the London part as 64, the Hamburg part as 53.
223.
Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. vol. ii. p. 166) says that in the Harleian fragment “Iota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel postscribitur, plerumque omittitur,” overlooking the second ascript. Scrivener repeats this statement about ι subscript (Cod. Augiens. Introd. p. lxxii), believing he had verified it: but Tischendorf cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting Harl. 5613 for the purpose. Tregelles too says, “I have not seen a subscribed iota in any uncial document” (Printed Text, p. 158, note).
224.
Tregelles, wishing to reserve the letter B for the great Codex Vaticanus 1209, called this copy first L (N. T. Part iv. p. iii), and afterwards Q (N. T. Part vi. p. i). Surely Mr. Vansittart was right (Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 41) in protesting against a change so needless and inconvenient; nor has Tischendorf adopted it in his eighth edition of the N. T.
225.
Very many corrections have been made in the following Catalogue as well from investigations of my own as from information kindly furnished to me by Mr. H. Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge, by Professor Hort, by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, late Fellow of Trinity College there [d. 1882], by Mr. W. Kelly, and especially by Dean Burgon, to whom the present edition is more deeply indebted than it would be possible to acknowledge in detail. His series of Letters addressed to me in the Guardian newspaper (1873) contains but a part of the help he has afforded towards the preparation of this and the second edition. Ed. iii.
226.
For the Authorities chiefly consulted in the list of Cursive Manuscripts given in this edition, see Appendix A to this volume; and for a list of Facsimiles, see Appendix B.
227.
Stephen's margin cites ζ´ eighty-four times in the Gospels, usually in company with several others, but alone in Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15; Luke i. 37. Since Evan. 18 or Reg. 47 contains the whole N. T., and Stephen cites ζ´ in the Acts once (ch. xvii. 5), in the Catholic Epistles seven times, in the Pauline twenty-seven, in the Apocalypse never; Reg. 47 has been suggested to have been Stephen's ζ´, rather than Cod. 8 or Reg. 49. On testing the two with Steph. ζ´ in eight places, Mr. Vansittart found that they both agreed with it in five (Matt. xx. 12; Mark vi. 20; x. 52; Luke vi. 37; John vi. 58), but that in the remaining three (Mark xii. 31; Luke i. 37; John x. 32) Reg. 49 agreed with ζ´, while Reg. 47 did not.
228.
Stephen includes his θ᾽ among the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St. Louis would have brought or sent it to France. Mr. Vansittart tested Cod. 38 in Matt. xxvi. 45; Luke viii. 18; xix. 26; James v. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 18, and found it agree in all with Stephen's θ᾽. What of ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5? In Luke viii. 18 that most careless editor misprints β᾽ when he means θ᾽. See above, p. 124, note 3.
229.
“Textus ipse distinctus est in clausulas majores, seu Paragraphos; ad initium notatos singulos literâ majusculâ miniatâ,” Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 1445). Yet since Burgon testifies that its text “is not broken up into Paragraphs after all,” Mill can only intend to designate in a roundabout way the presence of the larger chapters (p. 55) with their appropriate capitals.
230.
On the death of Dr. John Moore, Bishop of Ely (whose honesty as a book-collector is impeached, on no fair grounds, by Tew in Bridge's “Northamptonshire,” vol. ii. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at Cambridge, amounting to 30,000 volumes, in acknowledgement of the attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked. See “Cap and Gown,” p. 15.
231.
“We often hear,” said a witty and most reverend Irish Prelate, “that the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a gloss; and any one that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.” It was a little bold in Mr. Charles Forster (“A New Plea,” &c., pp. 119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr. Adam Clarke for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather since almost in the same breath, he stigmatizes the Wesleyan minister for a “self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr. Clarke tells us fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion (Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, Manchester, 1805, pp. 8-10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails authority, quum res ipsa per se clamat? The facsimile made for Dr. Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne's Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt about the date of Codex Montfortianus.
232.
This Froy or Roy is believed by Mr. Rendel Harris (Origin of Cod. Leic., p. 48) to be the forger of Cod. 61.
233.
Another facsimile (Luke xxi. 36-John viii. 6) is given by Abbott in his “Collation of Four Important Manuscripts” (see Cod. 13). In all four the pericope adulterae follows Luke xxi. 38.
234.
See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 80-83; Matthaei's uncials BH and Birch's 178 of the Gospels, described below. So B.-C. ii. 13, to be described hereafter, reads in St. Matthew only ἀρχ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Compare also Codd. 211, 261, 357, and B.-C. iii. 5 in SS. Matthew and Mark.
235.
Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury [1657-1737] to Christ Church (of which he had been a Canon), no less than twenty-eight contain portions of the Greek Testament. They are all described in this list from a comparison of Dean Gaisford's MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to which Bp. Jacobson's kindness gave me access in 1861. Corrected by E. M., to whom similar kindness has been shown. See also “Account of some MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford,” by the Rev. Charles H. Hoole, Student.
236.
These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made by the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders, through Cardinal Hugo de St. Caro (see above, p. 69), and adopted by their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. vol. i. p. 85). Canon Westcott calls attention to a Correctorium in the British Museum, King's Library, 1 A. viii.
237.
On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (ἥδε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου | τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ἀε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110, 305.
238.
Noted “Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione ejus Constantinopolitanâ collect. Anno Domini 1676.” See Evan. 68; Evst. 3.
239.
Cod. 101 better suits Bengel's description of Uffen. 3 than 97: they are written on different materials, and the description of their respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same. Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to 101.
240.
Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi], 4to, 2 vols., on parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been examined by Wetstein, Griesbach, and by G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, 8. It is now, however, admitted by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephen, and as such has no independent authority.
241.

(Wetstein.) The Velesian readings. The Jesuit de la Cerda in his “Adversaria Sacra,” cap. xci (Lyons, 1626), a collection of various readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a Greek Testament (which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R. Stephen's of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the king's library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana's account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek. These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical authorities in Walton's Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own better judgement) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however (N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 59-61), and after him Michaelis and Bp. Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have been collected by Velez from Latin manuscripts, and by him translated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian readings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the possibility of doubt:

(For each of these, there is the reference, the Greek Text, the Vulgate Text, the Vulgate various reading, and the Velesian reading.)

Mark viii. 38; ἐπαισχυνθῇ; confusus fuerit; confessus fuerit; ὁμολογήσῃ;
Heb. xii. 18; κεκαυμένῳ; accensibilem; accessibilem; προσίτῳ;
——xiii. 2; ἔλαθον; latuerunt; placuerunt; ἤρεσαν;
James v. 6; κατεδικάσατε; addixistis; adduxistis; ἠγάγετε;
Apoc. xix. 6; ὄχλου; turbae; tubae; σάλπιγγος;
——xxi. 12; ἀγγέλους; angelos; angelos; γωνίας.

242.
(Wetstein.) The Barberini readings must also be banished from our list of critical authorities, though for a different reason. The collection of various readings from twenty-two manuscripts (ten of the Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the Apocalypse), seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library at Rome, was made about 1625, and first published in 1673 by Peter Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at the end of a catena of St. Mark. He alleged that the collations were made by John M. Caryophilus [d. 1635], a Cretan, while preparing an edition of the Greek Testament, under the patronage of Paul V [d. 1621] and Urban VIII [d. 1644]. As the Barberini readings often favour the Latin version, they fell into the same suspicion as the Velesian: Wetstein especially (N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 61, 62), after pressing against them some objections more ingenious than solid, declares “lis haec non aliter quam ipsis libris Romae inventis et productis, quod nunquam credo fiet, solvi potest.” The very papers Wetstein thus called for were discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209) more than thirty years later, and besides them Caryophilus' petition for the loan of six manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS, 127, 129, 141, 144), which he doubtless obtained and used. The good faith of the collator being thus happily vindicated, we have only to identify his eleven [Cod. 141 of the Gospels being also Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40. Another of his manuscripts was Act. 73, Paul. 80.] remaining codices, most of them probably being in that very Library, and may then dismiss the Barberini readings as having done their work, and been fairly superseded.
243.
In Codd. 115 and 202 Eus. is usually, in Codd. 116, 117, 417, 422, and B. M. Addit. 15,581 but rarely, written under Am.: these copies therefore were probably never quite finished. See p. 62, and note 1.
244.
Meerman's other manuscript of the N. T., sold at his sale in 1824, is No. 562.
245.
A collection presented to Urban VIII (1623-44) by Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine, titular king of Bohemia.
246.
Or rather a.d. 1274. According to Engelbreth the letters stand ψτψπβ, which can only mean a.m. 6782 (see p. 42, note 2).
247.
Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer's description, “Evangeliis et Actis λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus notae.”
248.
Others F.
249.
By double syn. Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in Cod. 232 both syn. and men.
250.
Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symb. Crit. i. pp. 247-304) from the margin of a copy of Mill's Greek Testament in the Bodleian, in his own or Thomas Hearne's handwriting, were placed here, but are omitted. Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shown that they were derived from Evan. 440.
251.
Holmes, Praefatio ad Pentateuchum, describes his Cod. 32 as “e Codicibus Eugenii, olim Archiepiscopi Slabinii et Chersonis.” Nicephorus also is named by Holmes as the editor of a Catena on the Octateuch and the four books of Kings from the Constantinopolitan manuscripts (Leipzig, 1772-3), and is described as “primo Hieromonachus, et postea Archiepiscopus Slabiniensis et Chersonensis, sedem Astracani habens” (ubi supra, cap. iv).
252.
Written in three several and minute hands (Hort):—A for the Gospels, the Epistle of Pilate and its Answer, and a treatise on the genealogy of the Virgin; B for the Apocalypse and a Synaxarion; C the Acts, Cath. Paul. (Hebrews last), and Lives of the Apostles, followed on the same page by the Psalter by B, so that Apoc. and syn. probably stood last.
253.
This manuscript appears to be the only Greek witness for the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac variation Matt. i. 16 ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθῆσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν ιν τὸν λεγόμενον χν. But then it was written in Italy, as Ceriani judges.
254.
The asper or asprum was a mediaeval Greek silver coin (derived from ἄσπρος, albus); we may infer its value from a passage cited by Ducange from Vincentius Bellovac. xxx. 75 “quindecim drachmas seu asperos.”
255.

450. Great Gr. Monastery at Jerusalem 1 [July 1, 1043], 8vo, syn., Eus. t., first three Gospels with an Arabic version, neatly written by a reader, Euphemius. This appears to be Coxe's 6, 4to, St. Luke only.

451. Jerusalem 2 [xii], 8vo.

452. Jerusalem 3 [xiv], 8vo.

453. Jerusalem 4 [xiv], 8vo.

454. Jerusalem 5 [xiv], 8vo.

455. Jerusalem 6 [xiv], 4to, with a commentary.

456. Jerusalem 7 [xiii], 4to, St. Matthew with a commentary, neatly written.

Perhaps Coxe's 43 [xi], in gold uncial letters.

457. St. Saba 2 [xiii], 4to, syn., men., is Act. 186, Paul. 234.

458. St. Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indiction 15], 16mo.

459. St. Saba 7 [xii], 8vo.

460. St. Saba 8 [xii], 8vo.

461. See Evan. 481.

462. St. Saba 10 [xiv], 4to, is also Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86.

463. St. Saba 11 [xiv], 4to, chart.

464. St. Saba 12 [xi], 4to.

465. St. Saba 19 [xiii], 8vo.

466. St. Saba 20 [xiii], 8vo, is Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 862 or 89. Also “from a monastery in the island of Patmos.”

467. [xi], 4to.

468. [xii], 8vo, with a commentary.

469. [xiv], 4to.

256.
The Psalter 5pe (Petrop. ix. 1) [994], containing the hymns, Luke i. 46-55; 68-79; ii. 29-32, is like our Evan. 612, which see.
257.
In addition to Evann. 73, 74, Gaisford in 1837 catalogued, and Scrivener in 1861 inspected, these fourteen copies of the Gospels in the collection of Archbishop Wake, now at Christ Church, Oxford. They were brought from Constantinople about 1731, and have now been described in the Rev. G. W. Kitchin's Catalogue of the Manuscripts in Christ Church Library (4to, 1867).
258.
The letter χ is quite illegible, but the Indiction 9 belongs only to a.d. 831, 1131, 1431, while the style of the manuscript leaves no doubt which to choose.
259.
Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey (Evan. 483) states on the fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 12, 25, 28, 34 in 1749. Caspar Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 and 34 for his relative's great edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4to Greek Testament printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious collation (preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake manuscripts with Wetstein's N. T. of 1711, having this title prefixed to them, “Hae Variae lectiones ex MSS. notatae sunt manu et opera Johannis Walkeri, A. 1732.” John Walker, most of whose labours seem never yet to have been used, although they were known to Berriman in 1741 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, pp. 102-4), was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of his critical materials accumulated for the illustrious Bentley are deposited. Walker d. 1741, Archdeacon of Hereford, after Bentley's will, six months before him. The codd. in Trinity College were bought from Bentley's heirs (not from Richard Bentley) when Wordsworth was Master (1820-41), and so were not in Bentley's hands when Walker died. Old Latin Biblical Texts, xxiv-vi. Of his eight codices, we find on investigation that Walker's C is Wake 26; Walker's 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to Wetstein, comprise Codd. 73, 74, described above); Walker's B is Wake 21; Walker's D is Wake 24, both of Gospels; Walker's E is Wake 18, his H is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker's q is Wake 12, of which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apocalypse (Cod. 26); Walker's W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epistles, or Scholz's Act. 191, Paul. 245.
260.
Bentley specifies “argumenta inedita Cosmae Indicopleustae in 4 Evangelia, et versus iambici fortasse Jacobi Calligraphi: argumenta incerti ad Actus: prologus ineditus et argumenta Oecumenii ad Epistolas omnes.”
261.
Matt. iv. 1-vii. 6; xx. 21-xxi. 12; Luke iv. 29-v. 1; 17-33; xvi. 24-xvii. 13; xx. 19-41; John vi. 51-viii. 2; xii. 20-40; xiv. 27-xv. 13; xvii. 6-xviii. 2; 37-xix. 14.
262.
In Mr. Coxe's “Report to Her Majesty's Government,” we find an account (which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of several copies of the Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium, all dated [xii], still remaining in this Prelate's Library.
263.
For Add. 11,837, which is mscr, see Evan. *201.
264.
Belsheim (Cod. Aureus, Proleg. p. xvii and note 3) gives a short life of that noble Swede, John Gabriel Sparvenfeldt [1655-1727], who was sent over Europe by his master, Charles XI, to procure manuscripts for the Royal Library, and bought the Latin Codex Aureus at Madrid in 1690.
265.
Gregory considers this to be (not a duplicate but) the same as Cod. 634.
266.
For the other Evann. at Patmos, see No. 1160, &c.
267.
For all these MSS. (Evann. 1148, 1149, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1265-1268, 1274-1279), see Ἱεροσολομιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, κ.τ.λ., ὑπὸ Α. Παπαδοπούλου Π. Κεραμέως. Τόμος Πρῶτος. Ἐν Πετρουπόλει, 1891.
268.
Mr. Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. xxviii, xxix) represents, among facts which I am better able to verify, that Act. and Epp. 25, 26, and Epp. 15, were collated by Wetstein, and his labours preserved at Trin. Coll. Cambridge (B. xvii. 10, 11). The manuscripts he indicates so ambiguously must be Paul. 25, 26, and Act. 15, since Wetstein is not known to have worked at Act. 25, 26, or Paul. 15.
269.
Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of the Sinai MS. (little anticipating worthier claimants for that appellation), reserving 5 for Harl. 5777 or Evan. 446.
270.
See under 98.
271.
Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it is the only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the celebrated text 1 John v. 7, 8, whose authenticity will be discussed in Vol. II. Ch. XII. A facsimile of the passage in question was traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess, and published by Horne in several editions of his “Introduction,” as also by Tregelles (Horne, vol. iv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all faithful, this is as rudely and indistinctly written as any manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between the Latin column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on the right, has been ascertained by Mr. B. H. Alford (who examined the codex at Tregelles' request) to be merely a consequence of the accidental shifting of the tracing paper, too servilely copied by the engraver.
272.
Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects but few of his gross errors in these Catalogues: but a.m. 6902, which he cites from the manuscript, is a.d. 1394.
273.

Here again we banish to the notes Scholz's list from Cod. 182 to Cod. 189, for the reasons stated after Evan. 449.

182. (Paul. 243.) Library of St. John's monastery at Patmos [xii], 8vo, also another [xiii] 8vo.

183. (Paul. 231.) Library of the Great Greek monastery at Jerusalem 8 [xiv], 8vo. This must be Coxe's No. 7 [x], 4to, beginning Acts xii. 6.

184. (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85.) Jerusalem 9 [xiii], 4to, with a commentary. This is evidently Coxe's No. 15, though he dates it at the end of [x].

185. (Paul. 233.) St. Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xi], 12mo.

186. (Evan. 457.)

187. (Evan. 462.)

188. (Paul. 236.) St. Saba 15 [xii], 4to.

189. (Evan. 466.)

274.
From the monastery of Grotta Ferrata, near Tusculum, “Ubi degunt ab antiquo tempore monachi, ordinis S. Basilii Magni, ritum Italo-Graecum observantes,” Holmes. Praef. ad Pentateuch. on his Cod. 128, which came to the Vatican from the same place. It is the traditional Villa Luculli.
275.
Birch shows the connexion of Caryophilus with this important copy (which much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from James v. 5, and especially from 3 John 5 μισθόν for πιστόν, a lectio singularis. In this codex, as in the others cited, Heb. stands before 1 Tim.
276.
The gold ducat coined for the Military Order of St. John at Rhodes (see Ducange) was worth 9s. 6d. English money.
277.
Here again we set Scholz's codices in a note, substituting others in their room. Scholz's run, 231. (Act. 183.) 232. (Act. 184.) 233. (Act. 185.) 234. (Evan. 457.) 235. (Evan. 462.) 236. (Act. 188.) 237. (Evan. 466.) 243. (Act. 182), two separate codices.
278.
Mr. B. W. Newton superintended the publication of Tregelles' last part of his Greek New Testament under circumstances which disarm criticism, but Tregelles could hardly have meant that in the Apocalypse “much of Cod. 14 (Leicestrensis) has been supplied by a later hand from the Codex Montfortianus, Apoc. 92” (Introductory Notice, p. 1). The original hand remains unchanged in the Leicester copy, even on the last torn leaf containing portions of Apoc. xix, but the converse supposition is very maintainable, though not quite certain, that the Apocalypse in Cod. 92 was transcribed from Cod. 14.
279.
Gregory has substituted this for Scholz's 23, which he finds does not contain Apoc. Whatever readings he cites under these three numbers, are simply copied from Wetstein (Kelly's “Revelation,” Introd. p. xi, note). Dr. Gregory has seen all the four.
280.
After this again we withdraw Scholz's copies, as virtually included in Coxe's, putting others in their room. They are 85. (Act. 184.) 86. (Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischendorf). 862 of Scholz, being 89 of Tischendorf (Evan. 466).
281.
We cannot identify 109, Bentley's R (Regis Galliae, 1872): cf. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Intr. p. xxix.
282.
In the sixth lesson for the Holy Passions the prefatory clause to Mark xv. 16 is founded on an obvious misconception: Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ οἱ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον τὸν ϊν εἰς τὴν ἀυλὴν τοῦ καϊάφα, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον. We remember no similar instance of error.
283.
Laud. Gr. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an Evangelistarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the Septuagint read in Lent and the Holy Week, such as we described above. It has red musical notes, and seems once to have borne the date a.d. 1028. It is Dean Holmes' No. 61 (Praef. ad Pentateuch).
284.

As with the MSS. of the Gospels, and for the reasons assigned above, we remove to the foot of the page, and do not reckon in our numbering, the twenty-one copies seen by Scholz in Eastern Libraries.

158. Library of the Great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem, No. 10 [xiv], fol.

159. “Biblioth. monasterii virginum τῆς μεγάλης παναγίας a S. Melana erect.” [xiii], fol., very neat (“non sec. viii ut monachi putant,” Scholz).

160. (Apost. 33.) St. Saba 4, written there by one Antony [xiv], 8vo.

161. St. Saba 5 [xv], 8vo, chart.

162. St. Saba 6 [xv], 16mo, chart.

163. St. Saba 13 [xiii], 4to, chart., adapted (as also those that follow) to the use of Palestine.

164. St. Saba [xiv], 4to.

165. St. Saba 17 [xv], 4to, chart.

166. St. Saba 21 [xiii], fol.

167. St. Saba 22 [xiv], fol.

168. St. Saba 23 [xiii], fol.

169. St. Saba 24 [xiii], fol.

170. St. Saba 25 [xiii], fol.

171. (Apost. 52.) St. Saba (unnumbered) [written July, 1059, in the monastery of Θεοτόκος, by Sergius, a monk of Olympus in Bithynia], 8vo.

[+]172. Library of St. John's monastery at Patmos [“iv” Scholz, obviously a misprint], fol.

[+]173. Patmos [ix], 4to.

[+]174. Patm. [x], 4to.

[+]175. Patm. [x], 4to.

176. Patm. [xii], 4to.

177. Patm. [xiii], 4to.

178. Patm. [xiv], 4to, in the same Library, but not numbered.

Some of these MSS. have been removed to Europe since Scholz made his reckoning, e.g. Parham No. 20 (Evst. 236).

285.
At the end in small gold uncials the following very curious colophon was deciphered by Dean Burgon and the learned sub-librarian Signor Veludo jointly: Μηνὶ μαΐω Ἰνδ. ΙΔ. ἔτους ϛφνδ᾽. προσηνέχθη παρὰ βασιλείου μοναχοῦ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τῆς κοιμήσεως τῆς θκου εἰς τὴν ἀυτὴν μονὴν βιβλία τέσσαρα; τὸ ἀυτὸεὐαγγέλιον, ἀπόστολος, προφητεία, καὶ ἀναγνοστικόν, ὁ βίος τοῦ ἁγίου. καὶ ἐστύχηται δίδωσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῆς προσενέξαιως ἑνὶ ἑκάστω χρόνω ἀπὸ τοῦ δοχείου τῆς αὐτῆς μονῆς ὑπὲρ μνήμης αὐτ νόμισμα ἒν ἥμισον, μέχ[ρι γὰρ τού] τὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν [συ]νίσταται; περιφυλάττεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ἁγία μονὴ αὕτη; ἐν γὰρ τῶ τυπικῶ τῆς μονῆς περὶ τοῦ κατίδους (sic) τῶν ἀυτῆς βιβλίων, καὶ περὶ τῆς διανομῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἡμίσου νομίσματος σαφέστερον διερμηνεύει.
286.
Thus 222, with only two other Evangelistaria (6, 13) and Evan. 59 by the first hand, supports Cod. א and Eusebius in the significant omission of υἱοῦ βαραχίον, Matt. xxiii. 35.
287.
[+]Evan. Td and Te and Λ (1) should also properly be classed as Lectionaries. Apost. 15, and perhaps Apost. 24, also contains Lessons from the Gospels. The two copies of the Gospels, Lowes formerly Askew, membr. 4to, mentioned by Scholz (N. T., vol. i. p. cxix), and stated by Marsh on Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 662, to have been bought at Askew's sale by Mr. Lowes, the bookseller, are shown by the sale catalogue to have Evangelistaria. They have not yet been traced. (Ed. 3.)
288.
In 1721. See Monk's “Life of Bentley,” vol. ii. p. 149. This is Bentley's O, John Walker's collation of which is preserved at Trin. Coll. (B. xvii. 34). Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introd. pp. xxix, xxx.
289.
As in our preceding lists, we remove to this foot-note Scholz's six copies seen at St. Saba, and occupy their numbers by other manuscripts. They are Apost. 49. St. Saba 16 [xiv], 4to, chart. 50. St. Saba 18 [xv], 8vo. 51. St. Saba 26 [xiv], fol. 52. (Evst. 171.) 53. (Evst. 160.) 54. St. Saba (unnumbered) [xiii], 4to.
290.
An independent mode of reckoning the commencement of the indiction was followed in Egypt under the later Roman Empire. The indiction there began normally in the latter half of the month Pauni, which corresponds to about the middle of June; but the actual day of commencement appears to have been variable and to have depended upon the exact period of the rising of the Nile.—“Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British Museum,” pp. 197, 198.
291.
So Scholz's index, and we may suppose correctly, but in his Catalogue of Evangelistaria he numbers it 1256.