1. See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete’s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, just published.
2. They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August.
3. Mary’s Hymn, Luke i. 46-55; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.
4. “Nec eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis.”
5. At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens and even hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London. To this day the word ἀκαθάρτητος is printed in their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though there is no such word in the Greek language as ἀκαθάρτης, meaning uncleanness. In the concluding verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future ἀφαιρήσει for ἀφελεῖ. We find also constructions like οὐκ ἔστι, καίπερ ἐστίν, in c. xvii. 8, where, however, the accentuation ἐστίν makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed ἔστιν. Every college lad knows that καίπερ is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at once that καὶ πάρεστι is the correct reading. [Cf. Mark xv. 6, where the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between ὃν παρῃτοῦντο and ὅνπερ ᾒτοῦντο (ΟΝΠΑΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has adopted the reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known MS. are to be found, e.g. in 1 Pet. ii. 6 (καὶ περιέχει) and in 2 Cor. i. 6. Luther, who used Erasmus’s second edition of 1519, followed him in saying of the Beast, “that is not although it is.” This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first impression of the Revised Version of Luther’s Bible issued by the Conference of German Evangelical Churches, and only removed in their last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc. xvii. 8 was copied into the English Authorised Version of 1611 (“is not and yet is”) but was corrected by the Revisers of 1884 (“is not and shall come”).
6. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
7. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
8. Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in Schaff’s Companion.
9. Copies of the Parisian Polyglot now cost about £6.
10. Facsimile in Schaffs’s Companion.
11. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
12. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
13. Facsimile of the second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in Schaff’s Companion.
14. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
15. Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in Schaff’s Companion.
16. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.
17. Van Ess’s edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of these gives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and Griesbach. But the other omits the names together with the Notanda on the back of the title-page, so that the reader is left in the dark as to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., in the margin. Most copies omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope’s sanction of the editions of Erasmus and Ximenes.
18. Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, i. 652; Einleitung, i. 153.
19. From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 29 (1887), 453.
20. The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s “Tabellen zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht über die Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897. Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).
23. See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, Göttinger gelehrte Nachrichten, 1898, i. 98-112.
24. TiGr., pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 47.
25. To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium. Εὐαγγελιστάριον means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1900, p. 448, and now Gregory, Textkritik, i. p. 334 f.)
26. Nat. Hist., xiii. 11.
27. Egitto, 2nd ed., p. 125.
28. Vide Th. Mommsen, Das Diokletianische Edikt über die Warenpreise (Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in Megalopolis, see W. Loring, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1890, 299; also, Revue Archéologique, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.
29. Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of litera and διφθέρα, see M. Bréal, Rev. des Et. grecques, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and Rev. Crit., 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the διφθεράλοιφος.
30. Cf. Codex D, Mark i. 6.
31. Cf. Victor Schultze, Rolle und Codex, in the Greifswalder Studien, Gütersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.
32. Vide C. R. Gregory, Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs, Académie des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff.
33. E.g. in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts.
34. Vide G. Ebers, Kaiser Hadrian: also The Writing Material of Antiquity, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de Montfaucon, Dissertation sur la plante appelée Papyrus, sur le papier d’Égypte, etc. Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see The Papyrus in Europe, in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, pa being the article in Egyptian; see his Mitteilungen, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing the y long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is—papýrus, not pápyrus. Cf. Juvenal, iv. 24; vii. 101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, Met. xv. 753; Trist. iii. 10, 27.
35. See U. Wilcken, Recto oder Verso, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.
36. Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must take καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγισμένον, according to Grotius and Zahn. On ὀπισθόγραφον, cf. Lucian, Vitarum Auctio, 9; Pliny, 3, 5; a tergo Juvenal, 1, 6; in aversa charta, Martial, 8, 22.
37. Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.
38. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 26-54.
39. Hiller von Gaertringen, Berl. Sitz.-Ber., 21st July 1898.
40. See Wilcken, Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland. Heft lxxxvi. p. 234; also the Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 26.
41. Cf. Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “postea publica monumenta plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.”
42. Jüdisches Literaturblatt, 1889, 10.
43. Cf. the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in 1844:—
44. See Nestle, Bengel, p. 105.
45. Zeitschrift für das Humanistische Gymnasium, 1896, p. 27.
46. O. Hoffmann, Griechische Dialekte, i. 107.
47. Probably pens of the first quality—μονογόνατοι.
48. Harris, Last Words of Baruch, vi. 17, p. 56.
49. Vide Harnack, T. und U., ii. 5, p. 68.
50. Socin, Arabic Grammar, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.
51. ZdmG., xliii. 547.
52. Konstantin Oikonomos, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, Bk. iv. p. 975.
53. Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.
54. Vide Harnack in the ThLz., 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.
55. Ed. Feige, p. 53.
56. Divin. Lect., c. xv.
57. Sächs. Sitz.-Ber. (1889), xi. 4, 369.
58. Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that τινὲς δι’ αἰσχροκέρδειαν βιβλίων τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐμπορευόμενοι ἀπήλειφον, and he requests σημείωσαι ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς βιβλιοκαπήλους τοὺς ἀπαλείφοντας τῶν θείων γραφῶν.
59. On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, Canon, c. ii. p. 426; Bible in the Church, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been εὐμετακόμιστα, and moreover that Constantine speaks of σωμάτια, which does not mean codices but something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns in which it was written. “The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.” According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 118, n. 2.
60. For the order of the books in א, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, Appendix B, “Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, א, D, Amiat.)”; Hist. of the Canon, Appendix D, “Catalogues of Books of the Bible during the first eight Centuries.”
61. Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different conjecture in the Literarisches Centralblatt, 1897, n. 49
62. Vide Wordsworth and White, Epilogus, p. 737, De Sectionibus Ammonianis in Evangeliis.
63. Ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου· ὅπερ ἀντίγραφον πρὸς τῷ τέλει ὑποσημείωσίς τις ἰδιόχειρος αὐτοῦ ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη πρὸς τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ Ὠριγένους· Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν· Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα.
64. This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes Κλήμεντος Ἐπιστολαὶ δύο among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, Canon, Appendix D. iii. a.
65. On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sections respectively, see Kenyon in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 149.
66. For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, Canon, App. D. xiv., p. 554; Bible in the Church, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen’s Analecta, pp. 144 ff.; Burgess, Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the Syriac, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the Nachrichten mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form of the Letter.
67. E.g. ΑΠΕϹΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 122b, 4.
68. An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from 1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.
69. See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under Λ. This minuscule seems to be omitted from Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185.
70.
72. Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν ... ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.
73. Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.
74. See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.
75. Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, p. 2 f.
76. Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 40.
77. See Blass’s Praefatio to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897), and compare Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 144; Hoskier, above, p. 5; below, p. 211.
78. Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. Einleitung, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26.
79. On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49evl (a Lectionary of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the Mother of God τοῦ βροντοχίου by Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Lacedæmon, in 1312) the lection εἰς τὰς ἔξω ἐκκλησίας ended with this verse (15) and the words attached to it, “And so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words ἐν ὑπομονῇ (v. 15).
80. On the “Livre d’Évangiles réputé avoir appartenu à S. Jean Chrysostome,” cf. Ch. Graux, in the Revue de Philologie, Avril 1887.
81. Cf. Eusebius, Demons. Evan., iii. 7, 15, βάρβαροι καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφὰς πατρίοις χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ φωνῇ μετελάμβανον. Zahn, GK. i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii. 9.
82. The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year 110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings, Bible Dictionary, ii. p. 697.
84. The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf, 1708-9.
85. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and Aquila. Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898; Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII.). See Notice in the Lit. Cbl., 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.
86. Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the year 312 B.C.
87. Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.
88. I. H. Hall, Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version, 1883.
89. The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.
90. In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as Syrp(osterior) or as Syrwhit(e). It would be better to use the symbol Syrpo(lycarp) for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Syrtho(mas) for Thomas of Harkel’s recension of 616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows:—Syra is the Curetonian; Syrb is the Peshitto; Syrc is the Harklean, of which again Syrct is the text, Syrcm the margin, Syrc* sub asterisco; Syrd is the Jerusalem Syriac; while Syrbodl is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian (Tischendorf’s Syrbodl) by Syr2, and the Harklean by Syr3; for the Gospels he would employ Syrc, Syrs, Syrh; Syr1, therefore, is the Peshitto.
91. Land, in the Anecdota Syriaca, iv., 1875; Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, 1890; Gwilliam, in the Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, vi.
92. See F. Bulié, Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus? in the Festschrift für Otto Benndorf. Vienna, 1898. Also La patrie de S. Jerome in Analecta Bollandiana, xviii. 3.
93. Einleitung, ii. 195.
94. Epilogus ad Evangelia, p. 656.
95. No. 71; 164 in Jerome’s letters.
96. No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).
97. Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, De vi quam antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV. habent (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobschütz, ThLz., 1897, 135.