,introduction to the textual criticism of the ,greek ,new ,testament ,,theological ,,translation ,,library ,,vol4 ,,xiii4 ,,nestle',s ,,introduction ,,to ,,the ,,textual ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,greek ,,new ,,testament ,,introduction ,,to ,,the ,,textual ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,greek ,,new ,,testament ,,by ,,eberhard ,,nestle1 ,,ph4 ,,and ,,th4,d4 ,,maulbronn ,,translated ,,from ,,the ,,second ,,edition 7,with ,corrections and ,additions by the ,author7 ,,by ,,william ,,edie1 ,b4,d4 ,,king ,,edward ,,and ,,edited ,,with ,a ,,preface ,,by ,,allan ,,menzies1 ,d4,d4 ,,professor ,,of ,,divinity ,,and ,,biblical ,,criticism ,,in ,,the ,,university ,,of ,,st4 ,,andrews ,,williams ,,and ,,norgate #ad ,,henrietta ,,street1 ,,covent ,,garden1 ,,london #bj ,,south ,,frederick ,,street1 ,,edinburgh ,,and #g ,,broad ,,street1 ,,oxford ,,new ,,york3 ,g4 ,p4 ,,putnam',s ,,sons #aija ,,printed ,,by ,,neill ,,and ,,company ,,limited ,,bellevue1 ,,edinburgh ,,editor',s ,,preface4 ,professor ,eberhard ,nestle of ,maulbronn is one of the distinguished company of philologists who have in recent years directed their attention to the study of the ,new ,testament4 ,he is by no means a stranger in this country4 ,readers of the ,expositor and the ,expository ,times are familiar with his name1 and are accustomed to receive from him original and independent discussions of ,new ,testament textual problems4 ,he is consulted by scholars both in this country and on the ,continent on questions of ,aramaic and ,syriac scholarship1 and has contributed1 in the way of criticism and careful proof reading1 to many important publications of ,english scholars1 such as ,professor ,swete's edition of the ,septuagint1#a the publications of ,mrs4 ,lewis and ,mrs4 ,gibson 7,the ,sinaitic ,palimpsest1 etc471 and the ,gospel of the ,twelve ,apostles recently published by ,professor ,rendel ,harris4 ,the readers of this volume may be glad to know a little more of its author4 ,a native of ,wrttemberg1 he was educated at the ,gymnasium of ,stuttgart and then at the ,theological ,seminary of ,blaubeuren1 the latter being one of the four old cloister schools of ,wrttemberg1 in which1 far from the distractions of large towns1 a thorough philological training is provided for the future clergy of that kingdom4 ,it was as 8,praeceptor0 of one of these schools that ,albrecht ,bengel1 that great textual critic and unaffectedly pious man1 spent the best part of his life1 and in his ,marginalien und ,materialien ,dr4 ,nestle gives an interesting account of ,bengel as a scholar1 and describes the studies of the school over which he presided4 ,our author studied divinity and oriental languages at the ,universities of ,tbingen and ,leipzig1 and considers it one of the happy dispensations of his life that he was permitted to live in ,england for two years1 working in the ,british ,museum and preaching to ,german congregations in ,london4 ,he was then ,repetent or ,tutor at the ,theological ,seminary of ,tbingen1 and1 after a short period of work as a preacher1 was called to the ,gymnasium of ,ulm to teach ,greek1 ,german1 ,hebrew1 and ,religion4 ,for two years he filled the vacant professorship of ,semitic languages at the ,university of ,tbingen1 but1 not being appointed to the chair1 he returned to ,ulm4 ,from there he moved to the ,seminary at ,maulbronn1 which offered better opportunities for combined philological and theological studies4 ,dr4 ,nestle's principal works are3--,die israelitischen ,eigennamen nach ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen ,bedeutung 7,proper ,names in ,israel3 their significance for the history of religion71 the ,prize ,essay of the ,leiden ,tyler ,society1 #ahgf4 ,an earlier ,prize ,essay at ,tbingen on the ,septuagint and ,massorah of ,ezekiel was also successful1 but was not published4 ,psalterium ,tetraglottum 7,graece1 ,syriace1 ,chaldaice1 ,latine71 #ahgi4 ,sixth and ,seventh ,editions of ,tischendorf's ,septuagint 7with new collation of ,codices ,vaticanus1 ,sinaiticus1 and ,alexandrinus7 #ahhj1 #ahhg4 ,septuagintastudien1 i4-iii41 #ahhf1 #ahif1 #ahih4 ,syriac ,grammar 7,latin1 #ahha2 ,german1 #ahhh2 ,english1 #ahhi74 ,novi ,testamenti ,graeci ,supplementum1 #ahif 7,collation of ,codex ,bezae3 ,apocryphal ,gospels74 ,philologica ,sacra1 #ahif4 ,minor publications collected in ,marginalien und ,materialien1 #ahic4 ,edition of the ,greek ,new ,testament for the ,stuttgart ,bible ,society1 #ahih1 of which a third edition is now in preparation4 ,numerous contributions to theological and literary ,journals 7,jahrbcher fr deutsche ,theologie1 ,studien und ,kritiken1 ,theologische ,literaturzeitung1 ,literarisches ,centralblatt7 and to ,herzog-,hauck1 ,encyklopdie fr ,protestantische ,theologie4 ,the ,introduction now brought before the ,english public in ,mr4 ,edie's translation is thus the work of one who is1 and has long been1 actively engaged in the studies belonging to several parts of the great subject of the text of the ,new ,testament1 and who possesses an exact and practised knowledge of the words of the sacred books of ,christianity4 ,the present manual accordingly shows the instruments of criticism in actual operation in the hands of a master4 ,it was meant originally for the ,gschen-,sammlung1 a collection of small manuals for the general public1 and arose out of the wish of the author to tell his pupils with whom he read the ,greek ,testament1 as well as others1 more about the history of the ,new ,testament text than was at the time generally accessible4 ,the handbook was brought out by the theological publishers ,vandenhoeck and ,ruprecht1 literary references being then added to fit it for use by students of theology4 ,it met with a warm welcome from such readers1 and the second edition was largely recast so as to meet still further the purposes of students4 ,the long experience of ,professor ,nestle as a teacher of younger pupils has no doubt enabled him to present the subject so clearly that his book may find favour in the eyes of the general reader1 and commend itself to all who care for the ,new ,testament4 ,the absence of theological bias will not be thought by any wise judge a disadvantage in a work of this character4 ,it will be observed that ,professor ,nestle does not regard the texts recently formed by great scholars as constituting1 either singly or jointly1 a ,textus ,receptus in view of which textual enquiry may now desist from its labours1 but that he believes that much is still to be learned about the text both of the ,gospels and of the other books of the ,new ,testament4 ,this translation1 as the title-page indicates1 has been made from the second1 enlarged1 edition1 and the author has kindly furnished various corrections and additions1 bringing the book in its ,english form up to date4 ,some additional references to ,english books and periodicals have been inserted by the translator4 ,a4 ,m4 ,footnote #a3 ,see the ,dedication to ,dr4 ,nestle of ,professor ,swete's ,introduction to the ,old ,testament in ,greek1 just published4 ,,contents4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,history of the ,printed ,text since #aead1 444444 #a-bg ,complutensian ,polyglot--,aldus--,erasmus--,collection s of editions--,literature--,first critical edition3 ,colinaeus--,stephen--,verse division--,beza--,polyglots3 ,antwerp3 ,paris3 ,london--,elzevir--,textus ,receptus--,critical attempts3 ,caryophilus3 ,courcelles3 ,saubert3 ,simon--,mill--,toinard--,bentley--,gerh ard von ,maestricht--,bengel--,wettstein--,gries bach-- ,matthaei--,birch--,moldenhauer--,adler- -,scholz--,lachmann-- ,tischendorf--,tregelles--,westcott and ,hort3 their types of text--,weymouth--,b4 ,weiss--von ,gebhardt--,stuttgart ,new ,testament--,schjtt--,baljon--,catholic editions3 ,gratz--van ,ess--,gehringer--,patricius--,jaumann-- ,reithmayer--,hetzenauer--,brandscheid-- ,apocrypha and ,pseudepigrapha4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,materials of the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament1 444444 #bh-aee ,autographs--,manuscripts--,versions--,q uotations--,number of ,manuscripts--,uncial and ,cursive ,script--,age--,material--,scriptio continua-- ,accentuation--,stichometry--,palimpsest s--,punctuation--,size-- ,contents--,lectionaries--,parchment--,i nk--,papyrus--,paper--,pen--,manuscripts de luxe--,illustration--,uncials3 of the whole ,new ,testament3 of the ,gospels3 of the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles3 of the ,pauline ,epistles3 of the ,apocalypse--,minuscules--,ferrar ,group--,lectionaries--,versions3 ,syriac3 ,peshitto3 ,curetonian3 ,lewis3 ,tatian3 ,philoxenian3 ,harklean3 ,gwynn3 ,jerusalem3 ,literature of ,syriac ,versions--,latin ,versions3 ,old ,latin manuscripts3 ,fathers3 ,the ,vulgate3 ,jerome3 ,alcuin3 ,theodulf3 ,harding3 ,correctoria ,bibliorum3 ,mazarin ,bible3 ,sixtine and ,clementine ,vulgate--,egyptian ,versions3 ,bohairic3 ,sahidic3 ,middle ,egyptian--,gothic--,ethiopic--,armenian --,georgian--,arabic--,patristic ,quotations4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,theory and ,praxis of the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament1 444444 #aef-bdf ,task and method--,internal criticism--,conjecture--,eclectic method--,genealogical method--,external testimony--,lucian3 his relation to the ,peshitto--,hesychius3 ,codex ,b--,eusebius3 ,pamphilus3 ,origen3 ,euthalius3 ,evagrius3 ,athos manuscript--,later revisers--,pre-,origenic texts--,heretics3 ,artemonites1 ,marcosians1 ,basilides1 ,noetus1 ,valentinians1 ,gnostics1 ,marcionites1 ,arians--,marcion3 his relation to the ,western text--,tatian3 question as to a ,greek ,harmony3 his relation to the ,western text--,the ,western text3 theory of ,blass3 the ,lucan writings in ,codex ,bezae3 conclusion of ,luke's ,gospel3 the ,apostolic ,decree--,rules of ,textual criticism3 sources of error3 illegibility3 homoioteleuton3 transposition of letters and words3 itacism3 substitution of synonymous terms3 additions3 conscious alterations3 stylistic1 liturgic1 and dogmatic changes3 critical canons3 proper names3 textus brevior--,conclusion4 ,critical ,notes on ,various ,passages of the ,new ,testament1 444444 #bdg-cce ,appendix ,i4 ,list of ,greek and ,latin ,writers1 444444 #ccf ,appendix ,,ii4 ,list of ,passages referring to 1 444444 #cdj ,index of ,subjects1 444444 #cdc ,index of ,new ,testament ,passages referred to1 444444 #cej ,,abbreviations4 ,the symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions will be found in the chapter on ,materials4 ,the student will compare the ,notes in ,tischendorf's ,edito octava minor and the ,index in the ,octava maior1 vol4 iii4 ,the following contractions are employed in the course of this work3-- ,,gga4 ,gttinger gelehrte ,anzeigen4 ,,gk4 ,zahn's ,geschichte des neutestamentlichen ,kanons4 ,see p4 #aif n4 #b4 ,l,cbl4 ,literarisches ,centralblatt4 ,,pre4 ,protestantische ,real-,encyklopdie4 ,see p4 #g4 ,th,lbl4 ,theologisches ,literaturblatt4 ,th,lz4 ,theologische ,literaturzeitung4 ,th,st,kr4 ,theologische ,studien und ,kritiken4 ,ti,gr4 ,tischendorf's ,n4,t4 ,graece1 editio octava maior1 vol4 iii4 ,see p4 #f4 ,,tu4 ,texte und ,untersuchungen4 ,urt4 ,urtext und ,uebersetzungen der ,bibel4 ,see p4 #f4 ,w-,h4 ,westcott and ,hort4 ,see p4 #ba4 ,w-,w4 ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,see pp4 #abc1 #aca4 ,zdm,g4 ,zeitschrift der morgenlndischen ,gesellschaft4 ,zfd,phil4 ,zeitschrift fr deutsche ,philologie4 ,zfw,th4 ,zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche ,theologie4 ,,addenda4 ,page #f4 ,to the ,literature add3 ,regg1 ,die neutestamentliche ,textkritik seit ,lachmann1 ,zurich1 #ahib4 ,page #gd4 ,two fragments of ,n4,t4 text have been published by ,grenfell and ,hunt in ,the ,amherst ,papyri1 ,part ,i43 ,the ,ascension of ,isaiah and other theological fragments 7,london1 #aijj74 ,the first consists of ,hebrews i4 #a1 written1 along with ,genesis i4 #a1 in a small uncial hand of the late third1 or more probably early fourth1 century at the top of a papyrus leaf containing a letter from ,rome4 ,the verse from the ,n4,t4 exhibits the reading 1 which is not found in any of the manuscripts4 ,the other fragment consists of ,acts ii4 #aa-bb with lacunae1 written on vellum and dating apparently from about the fifth or sixth century4 ,it contains a few singular readings such as3 7verse #ab7 2 7#ac7 1 which is practically the reading of ,d1 the only difference being that ,d has the compound verb 2 7#ad7 1 apparently2 7#ag7 with ,b instead of 1 and also1 apparently1 with the textus receptus2 7#bj7 with the textus receptus2 7#ba7 with the textus receptus4 ,page #ia4 ,add3 ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,further ,researches into the ,history of the ,ferrar ,group1 #aijj4 ,page #ajf 7#e74 ,add3 ,hilgenfeld1 ,thomas von ,heraklea und die ,apostelgeschichte1 in the ,zfw,th41 #aijj1 #c4 ,page #acg4 ,add3 ,forbes ,robinson1 ,coptic ,apocryphal ,gospels1 in ,texts and ,studies1 iv4 #b1 #ahif4 ,page #aci4 ,to ,kauffmann's ,beitrge must now be added3 v4 ,der codex ,brixianus 7,zfd,phil4 xxxii4 pp4 #cje-cce74 ,in this important contribution ,kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by ,burkitt in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 pp4 #abi-acd1 that ,wordsworth and ,white were mistaken in regarding the text of codex ,brixianus 7f7 as a recension of the ,old ,latin closely allied to ,jerome's revision4 ,burkitt holds that the text of ,brixianus was corrected from the ,vulgate1 and afterwards altered in conformity with the ,gothic4 ,the only difference between ,burkitt and ,kauffmann is that the latter believes that the text of ,brixianus was derived from an earlier ,latin manuscript which had been altered in conformity with the ,gothic1 and that it was afterwards assimilated to the ,vulgate4 ,this view must also be noted in connection with the ,old ,latin codex gue 7see p4 #aah74 ,for an example of the connection between ,brixianus and the ,gothic see the note to p4 #bhi1 below4 ,page #afb4 ,add3 7#i7 ,john1 ,luke1 ,matthew1 ,mark1 in cod4 min4 #ij4 ,page #bhi4 ,john vii4 #ae4 ,for f here reads turbae1 which is interesting as agreeing with the ,gothic1 which has manageius4 ,compare the view of ,burkitt and ,kauffmann in the note to p4 #aci above4 ,the variant is not mentioned in ,tischendorf4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,printed ,,text ,,since #aead4 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,throughout this book1 superscripts and subscripts are used for various purposes4 ,superscripts after the titles of books indicate edition numbers4 ,superscripts after the symbols for manuscript groups are used to name members of the group4 ,subscripts are also used for distinguishing documents4 ,in this text version1 superscripts are indicated with the caret symbol3 4 ,a single-character superscript will be shown as text#a2 a multiple-character superscript will be wrapped in brackets3 text#a1 #b1 textabc4 ,subscripts are indicated with the underscore1 followed by the subscript text wrapped in brackets3 text#a4 ,the asterisk1 991 is often used as part of the name of a manuscript4 ,there are also some instances of characters printed1 one on top of the other4 ,in this e-book they are rendered ,a_/,b1 with ,a on top and ,b on the bottom4 ,it is not quite creditable to ,christian scholarship at the close of the ,middle ,ages that not a single printed edition of the ,greek ,new ,testament appeared during the course of the fifteenth century4 ,the ,jews printed their ,hebrew ,psalter as early as #adgg1 and the entire ,hebrew ,bible in #adhh4 ,sidenote3 ,editio princeps4 ,complutensian ,polyglot4 #a4 ,the honour of producing the first edition belongs to the ,spanish ,cardinal ,francis ,,ximenes de ,cisneros 7#adcg-aeag74 ,it was included in the so-called ,complutensian ,polyglot1 which takes its name from ,complutum 7now ,alcal de ,henares71 where it was printed4 ,the plan of the work was conceived as early as #aejb1 in celebration of the birth of the future ,emperor ,charles ,v4 ,the scholar who had the principal part in it was ,james ,lopez de ,stunica4 ,the printing of the ,new ,testament was completed on the #ajth ,january #aead1 and of the remaining five volumes1 comprising the ,old ,testament with ,grammar and ,lexicon1 on the #ajth ,july #aeag4 ,on the #hth ,november of the same year the ,cardinal died4 ,it was not1 however1 till the #bbnd ,march #aebj that ,pope ,leo ,x4 sanctioned the publication of the work1 the two ,vatican manuscripts of the ,greek ,old ,testament1 which had been borrowed in the first year of ,leo's papacy1 having been returned on the #ith ,july #aeai4b ,on the #eth ,december #aeba1 the presentation copy designed for the ,pope1 printed on parchment and bound in red velvet1 was placed in the ,vatican ,library4 ,no copies seem to have reached ,germany through the trade till the year #aebb4 ,only #fjj copies were printed1 which were sold at #f- ducats per copy--about #c of our present ,english money4 ,the ,cardinal1 who enjoyed the income of a king but was content to live like a monk1 expended over #ej1jjj ducats on the undertaking4 ,at the present time1 copies of the ,complutensian ,polyglot1 especially those printed on parchment1 are counted among the rarest treasures of libraries4 ,the ,old ,testament is printed in three columns1 the ,latin text of the ,bible used in the ,church of the ,middle ,ages standing between the original ,hebrew text of the ,synagogue and the ,alexandrian ,greek version1 8like ,jesus between the two thieves40 ,the ,new ,testament has only two columns1 that on the left containing the ,greek text1 that on the right the ,latin version4 ,for the sake of those learning ,greek the corresponding words in each are indicated4 ,the type is modelled on the characters found in good manuscripts4 ,of accents1 the acute alone is used to mark the tone syllable4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ii4 c4 #g2 ,hoskier 7see below1 p4 #e72 ,frz4 ,delitzsch1 ,studien zur ,entstehungsgeschichte der ,polyglottenbibel des ,cardinals ,ximenes1 ,leipzig1 #ahga2 ,fortgesetzte ,studien1 #ahhf2 ,urtext und ,uebersetzungen der ,bibel1 p4 #fd4 ,a facsimile of the title-page and colophon will be found in ,schaff's ,companion to the ,greek ,testament and the ,english ,version4 ,the decree of ,pope ,leo ,x4 is printed in the ,greek and ,latin ,testament of ,van ,ess1 ,tbingen1 #ahbg4 ,previous to ,ximenes1 however1 the famous ,venetian printer ,aldus ,manutius had conceived the idea of such a ,polyglot4 ,in the ,preface to his undated ,greek ,psalter 7circa #adig71 a triglot ,bible was promised4 ,of this he was reminded from ,london by ,grocyn on the #fth ,october #adii4 ,on the #ith ,july #aeja he wrote about it to the ,german humanist ,conrad ,celtes1 to whom he sent the first specimen page on the #crd ,september of the same year4 7,facsimile in ,renouard1 ,l',imprimerie des ,aldes#b1 #c47 ,still earlier1 the ,magnificat and the ,benedictus#c had been printed among the hymns at the end of the ,greek ,psalter 7,milan1 #adha2 ,venice1 #adhf74 ,these were the first portions of the ,greek ,new ,testament to be printed1 while the first printed in ,germany appeared at ,erfurt in #aeja-b4 ,the first edition of the ,greek ,new ,testament for sale was ,erasmus's edition of #aeaf4 ,,literature4--,on ,aldus1 see ,nestle1 ,septuagintastudien1 i4 #b2 ii4 #aa4 ,on ,aldus's well-known device1 the anchor and dolphin1 see ,lon ,dorez1 tudes ,aldines1 ,revue des bibliothques1 vi4 7#ahif71 part #e-f1 p4 #adc ff42 part #g-i2 also ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,the ,homeric ,centones1 ,london1 #ahih1 p4 #bd4 ,the device is emblematic of the favourite motto of ,augustus and ,titus1 1 ,semper festina lente4 ,sidenote3 ,erasmus1 #aeaf4 #b4 ,froben1 the printer of ,basel1 was anxious to forestall the costly edition of the ,spanish ,cardinal1 and with this object appealed on the #aeth ,march #aeae to the famous humanist ,desiderius ,,erasmus 7#adfg-aecf71 then in ,england4 ,his edition appeared as early as the #ast ,march #aeaf1 and was dedicated on the #ast ,february to ,pope ,leo4 ,the printing was begun in the previous ,september1 and was partly superintended by ,zwingli's friend1 ,john ,oecolampadius of ,weinsberg4 ,erasmus himself confessed afterwards that his ,new ,testament was 8prcipitatum verius quam editum10 though he boasted that he had employed in its preparation not any sort of manuscripts1 but the oldest and most correct copies4#d ,as early as #agcd1 ,j4 ,a4 ,bengel recognised that in the ,apocalypse ,erasmus must have used only one manuscript1 and that partly mutilated1 so that he was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacun by means of a retranslation from the ,latin into ,greek4 ,and this conclusion was confirmed in #ahfa by the rediscovery of that very manuscript by ,franz ,delitzsch in the ,oettingen-,wallerstein ,library at ,mayhingen4#e ,in a parallel column ,erasmus gave a translation of the ,greek into elegant ,latin4 ,the ,emperor protected the edition for four years by copyright1 but as early as ,february #aeah it was reprinted by ,aldus ,manutius in his ,greek ,bible4 ,it was sanctioned by the ,pope on the #ajth ,september #aeah4 ,four successive editions were afterwards prepared by ,erasmus3 the second in #aeai1 the third in #aebb1 the fourth 7improved7 in #aebg1 and the fifth in #aece4 ,in his third edition1 ,erasmus for the first time incorporated the well-known 8comma ,johanneum10 the passage about the ,three ,witnesses 7#a ,john v4 #g74 ,he did so on the evidence of a manuscript now in ,dublin 7,montfortianus1 #fa71 in which the passage had probably been inserted from the ,vulgate by the ,english ,franciscan monk ,roy4 ,from the ,vulgate it had already been received1 in a slightly different form1 into the ,complutensian ,polyglot4 ,luther himself purposely omitted it from his version4 ,the first edition of his translation to contain it was that printed at ,frankfurt by ,feyerabend in #aegf4 ,it was not inserted in the ,wittenberg editions till #aeif4 ,after #aecd no ,greek edition appeared without it for the space of #bjj years4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 vol4 ii4 p4 #ahb ff42 ,frz4 ,delitzsch1 ,handschriftliche ,funde1 i41 ,leipzig1 #ahfa2 ,h4 ,c4 ,hoskier1 ,a full ,account and ,collation of the ,greek ,cursive ,codex ,evangelium #fjd 444 together with ten ,appendices containing 444 7,b7 444 the various readings by the five editions of ,erasmus1 #aeaf1 #aeai1 #aebb1 #aebg1 #aece4444 7,f7 ,report of a ,visit to the ,public ,library at ,ble1 with facsimile of ,erasmus's second ,,ms4 ,evan4 #b1 444 ,london1 #ahij4 ,on ,erasmus's supplementary matter1 the ,new ,version1 ,annotationes1 ,paraclesis ad lectorem1 ,methodus and ,apologia1 as also on the entire practical and reforming aim of his ,n4,t41 see ,r4 ,sthelin in the ,protestantische ,real-,encyklopdie1 third edition1 v4 #dch4 ,froude1 ,life and ,letters of ,erasmus1 p4 #abf ff4 ,sidenote3 ,collections of editions4 #c4 ,the number of editions of the ,greek ,new ,testament which have been brought out since the time of ,ximenes is about #ajjj4 ,no library in the world contains them all4 ,in the last century the ,danish ,pastor ,lorck possessed perhaps the largest private collection of ,bibles4 ,this was purchased by ,duke ,charles of ,wrttemberg1 and has found a place in the ,royal ,public ,library at ,stuttgart4 ,unfortunately1 it is not possible to supplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves4 ,the largest collection of the present century is that of the late ,prof4 ,ed4 ,reuss of ,strassburg4 ,in his descriptive catalogue he established the genealogy of the separate editions by a collation of the readings in #ajjj selected passages4 ,several editions he was unable to obtain3 some he was obliged to regard as of doubtful existence3 others1 again1 mistakenly quoted by previous collectors1 he was able to discard once for all4 ,his labours form the basis of those further researches prosecuted with much ardour chiefly in ,england and ,america3 in the latter by the ,german-,swiss scholar ,philip ,schaff 7d4 #bjth ,oct4 #ahic71 and his ,american friend ,i4 ,h4 ,hall 7d4 #ahif71 in ,england by ,f4 ,h4 ,a4 ,scrivener 7d4 #bfth ,oct4 #ahia71 and in ,germany by the ,american ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory4 ,mention can be made of only a few of these printed editions4 ,,literature4--,ed4 ,reuss1 ,bibliotheca ,novi ,testamenti ,graeci1 cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit ,e4 ,r4 ,argentoratensis1 ,brunsvigae1 #ahgb4 ,tischendorf1 ,novum ,testamentum ,graece ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum apposuit ,constantinus de ,tischendorf1 ,lipsiae 7,hinrichs71 vol4 i4 #ahfi2 vol4 ii4 #ahgb2 vol4 iii41 ,prolegomena scripsit ,caspar ,renatus ,gregory additis curis ,ezrae ,abbot1 #ahid1 #hvo4 7vol4 iii4 cited in the following part of this work under the symbol ,ti,gr474 ,f4 ,h4 ,a4 ,scrivener1 ,a ,plain ,introduction to the ,criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,fourth edition1 edited by ,ed4 ,miller1 #b vols41 ,london1 #ahid4 ,p4 ,schaff1 ,companion to the ,greek ,testament and the ,english ,version4 ,fourth edition revised1 ,new ,york1 ,harper1 #ahib4 ,schaff's ,companion gives1 in an ,appendix1 ,reuss's list of printed editions of the ,greek ,n4,t41 with additions bringing it down to #ahhg1 by ,i4 ,h4 ,hall4 ,it also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustrations of twenty-one standard editions of the ,greek ,n4,t41 showing in each case the title-page and a page of the print4 ,i4 ,h4 ,hall1 ,a ,critical ,bibliography of the ,greek ,new ,testament1 as published in ,america1 ,philadelphia1 #ahhc4 ,also1 by the same author1 ,some ,remarkable ,greek ,new ,testaments1 in the ,journal of the ,society of ,biblical ,literature and ,exegesis1 ,dec4 #ahhf1 #dj-fc4 ,s4 ,p4 ,tregelles1 ,account of the ,printed ,text of the ,greek ,new ,testament with remarks on its revision and a collation of the critical texts with that in common use1 #ahed4 ,copinger1 ,the ,bible and its ,transmission1 being an historical and bibliographical view of the ,hebrew and ,greek ,texts1 and the ,greek1 ,latin1 and other ,versions of the ,bible 7both manuscript and printed7 prior to the ,reformation4 ,with #bh facsimiles4 ,london1 ,sotheran1 #ahig1 large #hvo4 ,h4 ,j4 ,holtzmann1 ,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament 7,allgemeiner ,teil1 ,geschichte des ,textes71 ,freiburg1 #ahhf4 ,urtext und ,uebersetzungen der ,bibel in bersichtlicher ,darstellung1 a reprint of the article 8,bibeltext und ,bibelbersetzungen10 in the third edition of the ,real-,encyklopdie fr protestantische ,theologie und ,kirche1 ,leipzig1 ,hinrichs1 #ahig1 pp4 #ae-fa 7,tischendorf71 ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt1 8,bibeltext des ,neuen ,testamentes10 ,,pre1 ii4 #gbh-ggc 7cited hereafter as ,urt474 ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory1 ,textkritik des ,neuen ,testamentes1 vol4 i4 ,leipzig1 #aijj4 ,vol4 ii4 in the press4 ,sidenote3 ,first critical edition4 #d4 ,the first to prepare a really critical edition of the ,greek ,new ,testament1 i4e4 one based on a collation of manuscripts1 was ,simon de ,colines 7,,colinaeus71 the father-in-law of the ,parisian printer ,robert ,stephen 7,estienne74 ,in his edition#a1 which appeared in #aecd1 he adopted for the first time a number of readings that are now generally accepted1 though naturally he did not succeed in gaining credit for them4 ,up till the time of ,mill and ,bengel the publishers and their more or less uncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of ,ximenes and ,erasmus1 mostly the latter1 with trifling variations4 ,among the innovations introduced by these editors was the choice of a more convenient form4 ,the first editions were all in folio4 ,but in #aeba1 ,anselm1 then in ,hagenau but previously in ,tbingen1 reduced the size to quarto2 in #aebd ,cephaleus in ,strassburg still further to octavo2 while ,valder printed the first miniature edition in ,basel in #aecf4 ,the smallest edition printed previous to this century is that of ,jannon1 #afbh 7,sedan72 the smallest of this century is that of ,pickering1 #ahbh 7,london74 ,but a much more important feature was the collation of fresh manuscripts4 ,the credit of being pioneer in this respect rests with the ,parisian ,typographer-,royal1 ,robert ,,stephen 7#aejc-aeei74 ,sidenote3 ,stephen4 ,he was assisted by his son ,henry ,stephen 7#aebh-aeih71 particularly in the preparation of his third edition of #aeej1 the ,editio ,regia1 which takes its name from the inscription on its title-page in honour of ,henry ,,ii41 ' 1 ' 4#f ,the first edition1 called ,o mirificam1 from the opening words of its preface1 appeared in #aedf4 ,the ,editio ,regia was the first to contain a critical apparatus in which fifteen manuscripts indicated by the ,greek letters -- were collated with the text of the ,complutensian which was designated 4 ,all the manuscripts employed were of late date1 with two exceptions1 viz41 the ,codex ,bezae1 of which we shall have a good deal to say in the sequel1 and a ,parisian ,,ms4 of the eighth century1 now known as ,l4 ,sidenote3 ,verse division4 ,an important innovation of another sort is due to the same ,robert ,stephen1 who printed at ,geneva in the following year 7#aeea7 a fourth edition containing the ,greek text with the ,latin version of ,erasmus on the outer side and the ,vulgate on the inner4#g ,with a view to carrying out this arrangement conveniently1 he divided the text into separate verses or very small sections1 which he numbered on the margin4 ,in this way he introduced into the ,new ,testament not only a convenient verse-enumeration--there are #giei verses in all--but also the unfortunate practice of printing the text in separate verses4 ,mill in #agjg1 and notably ,bengel in #agcd1 were the first to revert to the practice of printing the text in paragraphs divided according to the sense while retaining the enumeration of the verses in the margin4 ,sidenote3 ,chapters4 ,the customary division of the ,new ,testament books into chapters is much earlier1 having been first invented in ,paris for the ,latin ,bible by ,stephen ,langton 7died ,archbishop of ,canterbury in #abbh71 and at once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the ,vulgate4 ,it was employed in the ,complutensian ,polyglot with a subdivision of the various chapters into ,a ,b ,c etc4 ,,literature4--,nov4 ,test4 textus ,stephanici ,a4,d4 #aeej1 ed4 ,scrivener1 ,camb41 #ahei1 #ahga etc4 ,hoskier 7as above7 444 7,b7 ,a ,reprint with corrections of ,scrivener's list of differences between the editions of ,stephen #aeej and ,elzevir #afbd1 ,beza #aefe and the ,complutensian1 together with fresh evidence 444 by the other editions of ,stephen of #aedf1 #aedi1 #aeea4444 ,ezra ,abbot1 ,de ,versibus1 in ,ti,gr4 #afg-ahb4 ,i4 ,h4 ,hall1 ,modern ,chapters and ,verses1 in ,schaff's ,religious ,encyclopdia1 i4 #dcc4 ,journal of the ,soc4 of ,bib4 ,lit4 and ,exeg41 #ahhc1 #fj2 #ahia1 #fe4 ,it is frequently stated that copies exist of ,stephen's edition of #aeea 7the first to contain the verse enumeration7 bearing on the title-page the date ,,mdxli4 ,in the two ,i examined belonging to the collections of ,lorck and ,reuss1 the two halves of the number ,,md and ,,li are far apart4 ,in the case of the ,lorck copy it is possible to suppose that a letter has been erased from the middle1 but not in the ,reuss copy4 ,in his ,preface1 ,stephen says3 8,quod autem per quosdam ut vocant versiculos opus distinximus1 id1 vetustissima ,graeca ,latinaque ipsius ,novi ,testamenti exemplaria secuti1 fecimus3 eo autem libentius ea sumus imitati1 quod hac ratione utraque translatio posset omnino eregione ,graeco contextui respondere40 ,as ,ezra ,abbot pointed out1 ,stephen gave a double number #ai_/bj to the verse 444 in ,acts xxiv4 ,a similar double enumeration occurs in the previous chapter1 where the verse 444 is numbered #be_/bf4 ,accordingly1 ,abbot's supposition becomes pretty certain1 that the verse division was originally made for a ,latin copy which1 at the passage in ,acts xxiv41 contained the additional sentence3 ,et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes1 ,tolle inimicum nostrum4 ,and in chapter xxiii4 several ,latin editions show an extra sentence at the place marked with the double number3 et ipse postea calumniam sustineret tanquam accepturus pecuniam4 ,but what edition it was from which ,stephen took the enumeration into his ,greek copy is not yet known4 ,unfortunately1 as ,abbot shows 7l4c4 #agc-ahb71 later editions frequently deviated from ,stephen's enumeration4 ,even ,oscar v4 ,gebhardt1 in his editions of ,tischendorf's text1 followed in eight instances a different verse division from that recommended by ,gregory in his ,emendanda 7p4 #abea ff474 ,several mistakes in numbering crept into the ,stuttgart edition of the ,n4,t41 but the division and enumeration have been carefully compared with that of the ,reuss copy for the second edition4 ,there are differences in verse-division even in the reprint of ,westcott and ,hort's ,greek ,testament 7,macmillan fount1 #ahie71 ,heb4 xii4 #bb1 #bc3 in ,swete's ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark 7,mk4 ii4 #ah1 #ai71 and in ,cronin's edition of ,codex ,purpureus ,petropolitanus 7,lk4 iii4 #bc1 #bd1 ix4 #g1 #h47 ,the ,textus ,receptus is usually indicated by the ,greek letter 1 the initial of ,stephen's name4 ,sidenote3 ,beza4 ,following ,stephen1 the ,french theologian ,theodore de ,bze 7,,beza #aeai-afje71 the friend and successor of ,calvin in ,geneva1 prepared1 between #aefe and #afaa1 four folio and six octavo editions1#h which are noteworthy as forming1 with the last two editions of ,stephen1 the basis of the ,english ,authorised ,version4 ,beza was the owner of two valuable ,greek-,latin manuscripts of the ,gospels with the ,acts and ,pauline ,epistles1 one of which1 the now so famous ,codex ,bezae1 he presented to the ,university of ,cambridge in #aeha4 ,he himself1 however1 made little use of these in his editions1 as they deviated too far from the printed texts of the time4 ,beza seems also1 in the preparation of his ,geneva edition1 to have been the first to collate the oriental versions4 ,for this purpose he employed the ,syriac edition of ,emmanuel ,tremellius 7#aefi71 and for ,acts and #a and #b ,corinthians the ,arabic version put at his disposal by ,franciscus ,junius4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 ii4 #ahh ff42 ,hoskier 7as above73 the various readings 444 by the remaining three ,bezan editions in folio of #aehb1 #aehh-i1 #aeih1 and the #hvo4 editions of #aefe1 #aefg1 #aehj1 #aeij1 #afjd4 ,sidenote3 ,polyglots4 #a4 ,antwerp4 #e4 ,the credit of presenting these oriental versions in a convenient combination for the interpretation of the ,bible belongs to the so-called ,antwerp ,polyglot1 the ,biblia ,regia1 printed in eight folio volumes between #aefi and #aegb by ,christopher ,plantin1 a ,french printer residing in ,antwerp4 ,in this work the ,greek ,new ,testament is printed twice1 first in vol4 v41 alongside the ,vulgate and the ,syriac text with its ,latin translation1 and again in vol4 vi4 with the interlinear version of ,arias ,montanus4 ,plantin was aided in this enterprise by a grant of #ab1jjj ducats from ,king ,philip ,,ii4 ,it was carried out under the supervision of the ,spanish theologian ,benedict ,arias1 called ,montanus from his birth-place ,frexenal de la ,sierra4 8,labore et ,constantia0 was the motto of this celebrated family of printers1 who continued to carry on their trade on the same premises till ,august #ahfg4 ,nine years later the house was sold to the city and converted into the 8,muse ,plantin40 ,of the ,antwerp ,polyglot #ifj ordinary copies were printed1 #bjj of a better quality1 #cj fine1 #aj superfine1 and #ac on parchment1 for which last #af1bfc skins were used4 ,one of these ,montaigne saw and admired in the ,vatican ,library2 another1 the copy dedicated to the ,archduke ,alba1 is in the possession of the ,british ,museum4 ,the undertaking was the glory of ,plantin's life1 but it was also the beginning of his financial difficulties4 ,copies were sold to book-sellers at #fj gulden each1 and to the public at #gj gulden 7about #f and #g74 ,ordinary copies now fetch from #f to #g or #h4 ,at the sale of the ,ashburnham ,collection in #ahig a parchment copy realised #gi4 ,the supplements1 including lexical and other matter1 are still valuable to a certain extent4 ,but here the collector must note that certain parts have been reprinted4 ,on the ,polyglots1 see3 ,discours historique sur les principales ditions des ,bibles ,polyglottes4 ,par l',auteur de la ,bibliothque ,sacre1 ,paris1 #agac2 especially pp4 #cja-eed1 8,pices justificatives du discours prcdent40 ,also1 ,ed4 ,reuss1 ,polyglottenbibeln1 ,,pre#b1 xii4 #ie-ajc 7#ahhc74 ,max ,rooses1 ,christophe ,plantin1 ,imprimeur ,anversois1 ,antwerp1 #ahhd4 ,fol4 #ajj plates4 ,also ,correspondance de ,plantin1 edited by ,rooses4 #b vols4 #ahhf4 ,l4 ,degeorge1 ,la ,maison ,plantin ,anvers4 #crd ed4 ,paris1 #ahhf4 ,r4 ,lorck1 ,das ,plantin-,haus in ,antwerpen4 ,vom ,fels zum ,meer1 #ahhh-i1 ix4 #cbh-cdf4 ,on the double imprint see ,rooses1 p4 #abc2 ,a4 ,rahlfs in ,lagarde's ,bibliotheca ,syriaca1 p4 #ai4 ,on ,plantin's connection with the ,familists see ,,pre#c1 v4 #gea-gee4 ,sidenote3 #b4 ,parisian4 ,a still more extensive undertaking than the ,antwerp ,polyglot is that brought out in ,paris by the advocate ,guy ,michel ,,le ,,jay4 ,this ,parisian ,polyglot extends to ten folio volumes of the largest size1 furnished externally in the most sumptuous manner4 ,le ,jay expended his whole fortune on the edition1 and was obliged at last to sell it as waste paper1 being too proud to accept the offer of ,cardinal ,richelieu1 who wished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a large sum and thereby acquire the credit of it4 ,the scholars who gave most assistance in the preparation of the oriental texts were ,jean ,morin and the ,maronite ,gabriel ,sionita1 the latter of whom superintended the ,syriac portion4 ,the two volumes of the ,new ,testament1 viz4 vol4 v4 #a1 comprising the ,gospels1 and vol4 v4 #b1 the ,acts1 ,epistles1 and ,apocalypse1 appeared in #afcj and #afcc4 ,in addition to the texts printed in the ,antwerp ,polyglot1 the ,parisian contained a ,syriac version of the so-called ,antilegomena1 i4e4 those parts of the ,new ,testament at one time disputed 7#b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 ,jude1 and ,apocalypse71 and it had also an ,arabic version1 each one being accompanied with a ,latin translation4#i ,sidenote3 #c4 ,london4 ,less sumptuous1 but more copious1 convenient1 and critically valuable1 is the last1 and at the present day still most used of the four great ,polyglots--the ,london ,polyglot of ,brian ,,walton 7#afjj-affa74 ,it contains in all nine languages4 ,in the ,new ,testament 7vol4 v47 there is the ,greek text of ,stephen with slight alterations1 the version of ,arias1 the ,vulgate1 ,syriac1 ,ethiopic1 ,arabic1 and 7for the ,gospels only7 ,persic versions1 each with a literal translation into ,latin4 ,the sixth volume also contains ,walton's ,apparatus1 which was re-issued at ,leipzig in #aggg1 and again at ,cambridge by ,f4 ,wrangham in two volumes in #ahbh4 ,it is really a kind of ,introduction to ,biblical ,criticism4 ,finally1 in two supplementary parts1 there is ,edmund ,castle's ,lexicon ,heptaglotton1 a thesaurus linguae semiticae such as no one since has ventured to undertake4 ,the ,london ,polyglot first appeared in #afeg1 under the patronage of ,cromwell1 but after the ,restoration it received a new ,preface from the editor1 who was raised to the ,see of ,chester by ,charles ,,ii4 ,in this ,preface ,cromwell is styled 8,magnus ,draco ille40 ,accordingly1 bibliophiles draw a sharp line of distinction between republican and loyalist copies4 ,one of the former costs considerably more than the latter1 the most recent prices running from #bb to #ca4 ,this is said to have been the first work brought out in ,england by subscription4 ,see ,schaff's 8,companion0 for facsimiles of title-page and page of text4 ,todd3 ,life of ,brian ,walton with the ,bishop's ,vindication of the ,london ,polyglot ,bible4 ,london1 #ahba4 #b vols4 ,for this ,polyglot1 in addition to the critical works of previous scholars1 the ,codex ,alexandrinus of the ,greek ,bible1 sent by ,cyril ,lucar to ,charles ,i4 in #afbh1 was also employed for the first time4 ,its readings are set at the foot of the ,greek text and indicated by the letter ,a4 ,this was the origin of the modern custom of indicating manuscripts with ,roman letters in the apparatus of critical editions not only of the ,new ,testament but of other books as well1 a custom which has generally prevailed since the time of ,wettstein4 ,that gift of ,cyril ,lucar seems really to have awakened for the first time a general desire for critical editions4 ,at the same time it was ,walton's edition that made ,stephen's text of #aeej the 8textus receptus0 in ,england4 ,sidenote3 ,elzevir4 #f4 ,on the ,continent a similar result was attained by the enterprising ,dutch printers ,bonaventura and ,abraham ,,elzevir of ,leyden4 ,what scholars had a hand in their edition1 if we may speak of scholars at all in this connection1 is not known4 ,in #afbd the ,elzevirs published1 in a handy form and beautifully printed1 an edition the text of which was taken mainly from ,beza's octavo edition of #aefe4 ,in their ,preface to a new issue in #afcc they said 8textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum1 in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus10 while they professed that even the smallest errors--8vel minutissimae mendae0--had been eliminated with judgment and care4 ,by means of this catchword they actually succeeded in making their text the most widely disseminated of all during #bjj years4 ,the ,english ,bible ,society alone have issued not fewer than #cea1die copies of it in the #ij years of their existence1 and at the present time are still printing this text alone4 ,they issued #ab1bjj copies of it in the year #ahid4 ,for several centuries1 therefore1 thousands of ,christian scholars have contented themselves with a text based ultimately on two or three late manuscripts lying at the command of the first editors--,stephen1 ,erasmus1 and ,ximenes--a text1 moreover1 in which the erroneous readings of ,erasmus1 already referred to1 are retained to this day4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 ii4 #aic4 ,hoskier 444 7,c7 a full and exact comparison of the ,elzevir editions of #afbd and #afcc1 doubling the number of the real variants hitherto known1 and exhibiting the support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent editions of #afda1 #afef1 #affb1 #afgj1 and #afgh4 ,on the ,elzevirs see ,g4 ,berghman1 ,nouvelles tudes sur la ,bibliographie ,elzevirienne4 ,supplment l'ouvrage sur les ,elzevier de ,m4 ,alphonse ,willems1 ,stockholm1 #ahig4 ,also1 ,a4 de ,reume1 ,recherches historiques1 gnalogiques et bibliographiques sur les ,elzevier1 ,brussels4 ,facsimile of the edition of #afcc in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,sidenote3 ,critical attempts4 #g4 ,even those who were impelled by a greater spirit of research did not yet get back to the oldest attainable sources4 ,in ,rome1 ,,caryophilus set about preparing a new edition4 ,with this view1 about the year #afbe he collated twenty-two manuscripts with the ,antwerp ,polyglot--ten for the ,gospels1 eight for the ,acts and ,epistles1 and four for the ,apocalypse4 ,among these were the most celebrated manuscript of the ,vatican ,library1 the 8,codex ,vaticanus0 par excellence1 and another of the same collection1 dating from the year #idi 7,tischendorf's ,s71 one of the oldest manuscripts of the ,greek ,new ,testament whose date is known with certainty4 ,the results of this collator's labours were printed at ,rome in #afgc4 ,but such collations were not then made with that exactitude which is the primary condition of works of this nature at the present day1 though even now it is not always observed4 ,in #afeh ,stefan de ,,courcelles 7,curcellaeus1 #aehf-afei71 a native of ,geneva1 brought out an edition which was printed by the ,elzevirs1 and which is valuable for its scholarly ,introduction1 its careful collection of parallel passages1 and its fresh collation of manuscripts4 ,in this edition the 8,comma ,johanneum0 was included in brackets4 ,the editor also expressed the opinion that even conjectural readings deserve consideration4 ,courcelles had further projects in view1 but these were interrupted by his death4 ,in #afgb1 in ,germany1 ,john ,,saubert published a collection of various readings in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel which he had compiled from printed editions1 manuscripts1 ancient versions1 and quotations in the ,greek and ,latin ,fathers4 ,in #afge ,john ,,fell1 afterwards ,bishop of ,oxford1 published anonymously at the ,sheldonian ,theatre1 i4e4 the ,oxford ,university ,press1 an edition in the preparation of which more than #ajj ,greek manuscripts were employed4 ,among the ancient versions the ,gothic of ,ulfilas and the ,coptic were also made use of4 ,about the same time 7#afhi7 there appeared anonymously at ,rotterdam a ,histoire ,critique du ,texte du ,nouveau ,testament1 by ,richard ,,simon1 a member of the ,french ,congregation of the ,oratory4 ,simon is the father of the historical method of critical introduction to the ,new ,testament4 ,with his work1 what might be called the infancy of ,new ,testament criticism comes to a close4 ,with ,mill's ,new ,testament begins the period of its maturity1 especially if ,simon's works are taken as belonging to it4 ,such1 at least1 was the judgment expressed in #aggg by the ,gttingen scholar ,j4 ,d4 ,michaelis4 ,but we would say rather the period of its youth1 for otherwise we should now have reached the time of its old age1 and much work still remains to be done4 ,sidenote3 ,mill1 #agjg4 #h4 ,encouraged by ,bishop ,fell1 ,john ,,mill 7#afde-agjg71 about #afgg1 set to work upon an edition which appeared in the year of his death4#aj ,the value of ,mill's ,new ,testament lies in its extended critical apparatus1 and particularly in its ,prolegomena4 ,an enlarged edition was brought out in #agaj by ,ludolf ,kster of ,westphalia 7#afgj-agaf71 which1 however1 had such a small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title-page at ,leipzig in #agbc1 and again at ,amsterdam in #agdf4 ,in ,mill's time the number of various readings in the ,new ,testament was estimated at #cj1jjj3 a competent estimate will now make them more than four or five times as many4 ,that is to say1 there are almost more variants than words4 ,mention must also be made of ,nicolaus ,,toinard',s ,latin-,greek ,harmony of the ,gospels1 which appeared at ,orleans in the same year as ,mill's ,new ,testament1 and which was the fruit of nearly as many years' labour4 ,toinard was the first ,catholic after ,erasmus1 and the last previous to ,scholz1 to undertake a critical edition of the ,new ,testament4 ,he was also the first editor after ,beza to estimate properly the critical value of the ,vulgate4 ,sidenote3 ,bentley4 ,it was ,edward ,wells who set the example of greater freedom in the adoption into the text of new readings from the manuscripts4 ,his famous countryman1 the great philologist ,richard ,,bentley 7#affb-agdb71 projected a great critical edition of the ,new ,testament1 but unfortunately got no further than the preparation of materials and the publication of his 8,proposals0 in #agbj4 ,he undertook to remove two thousand errors from the ,pope's ,vulgate1 and as many from that of the ,protestant ,pope 7,stephen71 without using any manuscript under #ijj years old4 ,but as his edition never appeared1 his nephew had to refund the #bjjj guineas prepaid by the subscribers4 ,in #agbi ,,mace published an edition anonymously1 in which1 perhaps1 most courage was shown in departing from the ordinary text4 ,thereafter1 ,english work in this department was suspended for nearly a century4 ,it was transferred to ,germany and the ,netherlands by the ,swabian scholar ,bengel and by ,wettstein of ,basel4 ,,literature4--,a4 ,a4 ,ellis1 ,bentleii ,critica ,sacra1 ,camb41 #ahfb4 ,r4 ,c4 ,jebb1 ,bentley1 ,london1 #ahhb4 ,ti,gr41 #bbi-bdj4 ,wordsworth-,white1 ,i4 pp4 xv-xxviii 7see below1 p4 #abc74 ,sidenote3 ,bengel4 #i4 ,as early as #agaa1 ,g4,d4,t4,m4,d41 i4e4 ,gerhard de ,trajectu ,mosae 7,maestricht7 ,doctor1 a ,syndic of ,bremen1 published at ,amsterdam an edition prefaced by #dc canons or rules of criticism4 ,thereafter1 in #agbe1 ,j4 ,a4 ,,bengel 7#afhg-ageb7 issued his ,prodromus ,novi ,testamenti ,graeci recte cauteque adornandi1 in which he unfolded a most carefully thought-out scheme for a new edition1 undertaking to reduce all ,gerhard von ,maestricht's #dc canons to one comprehensive rule of four words4 ,that was the principle now commonly expressed in the shorter but less satisfactory form--lectio difficilior placet4 ,bengel himself chose a more careful mode of expression--proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua4 ,six years later he was able to issue his ,notitia ,novi ,testamenti ,graeci recte cauteque adornati4 ,it was published in #agcd at ,tbingen by ,cotta in a handsome quarto4#aa ,in the same year a small octavo edition appeared at ,stuttgart in which he urged the duty expressed in the motto1 ,te totum applica ad textum1 ,rem totam applica ad te4 ,of the latter1 four editions were afterwards brought out4 ,of the large edition1 the ,apparatus1 pronounced by ,haussleiter to be a 8memorable work of most solid and productive learning10 was reprinted separately after his death4 ,bengel was too timid4 ,he was unwilling to admit into the text any reading which had not already appeared in some printed edition4 ,but he inserted new readings in the margin and classified them4 ,out of #adi readings pronounced by ,bengel to be genuine1 only #bj are not now generally approved4 ,out of #aah whose genuineness appeared to him probable but not quite certain1 #hc are now accepted4 ,but ,bengel's most important contribution to the textual criticism of the ,greek ,new ,testament consists in the sound critical principles which he laid down4 ,he recognised that the witnesses must not be counted but weighed1 i4e4 classified1 and he was accordingly the first to distinguish two great groups or families of manuscripts4 ,his principles were reaffirmed by the celebrated philologist ,lachmann1 the first great textual critic of our time1 and the advance which the latest ,english critics have made on ,tischendorf is really due to the fact that they have gone back to ,bengel4 ,,literature4--,eb4 ,nestle1 ,bengel als ,gelehrter1 ein ,bild fr unsere ,tage4 7,in ,marginalien und ,materialien2 also printed separately1 ,tbingen1 #ahic47 ,scrivener1 ii4 #bjd4 ,sidenote3 ,wettstein4 ,for the time1 however1 ,bengel's rival1 ,john ,,wettstein 7#afic-aged71 outdid him4 ,his treatise on the ,various ,readings of the ,new ,testament was published as early as #agac1 to be followed by his ,prolegomena1 which appeared anonymously in #agcj1 and later by his ,new ,testament1#ab which was issued in two folio volumes in #agea and #ageb4 ,his ,apparatus is fuller than that of any previous editor1 while he also gives a detailed account of the various manuscripts1 versions1 and ,patristic writers4 ,it was he who introduced the practice1 already referred to1 of indicating the ancient ,,mss4 by ,roman letters and the later ,,mss4 by ,arabic numerals4 ,he too1 however1 still printed the ,elzevir text1 following ,maestricht's edition of #agce4 ,at the foot of the text he placed those readings which he himself held to be correct4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 ,introduction1 ii4 #bac2 ,carl ,bertheau1 ,,pre#b1 xvii4 #ah-bd1 #ahhf4 ,sidenote3 ,griesbach4 #aj4 ,j4 ,j4 ,,griesbach 7#agde-ahab7 was the first in ,germany who ventured to print the text of the ,new ,testament in the form to which his criticism led him4 ,he was the pupil of ,salomo ,semler1 who had combined the principles of ,bengel and ,wettstein4 ,these principles were adopted and carried out by ,griesbach4 ,he enlarged the ,apparatus by a more exact use of citations from the ,fathers1 particularly from ,origen1 and of various versions1 such as the ,gothic1 the ,armenian1 and the ,philoxenian4 ,in his classification of the witnesses1 ,griesbach distinguished a ,western1 an ,alexandrian1 and a ,byzantine ,recension4 ,the edition1 in four folio volumes1 printed by ,gschen at ,leipzig 7#ahjc-ahjg71 is rightly described by ,reuss as 8editio omnium quae extant speciosissima40#ac ,his text was more or less faithfully followed by many later editors like ,schott1 ,knapp1 ,tittmann1 and also by ,theile4 ,sidenote3 ,matthaei4 ,griesbach's opponent1 ,christian ,friedrich ,,matthaei1 a ,thringian 7#agdd-ahaa71 was misled into attributing a too great value to a large number of manuscripts in ,moscow of the third1 the ,byzantine1 class4 ,a considerable amount of critical material was collected at the expense of the ,king of ,denmark by ,andreas ,birch 7afterwards ,bishop of ,lolland1 ,falster1 and ,aarhuus71 by ,d4 ,g4 ,moldenhauer1 and by ,adler4 ,a similar service was rendered1 though not with sufficient care1 by ,j4 ,m4 ,augustin ,,scholz1 ,professor of ,catholic ,theology in ,bonn4 ,,literature4--,on ,matthaei see ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt1 ,christian ,friedrich ,matthi und seine ,sammlung griechischer ,handschriften1 ,leipzig1 #ahih4 ,sidenote3 ,lachmann4 ,it was ,carl ,,lachmann 7#agic-ahea7 who first broke with the ,textus ,receptus altogether4 ,he was a master in the domain of textual criticism4 ,he distinguished himself first in the department of classical and ,teutonic philology1 but came afterwards to render equal service to the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,his object was to restore the text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient ,church about the year #chj1 going on the ground of the oldest known ,greek and ,latin manuscripts1 i4e4 the oldest ,eastern and ,western authorities4#ad ,he did not claim to go further back than that date with any certainty4 ,but it was still open to question whether that were not possible1 and whether the grounds on which ,lachmann's work was based might not be still further extended and confirmed4 ,sidenote3 ,tischendorf4 #aa4 ,the task which ,lachmann set before him was prosecuted with the most brilliant success in and from ,germany by ,gottlob 7,aenotheus7 ,friedrich ,constantin von ,,tischendorf 7b4 #ahth ,january #ahae1 d4 #gth ,december #ahgd74 ,in the course of several tours1 first in ,europe and afterwards in the ,east1 from the year #ahda onwards1 he discovered and collated a number of the most important and ancient manuscripts of the ,bible4 ,among these the most notable was the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 found by him on ,mount ,sinai in #ahei1 and now in ,st4 ,petersburg1 the oldest known manuscript of the present day which contains the entire ,greek ,new ,testament4 ,on the basis of the material collected by himself and others1 ,tischendorf prepared eight different editions between #ahda and #ahgb4ae ,his seventh edition1 consisting of #cejj copies1 appeared in #ahei1 previous to the discovery of the ,sinaiticus4 ,the text of this edition differed from that of #ahdi in #abif instances1 of which no fewer than #eie were reversions to the ,textus ,receptus4 ,the text of the last edition1 the octava critica maior1 which was issued complete in eleven parts between #ahfd and #ahgb1 differed from that of the seventh in #cegb places4 ,the third volume of the editio octava maior1 containing the ,prolegomena1 was completed in three parts1 extending to #adbh pages1 by ,caspar ,ren ,gregory between #ahhd and #ahid1 a work which affords the most complete survey of what has been done on the ,greek ,new ,testament up to the present time4 ,,literature4--,scrivener1 ii4 #bce2 ,ti,gr41 #a-bb2 ,urt41 #di-eb4 ,apart from the ,editio ,octava ,maior1 the most useful editions will be found to be those of ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt 7see below1 p4 #bc71 or the ,editio ,academica ad editionem oct4 maior4 conformata1 ,leipzig1 ,mendelssohn1 #afmo1 #ahee1 twentieth edition1 #ahii4 ,sidenote3 ,tregelles4 ,while the editions of ,tischendorf were appearing on the ,continent1 an edition began to be issued in ,england1 which was completed in the course of twenty years4 ,it was the work of a ,quaker1 ,samuel ,prideaux ,,tregelles 7b4 #ahac1 d4 #ahge71 who1 while reaping no profit from his undertaking1 has left in it a monument to his fidelity4 ,in this edition 7#aheg-ahgi7af those passages in which the editor was unable to pronounce a final judgment from the accessible material are indicated by the form of the type4 ,sidenote3 ,westcott and ,hort4 ,a still more important advance was made by ,brooke ,foss ,,westcott 7b4 #ahbe71 now ,bishop of ,durham1 and ,fenton ,john ,anthony ,,hort 7b4 #bcrd ,april #ahbh1 d4 #cjth ,november #ahib74 ,in #ahha1 these ,cambridge scholars1 after nearly thirty years of joint labour1 published two volumes1 the first containing the ,text with a brief survey of its history and resulting criticism1 the second giving a detailed exposition of their critical principles by ,hort himself4 ,they were led by their investigation to distinguish four main types of text3-- 7#a7 ,a late type1 originating in ,syria about the year #cjj1 which1 issuing from ,constantinople1 became the prevailing text in later manuscripts1 and corresponds essentially with the textus receptus of early printed editions3 7#b7 ,a type originating in ,alexandria1 characterized by linguistic emendations3 7#c7 ,a type originating in ,syria but reaching the ,west previous to the year #bjj1 represented essentially by the ,old ,latin versions on the one hand and by the ,syriac on the other1 and displaying all sorts of remarkable additions3 7#d7 ,the ,neutral text1 which displays no sort of corruptions4 ,westcott and ,hort's work is the latest and most thorough attempt yet made at a complete edition of the ,new ,testament4 ,,literature4--,the ,new ,testament in the original ,greek4 ,the text revised by ,brooke ,foss ,westcott1 ,d4,d41 and ,fenton ,john ,anthony ,hort1 ,d4,d41 ,cambridge and ,london4 ,vol4 i4 ,text 7,fourth ,edition1 #ahih74 ,vol4 ii41 ,introduction and ,appendix 7,third ,edition1 #ahif74 ,a smaller edition of the text1 #ahhe4 ,text1 from new type1 in larger form1 #ahie4 ,for 8,some trifling ,corrections to ,w4-,h4's ,new ,testament10 see ,nestle in the ,expository ,times1 viii4 #dgi2 ix4 #ie1 #ccc1 #dbd4 ,see ,life and ,letters of ,f4 ,j4 ,a4 ,hort1 by his son1 ,a4 ,f4 ,hort1 #b vols41 ,london1 #ahif2 also article on ,hort1 by ,gregory in the ,,pre#c1 viii4 #cfh4 ,facsimile of the ,american ,edition with ,introduction by ,schaff1 in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,sidenote3 ,weymouth4 ,the 8,resultant ,greek ,testament0 of ,r4 ,f4 ,,weymouth affords a convenient comparison of the text of the most important editions4 ,,literature4--,the ,resultant ,greek ,testament1 exhibiting the text in which the majority of modern editors are agreed1 and containing the readings of ,stephen 7#aeej71 ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 ,tischendorf1 ,lightfoot1 ,ellicott1 ,alford1 ,weiss1 the ,ble edition 7#ahhj71 ,westcott and ,hort1 and the ,revision ,committee4 ,by ,richard ,francis ,weymouth4 ,with an ,introduction by the ,right ,rev4 the ,lord ,bishop of ,worcester4 ,london1 #ahhf4444 ,cheap ,edition1 #ahib1 pp4 xix4 #fdd4 ,besides the editions mentioned in the title1 the ,complutensian1 ,elzevir 7#afcc71 ,scrivener and others are compared in several places4 ,sidenote3 ,weiss4 ,quite recently1 ,bernhard ,,weiss1 of ,berlin1 began a new and independent revision of the text1 which has been published in three large volumes with introduction and explanatory notes4 ,,literature4--,das ,neue ,testament4 ,textkritische ,untersuchungen und ,textherstellung von ,d4 ,bernhard ,weiss4 ,erster ,theil1 ,apostelgeschichte3 ,katholische ,briefe3 ,apocalypse4 ,leipzig1 #ahid4 ,zweiter ,theil1 ,die paulinischen ,briefe einschliesslich des ,hebrerbriefs1 #ahif4 ,dritter ,theil1 ,die vier ,evangelien #aijj4 ,vol4 i4 is compiled from ,texte und ,untersuchungen1 ix4 #c1 #d2 viii4 #c2 vii4 #a4 ,the section in vol4 ii4 entitled ,textkritik der paulinischen ,briefe1 is taken from ,,tu4 xiv4 #c1 and the corresponding section in vol4 iii4 from ,,tu4 xix4 #b 7,new ,series1 iv4 #b74 ,see 8,b4 ,weiss and the ,new ,testament10 by ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory in the ,american ,journal of ,theology1 #ahig1 i4 #af-cg4 ,sidenote3 ,von ,gebhardt4 ,in ,germany1 ,o4 von ,,gebhardt has done good service by issuing the text of ,tischendorf's last edition1 with the necessary corrections1 and giving in the margin the readings adopted by ,tregelles and ,westcott-,hort1 when these differ from the text4 ,in the 8editio stereotypa minor10 the differences of ,westcott-,hort alone are shown4 ,in his ,greek-,german ,new ,testament1 he also exhibits at the foot of ,luther's ,german text those readings wherein the text of ,erasmus's second edition of #aeai1 used by ,luther1 differs from that of the last edition of ,tischendorf4 ,in this diglot of v4 ,gebhardt1 therefore1 one can see at a glance not only how far the ,greek text of the present day differs from that printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century1 but also the amount of agreement between present-day editors working on such different principles as ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort4 ,in the ,adnotatio ,critica found in the ,appendix to the larger edition1 there is a brief digest of the critical ,apparatus1 but it extends only to those passages where ,tischendorf and ,westcott-,hort disagree4 ,the editio minor contains #fjj pages4 ,one of these1 p4 #eja1 shows not a single disagreement between these great editors1 while #ah pages exhibit only one variation each1 and these1 for the most part1 mere grammatical trifles4 ,,literature4--,novum ,testamentum ,graece recensionis ,tischendorfianae ultimae textum cum ,tregellesiano et ,westcottio-,hortiano contulit et brevi adnotatione critica additisque locis parallelis illustravit ,oscar de ,gebhardt4 ,editio stereotypa4 ,lipsiae 7,tauchnitz71 #ahha4 ,seventh edition1 #ahif4 ,n4 ,t4 ,graece et ,germanice4 ,leipzig1 #ahha4 ,fourth edition1 #ahif4 ,in this edition the ,greek is that of ,tischendorf's last edition1 and the ,german is the ,revised text of ,luther 7#ahgj74 ,the various readings are shown for both texts1 and a selection of parallel passages is also given4 ,n4 ,t4 ,graece ex ultima ,tischendorfii recensione edidit ,oscar de ,gebhardt4 ,editio stereotypa minor4 ,lipsiae1 #afmo41 #ahhg4 ,fourth edition1 #ahih4 ,sidenote3 ,stuttgart ,new ,testament4 ,the text of the ,greek and ,greek-,german ,new ,testaments prepared by me1 and issued by the ,wrttemberg ,bible ,institute1 is based on a comparison of the three editions of ,tischendorf1 ,westcott-,hort1 and ,weymouth4 ,the variations of these editions are shown at the foot of the page1 where are given also the readings inserted by ,westcott and ,hort in their ,appendix and omitted by ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt4 ,from ,acts onwards1 the readings adopted by ,weiss are indicated as well4 ,in a lower margin1 a number of important manuscript readings are given4 ,in the ,gospels and ,acts1 these are taken mainly1 though not exclusively1 from ,codex ,bezae4 ,in the ,greek-,german edition1 the text 7,german7 is that of the ,revised ,version of #ahib4 ,below it are given the readings of ,luther's last edition 7#aedf71 with several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings4 ,,literature4--,novum ,testamentum ,graece cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto4 ,stuttgart1 #ahih4 ,second corrected edition1 #ahii4 ,also issued in two and in ten parts1 and interleaved4 ,third edition in preparation4 ,sidenote3 ,schjtt4 ,fr4 ,,schj,,tt published an edition at ,copenhagen in #ahig the text of which was determined by the agreement between the ,codex ,vaticanus 7,claromontanus1 from ,heb4 ix4 #ad onwards7 and the ,sinaiticus4 ,where they disagreed he called in the next oldest manuscript as umpire4 ,for this purpose he employed for the ,gospels the manuscripts ,a ,c ,d ,e ,f ,h ,ib ,k ,l ,p ,q ,t ,u ,v ,x ,z 1 for the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles ,a ,c ,d ,e ,h ,k ,l ,p1 for the ,pauline ,epistles ,a ,c ,d ,e ,f ,g ,h ,l ,p1 and for the ,apocalypse ,a ,c ,p #a1 #ah1 #ch1 #di1 #ib1 #ie4 ,at the foot of the text his edition gives1 in two divisions1 a comparison with the ,elzevir text and with that of ,tischendorf-,gebhardt 7#ahid74 ,from what source ,schjtt derived his knowledge of the ,vaticanus and the ,sinaiticus is not mentioned4 ,the photograph of the former seems not to have been employed4 ,,literature4--,novum ,testamentum ,graece ad fidem testium vetustissimorum recognovit necnon variantes lectiones ex editionibus ,elzeviriana et ,tischendorfiana subjunxit ,fr4 ,schjtt4 ,hauniae1 #ahig1 pp4 xi4 #efb4 ,sidenote3 ,baljon4 ,the edition of ,j4 ,m4 ,s4 ,,baljon is in the main an abridgment of ,tischendorf's octava maior4 ,he avails himself1 however1 of later discoveries1 such as the ,sinai-,syriac ,palimpsest for the ,gospels1 and the ,syriac version published by ,gwynn for the ,apocalypse4 ,in ,acts1 ,blass's restoration of the so-called ,forma ,romana is regularly indicated4 ,no other edition1 for one thing1 shows more conveniently where recent scholars recognise glosses or other interpolations1 or propose transpositions or conjectural emendations and such like4 ,so far1 therefore1 it may be commended to those who do not possess an edition with a more copious critical apparatus4 ,but even ,baljon's ,new ,testament fails to realise the ideal of a practical edition4 ,,literature4--,novum ,testamentum ,graece praesertim in usum studiosorum recognovit ,j4 ,m4 ,s4 ,baljon1 ,groningae1 #ahih1 pp4 xxiii4 #gca4 ,the first #cbj pages are also issued separately as ,volumen primum continens ,evangelia ,matthaei1 ,marci1 ,lucae et ,ioannis4 ,vide ,bousset in the ,theologische ,rundschau for ,july #ahih4 ,sidenote3 ,catholic editions4 ,from the ,catholic side little has been done in ,germany in this department of scholarship for a long time4 ,in #ahba ,aloys ,,gratz reprinted the ,complutensian at ,tbingen2 while ,leander van ,,ess issued an edition which combined the ,complutensian and ,erasmus's fifth edition4#ag ,this also appeared at ,tbingen in #ahbg4 ,both of these contained the ,vulgate1 and showed where recent editions gave a different text4 ,reuss mentions two ,synopses1 one by ,joseph ,,gehringer 7,tbingen1 #ahdb1 #do71 the other by ,fr4 ,x4 ,,patricius 7,freiburg1 #ahec1 #do71 and two small editions1 one of which1 by ,a4 ,,jaumann 7,munich1 #ahcb71 was the first to be printed in ,bavaria4 ,the other is by ,fr4 ,x4 ,,reithmayer 7,munich1 #ahdg71 and closely follows the text of ,lachmann4 ,there has also appeared recently at ,innsbruck a ,greek-,latin edition in two volumes by ,michael ,,hetzenauer1 a ,capuchin4 ,the first volume contains the ,evangelium and the second the ,apostolicum4 ,but as the strict ,catholic is bound by the decision of the ,holy ,office1 ,hetzenauer's edition hardly falls to be considered here4 ,a resolution of the ,holy ,office of #acth ,january #ahig pronounced even the ,comma ,johanneum 7#a ,john v4 #g7 to be an integral part of the ,new ,testament4 ,this was confirmed by the ,pope on the #aeth ,january1 and published in the ,monitore ,ecclesiastico of the #bhth ,february of the same year4 ,an edition in ,greek and ,latin was issued by ,,brandscheid at ,freiburg in #ahic4 ,it is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate books of the ,new ,testament4 ,many of these are in the form of ,commentaries4 ,in addition to the works of ,blass1 to which reference will be made later1 mention may be made here of a recent and most thorough piece of work--viz41 ,the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark3 ,the ,greek ,text1 with ,introduction and ,notes1 by ,henry ,barclay ,,swete1 ,d4,d41 pp4 cx4 #dab 7,london1 ,macmillan1 #ahih72 also of ,the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,luke after the ,westcott-,hort text1 edited with parallels1 illustrations1 various readings1 and notes1 by the ,rev4 ,arthur ,wright3 ,london1 ,macmillan1 #aijj2 and of ,hilgenfeld's edition of the ,acts in ,greek and ,latin4 ,berlin1 #ahii4 ,sidenote3 ,apocrypha and ,pseudepigrapha4 ,nor can we enter particularly the field of early ,christian ,apocrypha and ,pseudepigrapha4 ,those who cannot obtain ,hilgenfeld's ,novum ,testamentum extra ,canonem ,receptum1 or ,resch's ,agrapha1 or the editions of ,tischendorf1 ,lipsius1 and ,bonnet1 will find a handy and inexpensive selection in my ,supplement to ,gebhardt's editions of ,tischendorf4 ,,literature4--,novi ,testamenti ,graeci ,supplementum editionibus de ,gebhardt-,tischendorfianis adcommodavit ,eb4 ,nestle4 ,insunt ,codicis ,cantabrigiensis ,collatio1 ,evangeliorum deperditorum ,fragmenta1 ,dicta ,salvatoris ,agrapha1 ,alia4 ,lipsiae 7,tauchnitz71 #ahif1 pp4 #if4 ,there can be no question that in these last mentioned editions which have been brought out at the end of the nineteenth century1 we have a text corresponding far more closely to the original than that contained in the first editions of the ,greek ,new ,testament issued at the beginning of the sixteenth century1 on which are based the translations into modern languages used in the ,christian churches of ,europe at the present time4 ,it would be a vast mistake1 however1 to conclude from the textual agreement displayed in these latest editions1 that research in this department of ,new ,testament study has reached its goal4 ,just as explorers1 in excavating the ruined temples of ,olympia or ,delphi1 are able from the fragments they discover to reconstruct the temple1 to their mind's eye at least1 in its ancient glory--albeit it is actually in ruins--so too1 much work remains to be done ere even all the materials are re-collected1 and the plan determined which shall permit us to restore the ,temple of the ,new ,testament ,scriptures to its original form4 ,footnote #b3 ,they were reinserted in the library on the #bcrd ,august4 ,footnote #c3 ,mary's ,hymn1 ,luke i4 #df-ee2 and ,hymn of ,zacharias1 ,luke i4 #fh-gi4 ,footnote #d3 8,nec eis sane quibuslibet1 sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis40 ,footnote #e3 ,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 ,london4 ,to this day the word is printed in their editions at ,apoc4 xvii4 #d1 though there is no such word in the ,greek language as 1 meaning uncleanness4 ,in the concluding verses of the ,new ,testament1 which were retranslated by ,erasmus from his ,latin ,bible1 there stands the lovely future for 4 ,we find also constructions like 1 1 in c4 xvii4 #h1 where1 however1 the accentuation makes ,erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not commit1 seeing that he at least printed 4 ,every college lad knows that is construed with the participle1 though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at once that is the correct reading4 ,cf4 ,mark xv4 #f1 where the ,,mss4 fluctuate in like manner between and 747 ,other instances where the ,textus ,receptus has adopted the reading of ,erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known ,,ms4 are to be found1 e4g4 in #a ,pet4 ii4 #f 7 7 and in #b ,cor4 i4 #f4 ,luther1 who used ,erasmus's second edition of #aeai1 followed him in saying of the ,beast1 8that is not although it is40 ,this1 however1 is not so remarkable as that in the year #ahhc 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 ,churches1 and only removed in their last ,revision of #ahib4 ,the error in ,apoc4 xvii4 #h was copied into the ,english ,authorised ,version of #afaa 78is not and yet is07 but was corrected by the ,revisers of #ahhd 78is not and shall come074 ,footnote #f3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #g3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #h3 ,facsimiles of ,folio #aeih and ,octavo #afjd in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #i3 ,copies of the ,parisian ,polyglot now cost about #f4 ,footnote #aj3 ,facsimile in ,schaffs's ,companion4 ,footnote #aa3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #ab3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #ac3 ,facsimile of the second edition1 ,halle and ,london1 #agif1 in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #ad3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #ae3 ,facsimiles of the edition of #ahda1 and the octava maior #ahgb1 in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #af3 ,facsimile in ,schaff's ,companion4 ,footnote #ag3 ,van ,ess's edition was issued with two different title-pages4 ,one of these gives the names of the ,protestant editors1 ,matthaei and ,griesbach4 ,but the other omits the names together with the ,notanda on the back of the title-page1 so that the reader is left in the dark as to the meaning of the symbols ,gb1 ,m1 etc41 in the margin4 ,most copies omit the ,introduction1 which contains the ,pope's sanction of the editions of ,erasmus and ,ximenes4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,materials ,,of ,,the ,,textual ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament4 ,even in the age of printing1 and with all the security afforded by that invention1 it is not always easy or even possible to exhibit or restore the literary productions of a great mind in their original form4 ,one has but to think of the obscurity in which the works of ,shakespeare and their early editions are enveloped1 or the questions raised over the ,weimar edition of ,luther's works4 ,and even when the author's original manuscript is still preserved1 but the proof-sheets1 as is usual1 destroyed1 we cannot always be certain whether occasional discrepancies between the print and the manuscript are intentional or not4 ,nay1 even when the two agree1 there is still the possibility that what the author wrote and allowed to be printed was not what he thought or intended to be read4 ,did ,lessing1 e4g41 mean us to read in ,nathan ii4 #e1 #dic1 8the great man requires always plenty of room10 or 8the great tree0 does so8 ,various writers1 in speaking of this or that artist's talents or dexterity1 have used the words 8haud impigre40 ,to take them at their word1 the object of their praise had no such endowment beyond the common4 ,we may be certain that what they meant to convey was the very opposite of what they actually wrote1 viz4 8haud pigre0 or 8impigre40 ,as a rule1 however1 the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon reading it in the form in which the author intended it to be circulated4 ,it is quite different in the case of those works which were composed at a time when their multiplication was only possible by means of copying1 and specially so in the case of those that are older by a thousand years than the invention of printing4 ,for then every fresh copy was a fresh source of errors1 even when the copyist was as painfully exact as it was possible for him to be4 ,it is simply astonishing1 in view of all the perils to which literary works have been exposed1 to find how much has been preserved1 and1 on the whole1 how faithfully4 ,sidenote3 ,autographs4 ,the matter is1 of course1 quite a simple one1 when by good fortune the author's own manuscript1 his autograph1 is extant4 ,the abstract possibility of this being so in the case of the ,new ,testament writings cannot be denied4 ,thanks to the dryness of the climate of ,egypt and the excellence of ancient writing material1 we have documents more than twice the age that the ,new ,testament autographs would be to-day did we possess them4 ,now and again we find a report circulated in the newspapers that such an original document has been found1--of ,peter1 e4g41 or some other ,apostle4 ,about the year #dhi it was asserted that the original copy of ,matthew had been discovered in the grave of ,barnabas in ,cyprus4 ,and to the eyes of the devout there are still exhibited not only the ,inscription from the ,cross1 but works from the artist hand of ,luke4 ,in reality1 however1 we have no longer the autograph of a single ,new ,testament book4 ,their disappearance is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the ,new ,testament1 viz4 the ,epistles1 are occasional writings never intended for publication1 while others were meant to have only a limited circulation4 ,even in the early ages of the ,christian ,church1 when there must have been frequent occasion to appeal to them1 the autographs were no longer in existence4 ,tertullian 7,de ,praescriptione ,haereticorum1 #cf7 mentions ,thessalonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of the ,apostles that were addressed there were still read from autograph copies4#ah 8,percurre ecclesias apostolicas1 apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident1 apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur1 sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque40 ,but when the same author1 in his ,de ,monogamia1 speaks of 8,graecum authenticum10 he refers not to the autograph1 but to the original text as distinguished from a version4 ,on the copy of ,matthew's ,gospel found in the grave of ,barnabas in ,cyprus1 vide ,theodorus ,lector 7,migne1 #hf1 #ahi72 ,severus of ,antioch in ,assemani1 ,bibliotheca ,orientalis1 ii4 #ha2 ,vitae omnium #ac ,apostolorum3 444 4#ai ,in the ,imperial ,court ,chapel the lessons were read from this copy on ,holy ,thursday of every year4 ,vide ,fabricius1 ,evv4 ,apocr41 #cda4 ,on the supposed autograph of ,mark in ,venice see ,jos4 ,dobrowsky1 ,fragmentum ,pragense ,ev4 ,s4 ,marci1 vulgo autographi1 ,prague1 #aggh4 ,it is really a fragment of a ,latin manuscript of the ,vulgate1 dating from the seventh century1 of which other fragments exist in ,prague4 ,in the ,chronicon ,paschale there is a note on the reading for in ,john xix4 #ad1 to the following effect3-- 1 4 ,bengel himself said on #a ,john v4 #g3--8;,et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet1 si non autographum ,johanneum1 at alios vetustissimos codices graecos1 qui hanc periocham habeant1 in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes1 suo tempore productum iri40 7,n4,t4 #dbj1 #fjb1 #ggj47 ,in disproof of an alleged autograph of ,peter1 see ,lagarde1 ,aus dem deutschen ,gelehrtenleben1 ,gttingen1 #ahhj1 p4 #aag f4 ,on legends of this sort among the ,polish ,jews1 on the autograph copy of the ,proverbs that ,solomon sent to the ,queen of ,sheba1 and now in the possession of the ,queen of ,england1 etc41 vide ,s4 ,schechter1 ,die ,hebraica in der ,bibliothek des ,britischen ,museums1 in the ,jdisches ,literatur-,blatt for #ahhh1 ,no4 #df4 ,at the ,sixth ,ecumenical ,council of #fhj-a1 which ,harnack 7,,dg4 ii4 #djh7 says might be called the 8,council of ,antiquaries and ,palaeographers01 investigations were instituted in this department with some success4 ,j4 ,g4 ,berger1 ,de ,autographis ,veterum1 ,vitenb41 #agbc4 #do4 ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,new ,testament ,autographs 7,supplement to the ,american ,journal of ,philology1 ,no4 #ab71 ,baltimore1 #ahhb4 ,with three plates4 ,in this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of ,constantine ,simonides3 ,facsimiles of certain portions of the ,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew1 and of the ,epistles of ,st4 ,james and ,st4 ,jude1 written on papyrus of the first century4 ,london1 #ahfb4 ,fol4 ,sidenote3 ,manuscripts4 ,seeing1 then1 that the autographs of the ,new ,testament books have all perished1 we have to do as in the case of the ,greek and ,latin classics1 viz4 apply to later copies of them1 the so-called manuscripts of which frequent mention has already been made4 ,but while in the case of most literary products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the only sources whence we may derive our knowledge of them1 we are happily more fortunate in regard to the ,new ,testament4 ,sidenote3 ,versions4 ,the new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant peoples speaking other languages than that in which the ,gospel was first preached4 ,indeed1 even in its native land of ,palestine1 several languages were in use at the same time4 ,accordingly1 at a very early date1 as early as the second1 and perhaps1 in the case of fragments1 even in the first century1 there arose in the ,east1 and in the ,south1 and in the ,west1 versions of the ,christian books very soon after their composition4 ,at first only separate portions would be translated1 but as time went on versions of the entire ,new ,testament made their appearance4 ,manifestly1 the value for our purpose of these versions depends on their age and accuracy4 ,it is impossible1 without further knowledge1 to be certain whether a ,greek copyist of later centuries followed his original quite faithfully or not4 ,but a ,latin version of the ,new ,testament which dates from the second century1 e4g41 will represent with tolerable certainty the second century ,greek manuscript from which it is derived1 even supposing that our present copy of that version is not earlier than the sixth century or even later4 ,but these versions confer yet another advantage4 ,in the case of most1 and certainly of the oldest ,greek manuscripts1 we do not know in what country they originated4 ,but it is quite certain that a ,latin version could not have originated in ,egypt1 or a ,coptic version in ,gaul4 ,in this way we may learn from the versions how the text of the ,bible read at a particular time and in a particular region4 ,lastly1 if it should happen that several versions originating in quite isolated regions1 in the ,latin ,west1 and in the ,syrian ,east1 and in the ,egyptian ,south1 agree1 then we may be certain that what is common to them all must go back to the earliest times and to their common original4 ,sidenote3 ,quotations4 ,in addition to the ,greek manuscripts and the versions1 we have still a third and by no means unimportant class of material that we can employ in reconstructing our text of the ,new ,testament4 ,we possess an uncommonly rich ,christian literature1 which gathers volume from the second half1 or1 at all events1 from the last quarter of the first century onwards4 ,now1 what an early ,church teacher1 or1 for that matter1 what any early writer quotes from the ,new ,testament will have for us its own very peculiar importance1 under certain conditions4 ,because1 as a rule1 we know precisely where and when he lived4 ,so that by means of these patristic quotations we are enabled to locate our ancient manuscripts of the ,bible even more exactly1 and trace their history further than we are able to do with the help of the versions4 ,here1 of course1 we must make sure that our author has quoted accurately and not loosely from memory1 and also that the quotations in his book have been accurately preserved and not accommodated to the current text of their time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions1 as has actually been done even in the nineteenth century4 ,we shall now proceed to describe these three classes of auxiliaries4 ,,literature4--,w4 ,wattenbach1 ,anleitung zur griechischen ,palaeographie1 #bnd ed41 ,leipzig1 #ahgg2 ,v4 ,gardthausen1 ,griechische ,palaeographie1 ,leipzig1 #ahgi2 ,fr4 ,blass1 ,palaeographie1 ,bcherwesen1 und ,handschriftenkunde1 in ,i4 v4 ,mller's ,handbuch der klassischen ,alterthumswissenschaft1 #bnd ed41 vol4 i41 ,munich1 #ahib2 ,e4 ,m4 ,thompson1 ,handbook of ,greek and ,latin ,palaeography1 ,london1 #ahia2 ,t4 ,birt1 ,das antike ,buchwesen1 ,berlin1 #ahhb2 ,w4 ,a4 ,copinger1 ,the ,bible and its ,transmission2 ,f4 ,g4 ,kenyon1 ,our ,bible and the ancient ,manuscripts1 ,london1 third edition1 #ahig2 ,f4 ,h4 ,a4 ,scrivener1 ,six ,lectures on the ,text of the ,n4,t4 and the ancient ,manuscripts which contain it1 ,cambridge and ,london1 #ahge2 ,a ,collation of about #bj ,manuscripts of the ,holy ,gospels1 ,london1 #ahec2 ,adversaria critica sacra1 ,cambridge1 #ahic2 ,hoskier2 ,urt41 pp4 #af1 #ed2 ,o4 ,weise1 ,schrift- und ,buchwesen in alter und neuer ,zeit1 ,leipzig 7,teubner71 #ahii 7with ,facsimiles3 a popular work72 ,f4 ,g4 ,kenyon1 ,the ,palaeography of ,greek ,papyri1 ,oxford1 #ahii 7with #bj ,facsimiles and a ,table of ,alphabets1 pp4 viii41 #afj72 ,ulr4 ,wilcken1 ,tafeln zur lteren griechischen ,palaeographie1 ,nach ,originalen des ,berliner ,k4 ,museums1 ,berlin and ,leipzig1 #ahia 7with #bj photographs72 ,g4 ,vitelli e ,c4 ,paoli1 ,collezione ,fiorentina di facsimili paleografici greci e latini1 ,firenze1 #ahhd-ahig 7with #ej ,greek ,plates and #ej ,latin1 ,folio72 ,charles ,f4 ,sitterly1 ,praxis in ,manuscripts of the ,greek ,testament2 the mechanical and literary processes involved in their writing and preservation 7with table of ,manuscripts and #ac ,facsimile ,plates71 ,new ,york and ,cincinnati1 #ahih1 second enlarged edition1 #aijj2 ,f4 ,carta1 ,c4 ,cipolla e ,c4 ,frati1 ,monumenta ,palaeographica sacra3 ,atlante paleografico-artistico composto sui manuscritti1 ,turin1 #ahii2 ,karl ,dziatzko1 ,untersuchungen ber ausgewhlte ,kapitel des antiken ,buchwesens4 ,mit ,text1 ,uebersetzung und ,erklrung von ,plinii ,histor4 ,nat41 lib4 xiii4 #fh1 #fi1 ,leipzig1 ,teubner1 #aijj4 #a4 ,,manuscripts4 ,sidenote3 ,number of manuscripts4 ,for no literary production of antiquity is there such a wealth of manuscripts as for the ,new ,testament4 ,our classical scholars would rejoice were they as fortunate with ,homer or ,sophocles1 ,plato or ,aristotle1 ,cicero or ,tacitus1 as ,bible students are with their ,new ,testament4 ,the oldest complete manuscript of ,homer that we have dates from the thirteenth century1 and only separate papyrus fragments go back to the ,alexandrian age4 ,all that is extant of ,sophocles we owe to a single manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century in the ,laurentian ,library at ,florence4 ,but of the ,new ,testament1 #chbi manuscripts have been catalogued up till the present4 ,a systematic search in the libraries of ,europe might add still more to the list2 a search in those of ,asia and ,egypt would certainly do so4 ,gregory believes that there are probably some two or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been collated1 and every year additional manuscripts are brought to light4 ,most of these are1 of course1 late1 and contain only separate portions1 some of them mere fragments1 of the ,new ,testament4#bj ,not a few1 however1 go much further back than our manuscripts of the ,hebrew ,old ,testament and most of the ,greek and ,latin ,classics4 ,only in the case of the ,mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more favourable4 ,these came into existence in the seventh century1 and the variations between separate manuscripts are a vanishing quantity1 because the text of the ,koran was officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviolably sacred4 ,fortunately1 one might almost say1 it is quite different with the ,new ,testament1 which was put together in a totally different way4 ,in its case the very greatest freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half4 ,the manuscripts of the ,new ,testament being so numerous1 it becomes necessary to arrange them4 ,one of the most important considerations hitherto has been that of age1 and therefore manuscripts have been divided into ,uncials 7or ,majuscules7 and ,cursives 7or ,minuscules71 according to the style of writing in use at earlier or later times4 ,sidenote3 ,uncial1 and ,cursive script4 ,in early times1 as at the present day1 inscriptions on monuments and public buildings were engraved in capital letters4 ,this form of writing was also employed for books1 especially those containing valuable or sacred writing4 ,the letters were not joined together1 but set down side by side4#ba ,they were called litterae majusculae1 capitales1 unciales1 i4e4 8inch-high10 as ,jerome says with ridicule--uncialibus ut vulgo aiunt litteris onera magis exarata quam codices4 ,alongside of this there arose1 even previous to the ,christian era1 a smaller ,cursive form 7,minusculae71 for use in common life1 in which the letters were joined4#bb ,this running hand found its way into manuscripts of the ,bible in the course of the ninth century4 ,in some cases1 in ,codex e4g41 both styles are found alongside or following each other4#bc ,the oldest ,cursive manuscript of the ,new ,testament1 the exact date of which is known1 is #dha;evv42 it bears the date #hce4 ,the great majority of ,new ,testament manuscripts belong to this later date1 seeing that out of the #chbi manuscripts there are only #abg ,uncials to #cgjb ,minuscules4 ,greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manuscripts exactly1 it becomes the task of palography to settle the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript's origin may be determined4 ,these are the style of writing--whether angular or round1 upright or sloping1 the punctuation--whether simple or elaborate1 and the different material and form of the book4 ,these distinctions1 however1 are often very misleading4 ,the following table will show the distribution of the manuscripts according to the centuries in which they were written1 as given by ,vollert1 ,scrivener1 and von ,gebhardt#bd3-- ,vollert4 ,scrivener4 v4 ,gebhardt4 ,i,vth ,century1 #e 444 #b ,vth 8 #d #aj #ae ,v,ith 0 #ah #bb #bd ,v,i,ith 8 #f #i #ag ,v,i,i,ith 0 #h #h #ai ,i,xth 8 #bc 444 #ca ,xth 0 #d 444 #f ,sidenote3 ,papyrus and parchment4 ,manuscripts are distinguished according to the material on which they are written1 which may be either parchment or paper4 ,parchment derives its name from ,pergamum1 where it was introduced in the reign of ,king ,eumenes 7#aig-aei ,b4,c474 ,but prior to the use of parchment1 and to a certain extent alongside of it1 papyrus was used1 especially in ,egypt1 down to the time of the ,mohammedan ,conquest4 ,papyrus books were originally in the form of rolls 7volumina74 ,only a few fragments of the ,new ,testament on papyrus remain4 ,the use of parchment gave rise to the book or ,codex form4 ,in the case of parchment codices1 a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the skins of very young calves1 and those made of common parchment from the skins of sheep1 goats1 and antelopes4 ,sidenote3 ,paper4 ,as early as the eighth century 7not the ninth71 the so-called cotton paper 7charta bombycina7 was introduced from the ,east4 ,this1 however1 never consisted of pure cotton1 but rather of flax and hemp4 ,it had been in use for a long time in ,china and the centre of ,eastern ,asia1 but seems to have been unknown in ,syria and ,egypt till after the fall of ,samarcand in #gjd4 ,from the thirteenth century onwards1 paper made of linen was employed4 ,in the ,new ,testament1 both papyrus and parchment are referred to4 ,in #b ,tim4 iv4 #ac1 ,paul asks that the he had left at ,troas might be brought to him1 and 1 but specially 4 ,here1 means cloak rather than satchel2 are the papyrus books1 possibly his ,old ,testament1 while are clean sheets of parchment4 ,in #b ,john #ab the word is used of papyrus4 ,there1 and in #c ,john #ac1 is the ink1 and the 7lat4 canna7 is the reed pen1 still used for writing in the ,east4 ,the quill pen1 strange to say1 is not mentioned prior to the time of ,theodoric the ,ostrogoth in the sixth century4 ,the size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred from the passages in #bnd and #crd ,john alluded to above4 ,sidenote3 ,scriptio continua4 ,in order to economize space1 the writing was continuous1 with no break between the words 7scriptio continua71 breathings and accents being also omitted4 ,this is a frequent source of ambiguity and misunderstanding4 ,in ,matt4 ix4 #ah1 e4g41 may be either or 4 ,in ,mark x4 #dj1 was rendered 8aliis praeparatum10 being read instead of ' 4 ,in ,matt4 xvi4 #bc1 may be taken either as or ' 4 ,in #a ,cor4 xii4 #bh1 again1 the ,ethiopic translator read instead of 4 ,the ,palestinian-,syriac ,lectionary translates #a ,tim4 iii4 #af as though it were 4 ,there is something to be said for this1 but ,naber's proposed reading of ,gal4 ii4 #aa1 1 cannot be accepted4 ,sidenote3 ,columns1 ,lines4 ,most manuscripts show two columns to the page4 ,the ,sinaitic1 however1 has four1 while the ,vatican has three4 ,columns vary considerably in width4 ,they may be the width of a few letters only1 or of an average hexameter line of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters4 ,such a line is called a 1 and as the scribe was paid according to the number of 1 we find at the end of several books a note giving the total number of contained in them4 ,in carefully written manuscripts1 every hundredth1 sometimes every fiftieth is indicated in the margin4 ,these stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the entire ,bible4 ,their value in many respects will be obvious4 ,as the church increased in wealth and prestige1 ,new ,testament manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form1 either from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings and churches4 ,sidenote3 ,palimpsests4 ,parchment1 however1 grew more and more expensive1 and so the practice arose of using an old manuscript a second time4 ,the original writing was erased by means of a sponge or pumice stone or a knife1 and the sheets were then employed to receive other matter1 or it might even be the same matter over again4 ,and so we have ,codices ,rescripti or ,palimpsesti as they were called1 a term known to ,cicero1 who says1 though of a wax tablet1 8quod in palimpsesto1 laudo parsimoniam0 7ad ,diversos vii4 #ah74 ,some manuscripts were used as often as three times for distinct works in three different languages e4g4 ,greek1 ,syriac1 and ,iberian4 ,codex ,ib is one of these thrice used manuscripts1 being written first in ,greek and then twice in ,syriac4 ,sidenote3 ,punctuation4 ,marks of punctuation are hardly to be found in the earliest times4 ,it was frequently1 therefore1 a question with church teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively or indicatively1 or how the sentences were to be divided1 as in the case of ,john i4 #c and #d4 ,in the general absence of punctuation1 the appearance of quotation marks in some of the oldest manuscripts1 like ,codex ,vaticanus e4g41 to indicate citations from the ,old ,testament1 is remarkable4 ,sidenote3 ,size4 ,the size of a manuscript varies from a large folio1 which in the case of a parchment codex must have been very expensive1 to a small octavo4 ,in regions inhabited by a mixed population we find bilingual manuscripts1 ,greek-,latin1 ,greek-,coptic1 ,greek-,armenian1 and such like4 ,if the manuscript was designed for use in church1 the two languages were written in parallel columns1 the ,greek frequently occupying the left column or reverse side of the sheet1 being the place of honour4 ,in manuscripts intended for use in schools1 the translation was written between the lines4 ,codex is an example of a manuscript with an interlinear version of this sort4 ,sidenote3 ,contents4 ,of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts according to their contents4 ,of all our recorded ,uncials1 only one contains the whole of the ,new ,testament complete4 ,that is the ,codex ,sinaiticus discovered by ,tischendorf in #ahei4 ,a few others1 like ,codices ,vaticanus1 ,alexandrinus1 ,ephraemi1 were once complete1 but are no longer so4 ,of the later ,minuscules1 some twenty-five alone contain the entire ,new ,testament4 ,of the ,english ,minuscules1 five are complete4 ,the fragmentary nature of our manuscripts is intelligible on two grounds4 ,one is that a ,new ,testament codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and ponderous volume running to about #aej sheets4 ,comparatively few would be in a position to procure such a costly work all at once4 ,the other reason is that the ,new ,testament itself is not a single book1 but a series of different collections1 which at first1 and even afterwards1 were circulated separately4 ,to the same reason is due the great variety in the order of the several parts of the ,new ,testament found in the manuscripts1 and still1 to a certain extent1 in our printed editions4 ,it is not exactly known who it was that first collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the parts that now make up the ,new ,testament4 ,such a single volume of the entire ,new ,testament was afterwards known as a 1 and in ,latin1 bibliotheca4 ,the parts into which the ,new ,testament is divided are-- #a4 ,the four ,gospels4 #b4 7a7 ,the ,acts of the ,apostles4 7b7 ,the so-called ,catholic ,epistles1 i4e4 those not addressed to any particular church or individual1 viz41 ,james1 #a and #b ,peter1 #a1 #b1 and #c ,john1 ,jude4 #c4 ,the thirteen ,pauline ,epistles1 or1 including ,hebrews1 fourteen4 #d4 ,the ,apocalypse4 ,sidenote3 ,lectionaries4 ,among these incomplete manuscripts of the ,new ,testament may be classed the so-called lectionaries--i4e4 manuscripts containing only those portions read at church services4 ,following the custom of the ,synagogue1 in which portions of the ,law and the ,prophets were read at divine service each ,sabbath day1 the practice was early adopted in the ,christian ,church of reading passages from the ,new ,testament books at services4 ,a definite selection of such extracts was formed at an early date from the ,gospels and ,epistles1 and the custom arose of arranging these according to the order of ,sundays and ,holy days1 for greater convenience in use4 ,a collection of selected passages from the ,gospels was called a 1 and in ,latin ,evangeliarium1#be in distinction to the books containing the continuous text1 which were called 1 while the selections from the ,epistles were known as or 4 ,these lectionaries1 though mostly of later origin1 are nevertheless important as indicating the official text of the various provinces of the ,church4 ,they show1 moreover1 how sundry slight alterations found their way into the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,we can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the ,gospels are by far the most numerous1 while those of the last book of the ,new ,testament are the fewest4 ,among the ,uncials1 #gc contain the ,gospels1 and only #g have the ,apocalypse4 ,of these #gc ,uncials1 again1 only #f1 viz4 ,b ,k ,m ,s ,u1 or1 if we include 1 only #g are quite complete2 #i are almost so2 #aa exhibit the greater part of the ,gospels1 while the remainder contain only fragments4 ,of the #bj ,uncials of the ,pauline ,epistles1 only #a is entirely complete--viz41 2 #b are nearly complete1 ,d ,g2 #h have the greater part4 ,it is plain that our resources are not so great1 after all1 as the number of manuscripts given above would lead us to expect4 ,here also there are 1 4 ,parchment4 ,the manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of papyrus4 ,it is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by ,eumenes ,,ii4 of ,pergamum 7#aig-aei ,b4,c474 ,pliny's story1#bf which he gives on the authority of ,varro1 is that ,eumenes wished to found a library which should1 as far as possible1 excel that of ,alexandria4 ,to frustrate this intention ,ptolemy ,epiphanes prohibited the exportation of papyrus to ,asia ,minor4 7,in the list of principal exports of ,alexandria1 ,lumbroso#bg mentions and in the second place after 1 and in the seventh47 ,eumenes was accordingly obliged to prepare parchment at ,pergamum1 and hence its name1 4 ,the name first occurs in ,diocletian's ,price-list1#bh and in ,jerome4 ,the word used in earlier times was 1#bi or 1#cj or as in #b ,tim4 iv4 #ac1 which last was taken from the ,latin4 ,at first parchment was less valuable than papyrus1 and was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the making of books1 as the writing was easier erased from the skin4 ,but it gradually supplanted papyrus1 and with its employment came also the change from the roll to the 8codex0 form of book4 ,if papyrus was the vehicle of ,pagan ,greek literature1 parchment was the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to mankind1 and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time preserved4 ,origen's library1 which still consisted for the most part of papyrus rolls1 was re-written in parchment volumes 71 corpus7 by two priests shortly before the time of ,jerome4 ,our principal manuscripts of ,philo are derived from one of these codices4#ca ,when ,constantine ordered ,eusebius to provide a certain number of ,bibles for presentation to the churches of his ,empire1 he sent him1 not rolls1 but codices1 4 ,parchment was prepared from the skins of goats1 sheep1 calves1 asses1 swine1 and antelopes4 ,our oldest manuscripts of the ,bible exhibit the finest and whitest parchment4 ,the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 e4g41 displays the very finest prepared antelope skin1 and is of such a size that only two sheets could be obtained from one skin4 ,as a rule1 four sheets were folded into a quire 7quaternio71 the separate sheets having been previously ruled on the grain side4 ,they were laid with the flesh side to the flesh side1 and the grain side to the grain side1 beginning with the flesh side outermost1 so that in each quaternio1 pages #a1 #d1 #e1 #h1 #i1 #ab1 #ac1 #af were white and smooth with the lines showing in relief1 while the others1 #b1 #c1 #f1 #g1 #aj1 #aa1 #ad1 #ae were darker and rough1 with indented lines4#cb ,sidenote3 ,ink4 ,for writing on papyrus1 ink made of soot was employed4 ,three parts of lamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted with water4 ,this ink1 however1 was easily washed off1 and did not stick well to parchment1 and therefore recourse was had to ink made of gall nuts4 ,sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it1 with the result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink4 ,from its having been boiled the mixture was also called 1 hence our word 8ink0 7encre74 ,many old recipes for making ink are still preserved4#cc ,even in early ,egyptian writing1 coloured inks1 especially red1 were used4 ,one of the most beautiful manuscripts extant is a ,syriac ,codex in the ,british ,museum1 of date #daa1 in which the red1 blue1 green1 and yellow inks are still quite fresh4 ,eusebius used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs1 and ,jerome makes mention of minium or vermilion4 ,in times of great wealth parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver letters4 ,papyrus4 ,among ancient writers1 ,pliny gives the fullest description of the preparation of papyrus1 in his ,historia ,naturalis1 xiii4 #aa4cd ,the sheets were prepared1 not from the bark1 but from the pith of the plant4 ,this was cut into strips 77 as thin and broad1 and1 according to some1 as long as possible4 ,these were laid side by side as firmly as might be1 to form the first layer 774 ,on this a second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with moisture or gum4 ,the two layers were then compressed to form the writing sheet 771 which was carefully dried and polished with ivory or a smooth shell4 ,the roll 71 7 consisted of a number of joined together to make one long strip--sometimes as much as #bj or #dj feet long1 or even longer4 ,the upper side1 the side used for writing on1 was the one in which the fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll4#ce ,the under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity4#cf ,the first sheet 77 was made stronger than the rest1 and its inner edge was glued to a wooden roller 771 with a knob at the end 774 ,the margin of the roll1 what corresponds to the edge of our books1 was frequently glazed and coloured1 while the back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with cedar oil4 ,the title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment 7 or 74 ,the separate rolls were enclosed in a leather case 7 or 1 see #b ,tim4 iv4 #ac71 and a number of them kept in a chest 7 or 74 ,on the literature cf4 also ,paul ,krger1 ,ueber die ,verwendung von ,papyrus und ,pergament fr die juristische ,litteratur der ,rmer1 ,zeitschrift der ,savigny-,stiftung fr ,rechtsgeschichte4 ,roman section1 viii4 pp4 #gf-he 7#ahhg74 ,wilcken1 ,archiv fr ,papyrus-,forschung und verwandte ,gebiete1 ,leipzig1 ,teubner4 ,f4 ,g4 ,kenyon1 ,palaeography of ,greek ,papyri4 ,c4 ,haeberlin1 ,griechische ,papyri1 ,leipzig1 #ahig3 8,nearly #aej years have fled since #dcb complete ,rolls and #ahjf ,papyrus ,fragments were discovered in the year #ageb at ,herculaneum1 in the ,villa of ,l4 ,calpurnius ,piso ,caesoninus1 the pupil and friend of the ,epicurean philosopher ,philodemus4 ,then twenty-five years later the soil of ,egypt1 that home and nursery of literature1 opened for the first time to vouchsafe to us a ,greek ,papyrus ,roll1 destined to be the forerunner of a series of discoveries often interrupted but never ceasing altogether4 ,it was1 perchance1 not the only one of its kind2 but out of the fifty rolls accidentally discovered in the year #aggh by ,arabian peasants in the neighbourhood of ,memphis1 it alone had the fortune to come into the possession of ,cardinal ,stefano ,borgia4 ,the rest were burned by their unsuspecting discoverers1 who found a peculiar pleasure in the resinous odour that arose from their smoking pyre40 ,paper4 ,the collection of manuscripts brought from the ,east by the ,archduke ,rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of paper-making1 and at the same time supplied the materials for a more exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible4 ,earlier works1 therefore1 like that of ,g4 ,meerman1 ,de ,chartae vulgaris seu lineae ,origine1 ed4 ,j4 v4 ,vaassen1 ,hagae ,comitum1 #agfg1 have been superseded4 ,the manufacture of paper seems to have been introduced into ,europe by the ,moors in ,spain1 where it went by the name of pergameno de panno to distinguish it from the pergameno de cuero4 ,in the ,byzantine ,empire it was called or 1 as being a vegetable product4 ,it came afterwards to be known as 1 from its chief place of manufacture4 ,the ,arabs introduced it into ,sicily1 whence it passed into ,italy4 ,after #abce1 we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of ,genoa4 ,european paper is distinguished from that of ,eastern manufacture chiefly by the use of water marks1 such as ox-heads1 e4g41 which were unknown in the ,east4 ,older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance to parchment4 ,the ,benedictine monks1 who owned the fragments of ,mark's ,gospel preserved in ,venice1 asserted that they were written on bark4 ,montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus4 ,massei said it was cotton paper4 ,but the microscope shows it to be parchment4 ,in many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and paper is found4 ,this is so in the ,leicester ,codex1 in which the leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner sheets of a quire are of parchment1 while the three intermediate sheets are of paper4 ,see ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,the origin of the ,leicester ,codex of the ,new ,testament1 #ahhg1 p4 #ad ff4 ,sidenote3 ,lead4 ,lead was also employed in early times for writing on4 ,budde sees a reference to this practice in the well-known passage1 ,job xix4 #bd4 ,he holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed as run into letters cut out in the rock1 which would be a very unlikely thing to do1 and a practice for which there is no evidence4 ,he would therefore correct the text so as to read 8with an iron pen on lead40 ,hesiod's 1 e4g41 was preserved on lead in the temple of the ,muses on ,helicon4#cg ,a leaden tablet from ,hadrumet contains an incantation showing strong traces of ,o4,t4 influence4#ch ,at ,rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed with the #hjth ,psalm1 which was used as a charm to protect a vineyard4#ci ,sidenote3 ,clay4 ,clay and brick were also used as writing material1 a fact which ,strack has omitted to mention in his article on ,writing in the ,realencyklopdie 7see ,ezek4 iv4 #a74 ,so far1 however1 no traces of ,n4,t4 writing have been discovered in the ,ostraca literature of which we have now a considerable quantity4 ,we have tiles of this sort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time of ,ptolemy ,philadelphus onwards1 inscribed with ink and a reed pen4 ,several of these contain portions of literary works such as those of ,euripides4#dj ,sidenote3 ,linen4 ,linen was also written on4#da ,it was used1 e4g41 for the ,sibylline ,oracles 7lintea texta1 carbasus3 ,orac4 ,sib4 ed4 ,alexandre1 ii41 #aei1 #agh1 #ahi74 ,but up to the present no ,n4,t4 writing has been found on linen4 ,paul's 8books40 ,on ,paul's 8books and parchments10 see ,zahn1 ,kanon ii41 #ich ff4 ,i am not aware if ,j4 ,joseph takes up this point or not in his ,la ,bibliothque de l',aptre ,paul 7,chrtien vang41 #ahig1 v4 #bbd-bbg74 ,in the ,theol4 ,tijdschrift1 #ahih1 p4 #bag1 the view that the ,paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question4 ,the most natural explanation1 certainly1 is that they were4 ,pen4 ,the ,n4,t4 makes no mention of the metal1 wood1 or bone stilus4 ,by 8the wild beast of the reeds0 7,ps4 lxviii4 #ca7 the ,rabbis understood the reed pen1 which in ,syriac also is commonly denoted by 1 and they took it as referring to ,rome and the ,emperor1 who decided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen4#db ,luther1 moreover1 was not without precedent in speaking of 8governors with the pen0 in ,jud4 v4 #ad1 as the ,syriac version renders it in the same way4 ,in ,ps4 xlv4 #b1 the ,hebrew is rendered 7,,lxx71 7,aquila71 and 7,symmachus74 ,it is also rendered by the translator of ,jeremiah viii4 #h1 where ,aquila has 4 must therefore be added to the ,bible names for pen4 for 1 mentioned alongside of in ,jer4 xvii4 #a1 seems to belong to the ,spanish-,greek of the ,complutensian1 but is really classic1 as also its diminutive 4 ,according to the ,rabbis1 pens were among the things ,god made in the evening of the last day of the creation4 ,they were also venerated by the ,egyptians and the ,greeks as an invention of the ,deity4#dc ,according to ,antisthenes#dd or ,democritus1#de a young man1 in order to enter the school of wisdom1 requires to have a 7 7 4 ,in ,cyprus1 the stilus is called 1 and the in like manner 4#df ,in the recently discovered fragments of ,diocletian's ,list of ,wares1 the section 7goose1 swan1 and peacock feathers7 is followed by that 1 and then by that 4 ,ink costs #ab drachmae the quart2 ,paphian and ,alexandrian #dg cost #d drachmae2 and the same4 ,baruch1 the 1 purchased ink and a pen in the market of the ,gentiles1 in order to write his letter to ,jeremiah 7 v4 l4 v4 l4 74#dh ,demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver stilus4 ,boniface1 e4g41 had one of that sort sent him from ,england4 ,sidenote3 ,reading and writing4 ,the following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writing taken from the ,greek ,versions of the ,o4,t4 ,it makes no claim to be complete4 ,the passages will be found in ,hatch and ,redpath's ,concordance to the ,septuagint4 1 1 1 1 1 2 7-71 1 7,est4 iii4 #ac1 ,complut471 1 7-71 1 7-72 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7-1 -1 -1 -1 -71 771 771 7-1 -1 -71 1 2 1 2 1 - or 1 1 1 2 2 71 vide ,field's ,hexapla on ,ezek4 ix4 #b7 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 ,isa4 viii4 #a2 also #a ,esdras vi4 #bc for 71 1 2 1 1 4 ,diastole and hyphen4 ,ancient ,homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous letters were to be read as one word or not4 ,to obviate misunderstanding1 they employed the as the mark of division 71 1 e4g471 and the ' as the mark of combination 71 not 74 ,such marks are also found in manuscripts of the ,bible1 in the ,septuagint1 e4g41 in the case of proper names4 ,it goes without saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as the copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty4 ,hermas 7,visio ii4 #a7 says of the book given him to copy 4#di ,for two instructive mistakes in the ,latin interlinear version of ,codex ,boernerianus see p4 #gg4 ,breathings and accents4 ,breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the ,bible as early as the time of ,epiphanius and ,augustine4 ,in our oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century4 ,they were inserted by the first hand of the ,ambrosian ,hexateuch 7,swete's ,f71 which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century by ,ceriani4 ,they seem to have been added to the ,codex ,vaticanus by the third hand1 probably in the twelfth century1 and do not always conform to our rules4 ,augustine1 commenting on the rival readings filiis and porcina1 in ,psalm xvi4 #ad1 says3 8quod 7porcina7 alii codices habent et verius habere perhibentur1 quia diligentiora exemplaria per accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendi more dissolvunt1 obscurius est0 7ii4 #ejd-e1 in ,lagarde's ,probe einer neuen ,ausgabe1 p4 #dj74 ,similarly1 speaking of the difference between and 1 ,gen4 xlvii4 #ca1 he says3--8fallit enim eos verbum graecum1 quod eisdem literis scribitur sive eius sive suae2 sed accentus spiritus dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt1 in codicibus non contemnuntur0 7iv4 #ec ed4 ,lugd4 #aehf1 cited by ,scrivener1 i4 p4 #dg74 ,sidenote3 ,abbreviation4 ,the practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like 1 1 1 goes back to very early times4 ,so1 too1 does the use of letters as numerals1 for #aj1 etc4 ,sidenote3 ,divisions4 ,in dividing syllables the ,greek copyists in general observed the rule of beginning each new line with a consonant4 ,a good many exceptions occur however1 especially in the ,vaticanus1 most of which have been corrected by a later hand4 ,these are indicated in the third volume of ,swete's edition of the ,,lxx4 ,a good instance of this is seen in ,jer4 xiv4 #ab1 where the ,vaticanus and ,marchalianus both originally had 1 which in the former is corrected to 1 and in the latter to 4 ,for examples from the ,o4,t4 portion of the ,codex ,vaticanus see ,nestle's ,septuagintastudien1 ii4 #bj4 ,stichometry4 ,carefully written manuscripts of the ,old and ,new ,testaments are provided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better manuscripts of the classics1 as e4g4 ,herodotus and ,demosthenes4 ,in the ,n4,t4 it is found specially in those ,pauline ,epistles that go back to the recension of ,euthalius4 ,one of the writers of the ,codex ,vaticanus has copied1 in several of the books of the ,o4,t41 the stichometric enumeration which he found in his original1 and the numbers show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much matter in a line as the one he himself wrote4 ,see ,nestle1 ,septuagintastudien1 ii4 #bj f42 ,lagarde1 ,die ,stichometrie der syrisch-hexaplarischen ,uebersetzung des alten ,testaments 7,mitteilungen1 iv4 #bje-bjh74 ,on the stichometric list in the ,codex ,claromontanus of the ,pauline ,epistles 7,d#b71 see p4 #gf4 ,american scholars have counted the number of words in the ,greek ,n4,t4 ,in ,matthew the number is #ah1bbb1 in ,mark #aa1aeh1 in ,luke #ai1bji4 ,unfortunately1 ,i am unable to give the total number in the ,n4,t4 ,see ,schaff's ,companion1 pp4 #eg1 #agf4 ,graux 7,revue de ,philologie1 ii47 has counted not only the words but the letters in the various books4 ,the numbers are given in ,zahn's ,geschichte des ,n4,t4 ,kanons1 i4 #gf4 ,they are as follows3-- ,letters4 ,stichoi4 ,matthew1 #hi1bie #bdhj ,mark1 #ee1eej #aedc ,luke1 #ig1gad #bgad ,john1 #gj1baj #aiej ,acts1 #id1jjj #bfaj #c ,john1 #a1ajj #ca ,apocalypse1 #df1ejj #abib ,for ,philemon1 ,zahn #a1efg #dd gives ,in this last epistle ,i find that my edition has #aech letters1 or including the title #aeej4 ,the lines in my edition happen to coincide as near as may be with the ancient stichoi4 #da stichoi at #cf letters to the stichos would give a total of #adgf4 ,now in the #da complete lines which my edition gives to ,philemon ,i find #adfi letters1 that is1 only #g fewer4 ,in ,jude1 again1 ,graux enumerates #ga stichoi1 while my edition shows exactly #gj lines or #ga with the title4 ,for stichometric calculations1 therefore1 this edition will prove very convenient4 ,for a 8,table of ,ancient and ,modern ,divisions of the ,new ,testament10 see ,scrivener1 i4 #fh2 also ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,appendix ,d1 xix41 xx42 ,bible in the ,church1 ,appendix ,b1 #d4 ,sidenote3 ,cola and commata4 ,the ,cola and ,commata were quite different from the stichoi4 ,the length of the latter was regulated according to the space 7space-lines71 that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence 7sense-lines74 ,on cola and commata see ,wordsworth and ,white1 ,de colis et commatibus codicis ,amiatini et editionis nostrae1 in the ,epilogus to their edition of the ,vulgate1 i4 pp4 #gcc-gcf4 ,on the stichometry proper see ,ibid41 p4 #gcf1 ,de stichorum numeris in euangeliis4 ,manuscripts de luxe4 ,solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to ,bilqis1 ,queen of ,sheba1 who herself could both read and write4#ej ,mani inscribed characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was drawn out the writing became invisible4#ea ,on gold and silver writing among the ,syrians see ,zahn1 ,tatian1 ,forschungen1 #ajh1 n4 #a2 also ,r4 ,wessely1 ,iconographie 7,wiener ,studien1 xii4 #b1 #bei-bgi74 ,the earliest mention of this kind of writing that ,i know is in the ,epistle of ,aristeas1#eb 444 1 1 4 ,in ,alexander's copy of the ,pentateuch the name of ,god was written in gold letters4#ec ,on the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing see ,chrysostom1 ,hom4 #cb in ,joannem3 4 ,ephraem ,syrus commended this ,christian munificence1 as is pointed out in the ,histor4 ,polit4 ,bltter1 #hd1 #b1 #ajd4 ,gold writing is also mentioned in the ,targum on ,ps4 xlv4 #aj4 ,the passage in the ,epistle of ,theonas to ,lucian referring to the use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by ,batiffol to be derived from that in ,jerome's ,commentary on ,job1 and he founds on this an argument against the genuineness of the ,epistle4#ed ,in the ,martyrium of ,qardagh the ,persian1 particular mention is made of the remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment 77 on which he wrote his epistles4#ee ,for the preparation of his ,bible1 ,origen procured the services not only of rapid writers 77 but also of girls who could write beautifully 774 ,cassiodorus pleads--qui emendare praesumitis1 ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis1 ut potius ab ,antiquariis scriptae fuisse judicentur4#ef ,we also find him making proposals for expensive bindings in the ,de ,inst41 c4 #cj1 a passage which1 according to ,springer1#eg has been overlooked in the literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art4 ,on various decorated manuscripts see ,w4 ,wattenbach1 ,ueber die mit ,gold auf ,purpur geschriebene ,evangelien-handschrift der ,hamiltonschen ,bibliothek1 in the ,berliner ,sitz4-,ber41 #gth ,march #ahhi1 xiii4 #adc-aef4 ,cf4 ,berl4 ,phil4 ,wochenschrift1 #ahhi1 #cc1 #cd4 ,this manuscript purported to be a gift to ,henry ,,viii4 from ,pope ,leo ,x41 but was rather from ,wolsey4 ,bishop ,wilfrid of ,ripon 7#fgj-fhh7 had the four ,gospels written with the finest gold4 ,boniface requested his ,english friends to send him the ,epistles of ,paul written with gold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded ,germans 7,ep4 #cb1 p4 #ii71 a fact of which ,gustav ,freitag makes use in his ,ingo und ,ingraban1 p4 #dgf4 7,see ,die ,christliche ,welt1 #ahhh1 #bb47 ,cf4 also the manuscripts of ,theodulf in ,paris and ,puy 7see below1 p4 #abe74 ,the ,cistercians forbade the use of gold and silver bindings or clasps 7firmacula7 and also of different colours4 ,sidenote3 ,illustration4 ,illustrations must have made their appearance in ,greek manuscripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if ,h4 ,kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in ,diogenes ,laertius1 ii4 #c1 #h 7 ,clem41 ,strom41 i4 #gh1 p4 #cfd1 ,potter73 78with a picture03 formerly read as 74 ,in addition to the works of ,aristotle and the obscene poems of ,philainis1 illustrated manuscripts were known to exist of the works of the astronomers ,eudoxus and ,aratus1 of the botanist ,dioscorides1 of the tactician ,euangelos1 and of the geographer ,ptolemy4 ,a description of the earliest illustrated ,bibles is given by ,victor ,schultze in the ,daheim1 #ahih1 ,no4 #bh1 #ddi ff41 with good facsimiles4 ,on the horses in the chariot of ,elijah in a ,greek manuscript of the ninth century in the ,vatican ,library1 and on the pictures of the horsemen in the codex of ,joshua also contained there1 see ,f4 aus'm ,weerth in the ,jahrbuch des ,vereins von ,altertums-,freunden im ,rheinland1 ,heft #gh 7#ahhd71 ,plate ,,vi4 ,cassiodorus had a ,pandectes ,latinus--i4e4 a manuscript of the ,old ,latin ,bible of large size--which contained pictures of the ,tabernacle and the ,temple4 ,there is an old work on this subject by ,p4 ,zornius entitled ,historia ,bibliorum pictorum ex antiquitatibus ,ebraeorum et ,christianorum illustrata cum figuris1 ,lipsiae1 #agdc1 #dto2 and by the same author1 ,von den ,handbibeln der ersten ,christen1 ,lips4 #agch1 also ,historia ,bibliorum ex ,ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata1 ,lips41 #agda4 ,see also ,georg ,thiele1 ,de antiquorum libris pictis capita quattuor1 ,marburg1 #ahig4 ,palimpsests4 ,palimpsests of ,bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the ,church4 ,the ,sixth ,ecumenical ,council 7,trullan1 ,concilium quinisextum1 #fhj-fha71 in its #fhth canon1 1 forbids the sale of old manuscripts of the ,bible to the or the 1 or to any persons whatever4#eh ,there was naturally a special aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of ,jews2 but yet there were discovered1 in the lumber room of the ,synagogue of ,old ,cairo1 fragments of a ,greek ,,ms4 of the ,gospels1 which had been afterwards employed to receive ,jewish writing4 ,parchments of this sort were at first used only for rough drafts and such like1 instead of wax tablets from which the writing could be erased again4 ,punctuation4 ,a good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in ,lk4 i4 #ce1 on which see p4 #bja4 ,compare also ,lk4 xxi4 #h1 #a ,tim4 ii4 #e1 where ,lachmann punctuates 4 ,by a different punctuation in ,heb4 i4 #i1 ,tischendorf and ,westcott-,hort make vocative and nominative respectively4 ,in the former case the ,messiah is ,god1 in the other ,god is the one who anoints him4 ,this difference was not observed at first by ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt4 ,similarly there is a difference between the text and the margin of ,westcott and ,hort in verse #h1 where by the insertion or omission of the two commas before and after the meaning is either that ,messiah is ,god or that ,god is ,messiah's throne4 ,considering the importance of such marks of division1 the rule laid down by ,ephraem ,syrus in the year #cej1 and again emphasized by ,bengel and ,lagarde1 should be carefully attended to in the ,new ,testament3 1 7see ,nestle1 ,bengel als ,gelehrter1 p4 #bd74 ,compare also what ,chrysostom says regarding punctuation on ,mt4 viii4 #i3 1 ' 4 ,see also ,victor 7or whoever it is7 on ,mk4 xvi4 #i4 ,on the change of the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see below1 pp4 #bjd7g71 #bgf4 ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson thinks it probable that is a separate title of the ,messiah1 and would point 1 in ,mk4 i4 #aa1 ix4 #g on the authority of the ,ascensio ,esaiae and the ,old ,syriac 7see ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 ii4 #eja74 ,contents4 ,on the contents of ,bible manuscripts see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fb f4 ,according to him ,jerome's ,old ,testament was in #ad volumes4 ,in addition to some entire ,bibles ,cassiodorus had the ,scriptures written out in #i codices4 ,of these vol4 ,,vii4 comprised the ,gospels1 ,,viii4 the ,epistles1 and ,,ix4 the ,acts and ,apocalypse4 ,leontius speaks of #f books of the ,new ,testament1 of which probably ,i4 was ,mt4 and ,mk41 ,,ii4 ,lk4 and ,jn41 ,,iii4 ,acts1 ,,iv4 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,v4 ,pauline ,epistles1 ,,vi4 ,apocalypse4 ,as a rule the ,gospels and the ,pauline ,epistles made two codices4 ,in cod4 we find that the different parts of the ,new ,testament display a different type of text1 from which we may conclude that the codex was copied1 not from a single manuscript but from several4 ,similarly1 the singular type of text exhibited by cod4 in ,mark would show that this codex1 or that from which it was copied1 was transcribed from different rolls or codices1 each containing one ,gospel4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fc4 ,bibliotheca4 ,on the designation ,bibliotheca and ,pandectes for ,bible manuscripts1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fe4 ,on 1 ibid4 #fg4 ,he informs us that the earliest mention of a ,christian bibliotheca and its armaria is in the heathen protocol of the year #cjd1 in the ,gesta apud ,zenophilum given in ,dupin after ,optatus1 p4 #bfb4 ,the next earliest notice is in ,augustine4 ,the custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the ,readers4 ,in ,ruinart's ,acta ,saturnini a certain ,ampelius is mentioned as 8custos legis1 scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus conservator40 ,from ,irenaeus1 iv4 #cc1 #b ,lessing concluded that at that time the few existing copies of the ,scriptures were in the custody of the clergy1 and were only to be perused in their presence4 7,zustze zu einer ntigen ,antwort4 ,works1 ed4 ,maltzahn1 xi4 #b1 #agi47 ,on this point see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #adj4 7a47 ,,uncial ,,manuscripts4 ,sidenote3 ,,codex ,,sinaiticus1 now in ,st4 ,petersburg1 contains the entire ,new ,testament written in the fourth or more probably at the beginning of the fifth century4 ,the story of its discovery and acquisition is quite romantic4 ,when ,tischendorf1 under the patronage of his sovereign ,king ,frederick ,augustus of ,saxony1 came to the ,convent of ,st4 ,catherine on ,mount ,sinai for the first time in #ahdd1 he rescued from a basket there forty-three old sheets of parchment which1 with other rubbish1 were destined for the fire4 ,in this way he obtained possession of portions of one of the oldest ,,mss4 of the ,old ,testament1 which he published as the ,codex ,frederico-,augustanus 7,f-,a7 in #ahdf4 ,at the same time he learned that other portions of the same ,codex existed in the ,monastery4 ,he could find no trace of these1 however1 on his second visit in #ahec4 ,but on his third visit1 undertaken with the patronage of the ,emperor of ,russia1 the steward of the monastery brought him1 shortly before his departure on the #dth ,february #ahei1 what surpassed all his expectations1 the entire remaining portions of the ,codex comprising a great part of the ,old ,testament and the whole of the ,new1 wrapped up in a red cloth4 ,not only was the ,new ,testament perfect1 but in addition to the twenty-seven books1 the ,,ms4 contained the ,epistle of ,barnabas and part of the so-called ,shepherd of ,hermas1 two books of the greatest repute in early ,christian times1 the ,greek text of which was only partially extant in ,europe4 ,tischendorf managed to secure the ,,ms4 for the ,emperor of ,russia1 at whose expense it was published in four folio volumes in the year #ahfb on the thousandth anniversary of the founding of the ,russian ,empire4 ,in return for the ,,ms4 the monastery received a silver shrine for ,st4 ,catherine1 a gift of #gjjj roubles for the library and #bjjj for the monastery on ,mount ,tabor1 while several ,russian decorations were distributed among the ,fathers4 ,unfortunately the art of photography was not so far advanced thirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to be made of the ,,ms41 and ,tischendorf had to be content with a printed copy executed as faithfully as the utmost care and superintendence would admit4 ,to what date does the manuscript belong8 ,there is still extant a letter of the first ,christian ,emperor ,constantine dating from the year #cca1 in which he asks ,eusebius1 ,bishop of ,caesarea in ,palestine1 to provide him with fifty copies of the ,old and ,new ,testament for use in the principal churches of his empire 7 7 and puts two public carriages at the bishop's disposal for their safe transport4 ,we have also the letter that ,eusebius sent along with these ,bibles1 in which he consigns them --i4e4 8in expensively prepared volumes of three and four40 ,with former scholars ,tischendorf understood the expression of the number of sheets in the quires of the manuscripts1 as though they had been composed of ternions and quaternions of twelve and sixteen pages respectively4 ,others took it as referring to the number of columns on the pages1 ,codex ,sinaiticus1 which ,tischendorf believed to be one of these fifty ,bibles1 being unique in showing four columns to the page4 ,the most probable explanation of the phrase is1 however1 that it indicates the number of volumes each ,bible comprised1 and means that each ,bible of three or four parts1 as the case might be1 was packed in a separate box4#ei ,tischendorf1 as has been said1 saw in ,codex ,sinaiticus one of these fifty ,bibles4 ,he also thought that was the work of four different scribes1 and was confident that one of these1 the one who had written only six leaves of the ,new ,testament1 was the scribe of ,codex ,vaticanus4 ,but other authorities bring down to the beginning of the fifth century4 ,one can understand how it was that ,tischendorf was led to overrate the value of this manuscript at first1 and to call it by the first letter of the ,hebrew alphabet to signify its pre-eminence over all other manuscripts4 ,the claim is so far justified that it is at least one of the oldest manuscripts1 and of the oldest the only one that contains the entire ,new ,testament4 ,the order is that of the ,gospels1 ,pauline ,epistles 7among which ,hebrews is found after #b ,thess471 ,acts1 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,apocalypse1 after which come ,barnabas and ,hermas4#fj ,this same order is observed in the ,old ,syriac ,bible1 and in the first printed ,greek ,new ,testament1 the ,complutensian ,polyglot4 ,the fact that ,barnabas is still tacitly included in the books of the ,new ,testament may be taken equally as indicating the age of itself or that of the exemplar from which it was copied4#fa ,jerome's recension of ,origen's ,lexicon of ,proper ,names in the ,greek ,new ,testament is still extant1 and in it ,barnabas is cited like the other books4 ,in the ,catalogus ,claromontanus1 which is a very old list of the books of the ,new ,testament1 ,barnabas is even found before the ,apocalypse1 an arrangement which is not found again in the succeeding centuries4 ,transcriber's ,note3 ,in this paragraph1 there are two cases of letters separated by a slash1 as if describing arithmetic division1 like 8a_/b04 ,in the original book they are printed with the first item1 8a01 raised up1 and the second item1 8b01 printed below the first4 ,in this e-book1 they are represented in this 8a_/b0 form4 ,sidenote3 ,canons4 is also the oldest ,,ms4 that has the so-called ,ammonian ,sections and ,eusebian ,canons4 ,in order to facilitate the study of the ,gospels1 ,ammonius of ,alexandria arranged1 alongside of ,matthew's ,gospel1 the parallel passages in ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john4 ,for this purpose he was obliged of course to dislocate these last4#fb ,eusebius1 however1 simply divided the four ,gospels into #aafb sections--viz41 #cee in ,matthew1 #bcc in ,mark1 #cdb in ,luke1 and #bcb in ,john4 ,these he numbered consecutively in each ,gospel1 and then arranged the numbers in ten ,canons or ,tables4 ,the first contained those passages which are found in all the four ,gospels2 the second1 third1 and fourth those common to any particular combination of three2 the fifth to the ninth comprised the passages common to any two1 and the tenth those peculiar to each one4 ,the number of its ,canon was then set under that of the section in the margin1 and the ,table inserted at the beginning or end of the manuscript4 ,by this means it was possible to know in the case of each section whether a parallel was to be found in the other ,gospels1 and where4 ,in the margin opposite ,john xv4 #bj1 e4g41 we find the numbers _/1 i4e4 #aci_/c4 ,this tells us that this #acith section of ,john is also found in ,matthew and ,luke4 ,for on referring to ,canon #c we find that it contains the passages common to ,john1 ,matthew1 and ,luke1 and that this section numbered #aci in ,john1 is #ij in ,matthew and #eh in ,luke4 ,and the sections being numbered consecutively in each ,gospel1 we easily ascertain that the former is ,matthew x4 #bd1 and the latter ,luke vi4 #dj4 ,these1 or similar numbers1 were afterwards inserted in the lower margin of manuscripts1 as1 e4g41 in ,codex ,argenteus of the ,version of ,ulfilas4 ,they are still printed alongside the text in our larger editions1 though1 of course1 owing to the introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they have lost their main significance4 ,sidenote3 ,revisions4 ,now1 a ,codex like represents to us not one manuscript only1 but several at once4 ,it embodies first of all the manuscript from which its text was immediately derived1 and then also that or those by which it was revised4 ,that is to say1 after the manuscript was written by the scribe1 either to dictation or by copying1 it was1 particularly in the case of a costly manuscript1 handed over to a person called the and revised4 ,this might be done several times over2 it might be done by a later owner if he were a scholar4 ,but it might happen1 as in the case of e4g41 that the exemplar by which the manuscript was revised was not the identical one from which it had been copied but a different one1 perhaps older1 perhaps exhibiting another form of text altogether4 ,tischendorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in 4 ,one of these1 belonging1 it may be1 to the seventh century1 adds a note at the end of the book of ,ezra to the following effect1--8,this codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr ,pamphilus2 which exemplar contained at the end the subscription in his own hand3 #8,taken and corrected according to the ,hexapla of ,origen3 ,antonius compared it3 ,i1 ,pamphilus1 corrected it4'0#fc ,a similar note is found appended to the ,book of ,esther1 where it is also pointed out that variants occurred in the case of proper names4 ,traces are still discoverable in the ,psalms which go to prove that the corrector's ,bible agreed with that of ,eusebius1 while the manuscript itself had been copied from one that was very different4 ,a considerable number of scholars are of opinion that was written in the ,west1 perhaps in ,rome4 7,see ,plate ,i47 ,tischendorf3 7#a7 ,notitia editionis1 #ahfj2 7#b7 ,bibliorum ,codex ,sinaiticus ,petropolitanus1 ,petropoli1 #ahfb1 fol4 ,vol4 ,i41 ,prolegomena et ,commentaria2 ,vol4 ,,iv41 ,novum ,testamentum4 7#c7 ,n4 ,t4 ,sinaiticum1 ,lips4 #ahfc4 7,die ,anfechtungen der ,sinaibibel1 ,lips4 #ahfc2 ,waffen der ,finsterniss wider die ,sinaibibel1 ,lips4 #ahfc47 7#d7 ,n4 ,t4 ,graece ex ,sinaitico ,codice omnium antiquissimo1 ,lips4 #ahfe4 ,collatio textus graeci editionis polyglottae cum ,novo ,testamento ,sinaitico4 ,appendix editionis ,novi ,testamenti polyglottae1 ,bielefeldiae4 ,sumptibus ,velhagen et ,klasing1 #ahid1 large #hvo1 pp4 iv4 #if4 7,preface only by ,tischendorf47 ,on ,kenyon's showing1 the recent papyrus discoveries give no occasion for abandoning the conclusions formerly come to regarding the age of these parchment manuscripts 7,palaeography1 p4 #abj74 ,scrivener1 ,a full ,collation of the ,codex ,sinaiticus with the ,received ,text of the ,n4 ,testament1 #bnd edition1 #ahfg4 ,ezra ,abbot1 8,on the comparative antiquity of the ,sinaitic and ,vatican ,manuscripts of the ,greek ,bible10 ,journal of the ,american ,oriental ,society1 vol4 x41 i4 #ahgb1 pp4 #ahi ff4 ,sidenote3 ,a4 ,a4 ,,codex ,,alexandrinus3 middle or end of the fifth century3 written probably at ,alexandria3 contains a note in ,arabic stating that it was presented to the library of the ,patriarch of ,alexandria in the year #ajih4 ,the ,codex was sent by ,cyril ,lucar1 ,patriarch of ,constantinople1 to ,charles ,i4 of ,england in #afbh1 and was deposited in the library of the ,british ,museum on its foundation in #agec1 where it has been ever since4 ,it has been employed in the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament since the time of ,walton4 ,it was printed in #aghf by ,woide in facsimile from wooden type4 ,the ,old ,testament portion of it was also published in #ahaf-ahbh by ,baber4 ,the entire manuscript was issued in autotype facsimile in #ahgi and #ahhj4 ,the ,codex is defective at the beginning of the ,new ,testament1 the first twenty-six leaves down to ,matthew xxv4 #f being absent1 as also two containing ,john vi4 #ej-viii4 #eb1 and three containing #b ,cor4 iv4 #ac-xii4 #f4 ,it also contains after the ,apocalypse the 7first7 ,epistle of ,clement of ,rome and a small fragment of the so-called second ,epistle1 which is really an early sermon4 ,in the ,codex these are recognised as parts of the ,new ,testament1 inasmuch as in the table of contents prefixed to the entire work they are included with the other books under the title 4#fd ,after them is given the number of books 1 only the figures are now1 unfortunately1 torn away4 ,the contents indicate that the ,psalms of ,solomon should have followed1 but these have been lost with the rest of the manuscript4 ,a is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the use of capital letters to indicate new sections4 ,but in order to economize room and to obviate spacing the lines1 the first letter of the section1 if it occurs in the middle of a line1 is not written larger1 but the one that occurs at the beginning of the next whole line is enlarged and projects into the margin4 7,see ,plate ,i4 #b47 ,later scribes have copied this so slavishly that they have written these letters in capitals even when they occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts4 ,the ,egyptian origin of this ,codex is shown by its use of ,coptic forms for ,a and ,m4 ,in several books ,a displays a remarkable affinity with ,jerome in those very passages where he deviates from the older ,latin version4 ,the books in ,a follow the order--,gospels1 ,acts1 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,pauline ,epistles1 ,apocalypse4 7,westcott1 ,canon1 ,appendix ,d4 xii42 ,bible in the ,church1 ,appendix ,b47 ,woide1 #aghf2 eiusdem1 ,notitia codicis ,alexandrini1 ,recud4 cur4 notasque adjecit ,g4 ,l4 ,spohn1 ,lipsiae1 #aghh2 ,cowper1 #ahfj1 ,hansell1 #ahfd2 ,photographic facsimile by ,thompson1 #ahgi2 and in the ,facsimiles of the ,palographical ,society1 ,pl4 #ajf4 ,the mixed character of the text of ,a was early observed2 see ,lagarde1 ,gesammelte ,abhandlungen1 p4 #id4 ,c4 ,f4 ,hoole ascribes the ,codex ,alexandrinus to the middle of the fourth century 7,oxford1 ,clarendon ,press1 #ahia2 see ,academy1 ,july #be1 #ahia1 #gc74 ,sidenote3 ,b4 ,b4 ,,codex ,,vaticanus par excellence1 ,no4 #abji in the ,vatican ,library at ,rome1 inserted there shortly after its foundation by ,pope ,nicolas ,v41 and one of its greatest treasures4 ,like ,a it once contained the whole of the ,old ,testament with the exception of the ,books of ,maccabees4 ,the first #ca leaves1 containing ,gen4 i4 #a-xlvi4 #bh1 are now wanting1 as well as #bj from the ,psalms containing ,ps4 cv4 7cvi47 #bg-;cxxxvii4 7cxxxviii47 #f4 ,the ,new ,testament is complete down to ,heb4 ix4 #ad1 where it breaks off at 4 #a and #b ,tim41 ,titus1 ,philemon1 and the ,apocalypse are1 therefore1 also wanting4 ,rahlfs supposes that the manuscript may have originally contained the ,didache and the ,shepherd of ,hermas as well4 ,erasmus obtained some account of this manuscript1 and ,pope ,sixtus ,v4 made it the basis of an edition of the ,greek ,old ,testament1 which was published in #aehf1 thereby determining the textus receptus of that portion of the ,bible4--,would he had done the same for the ,new ,testament6 ,this task was undertaken afterwards1 specially by ,bentley and ,birch4 ,professor ,hug of ,freiburg recognised the value of the ,codex when it was removed from ,rome to ,paris by ,napoleon in #ahji4 ,cardinal ,angelo ,mai printed an edition of it between #ahbh and #ahch1 which1 however1 did not appear till #aheg1 three years after his death1 and which was most unsatisfactory4 ,after ,tischendorf had led the way with the ,codex ,sinaiticus1 ,pope ,pio ,nono gave orders for an edition1 which was printed between #ahfh and #ahgb in five folio volumes4 ,not till #ahha1 however1 did the last volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable commentary prepared under the supervision of ,vercellone1 ,j4 ,cozza1 ,c4 ,sergio1 and ,h4 ,fabiani1 with the assistance of ,u4 ,ubaldi and ,a4 ,rocchi4 ,then at last the manuscript was photographed1 the ,new ,testament in #ahhi1 and the ,old ,testament1 in three volumes1 in #ahij--;a veritable 4 ,no facsimile now can give any idea of its original beauty1 because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century--or as the ,roman editors say1 a monk called ,clement in the fifteenth century--went over the whole manuscript1 letter by letter1 with fresh ink1 restoring the faded characters and at the same time adding accents and breathings in accordance with the pronunciation of his time 71 for example1 and 1 74 ,the ,old ,testament is the work of at least two scribes1 one of whom wrote down to #a ,sam4 ix4 #aa1 and the other to the end of #b ,esdras4 ,tischendorf's opinion with regard to the writer of the ,new ,testament has been already noticed4 ,there can be no question that ,b is more carefully written than 4 ,in the ,gospels the ,vatican exhibits a peculiar division into #agj1 #fb1 #aeb1 and #hj sections respectively1 which is found also in 2 in the ,acts there is a double division into #cf and #fi4fe ,the enumeration affixed to the ,pauline ,epistles shows that these were copied from a manuscript in which ,hebrews came after ,galatians1 though in ,b its position has been changed so as to follow #b ,thessalonians4 ,the copyist has also retained in part of the ,old ,testament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in his original4 ,in the ,new ,testament the order of the books is ,gospels1 ,acts1 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,pauline ,epistles4 ,an increased interest would be lent to this manuscript if1 as has been supposed1 it represents the recension of the ,egyptian ,bishop and ,martyr ,hesychius1 of which ,jerome makes mention in two places4 7,bousset1 ,textkritische ,studien zum ,neuen ,testament1 pp4 #gd-aaj1 see especially p4 #if47 ,on the ,egyptian character of ,b1 see also ,burkitt in ,texts and ,studies1 v4 p4 viii4 f41 and compare below1 p4 #ahc f4 7,see ,plate ,,iv47 ,hug1 ,commentatio de antiquitate codicis ,vaticani1 #ahaj4 ,vercellone1 ,dell' antichissimo codice ,vaticano della ,bibbia ,greca1 #ahei2 reprinted in his ,dissertazioni accademiche1 ,roma1 #ahfd1 #aae ff4 ,first facsimile reproduction1 ,bibliorum sacrorum ,graecus ,codex ,vaticanus 444 collatis studiis ,caroli ,vercellone et ,josephi ,cozza editus1 vol4 v41 ,rome1 #ahfh2 vol4 vi4 7,proleg4 ,comment4 ,tab4 ed4 ,henr4 ,fabiani et ,jos4 ,cozza71 #ahha2 cf4 ,th,lz41 #ahhb1 vi4 #i4 ,a4 ,giovanni1 ,della ,illustrazione dell' edizione ,romana del ,codice ,vaticano1 ,rome1 #ahfi4 ,photographic edition1 ,novum ,testamentum e ,codice ,vaticano #abji 444 phototypice repraesentatum 444 curante ,jos4 ,cozza-,luzi1 ,rome1 #ahhi1 fol42 see ,h4 ,c4 ,hoskier1 ,the ,expositor1 #ahhi1 vol4 x4 #deg ff42 ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt1 ,th,lz41 #ahij1 #af2 ,nestle1 ,sep4-,st41 ii4 #af ff4 ,alf4 ,rahlfs1 ,alter und ,heimat der ,vatikanischen ,bibelhandschrift 7,nachrichten der ,gesell4 der ,wiss4 zu ,gttingen1 ,philologisch-historische ,klasse1 #ahhi1 ,heft i4 pp4 #gb-gi74 ,in this article ,rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and order of the books in the ,old and ,new ,testaments contained in ,b correspond exactly to the ,canon of the ,scriptures given by ,athanasius in his thirty-ninth ,festal ,letter of the year #cfg4 ,in it1 ,athanasius1 after mentioning all the canonical books of the ,bible1 including those of the ,n4 ,t41 cites the extra-canonical books of the ,o4 ,t4 which are allowed to be read1 putting them after the second group1 1 because two of these books1 ,wisdom and ,sirach1 were to be written 4 ,in the ,n4 ,t4 the ,greek and ,syriac forms of the ,festal ,letter put ,hebrews expressly between the ,epistles to the ,churches and the ,pastoral ,epistles4 ,in the ,sahidic version of the ,letter1 however1 ,hebrews stands before ,galatians4 ,this latter arrangement is evidently the survival of a pre-,athanasian order which has been longer preserved in the ,sahidic translation4#ff ,but if ,b is the work of ,athanasius1 it follows that it cannot be one of the ,bibles ordered by ,constantine4 ,in this case it would rather be written in ,egypt1 and we should have in it the ,recension of ,hesychius1 as ,grabe supposed was the case in the ,o4 ,t41 while ,hug held the same view in regard to the ,n4 ,t4 text of this manuscript 7see below1 c4 ,,iii474 ,against the theory of ,rahlfs1 see ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt in the ,theologische ,litteraturzeitung1 #ahii1 n4 #bj4 ,sidenote3 ,c4 ,c4 ,,codex ,,ephraemi ,,rescriptus1 ,no4 #i in the ,national ,library at ,paris1 the most important of the palimpsests4 ,this manuscript receives its name from the fact that in the twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of ,ephraem1 the ,syrian ,father 7d4 #cgc71 were written over the original text4 ,after various attempts had been made at its decipherment by ,wettstein and others1 ,tischendorf in #ahdc and #ahde published as much of the ,new and ,old ,testaments as he was able to make out after eighteen months' labour1 thereby establishing his reputation as a textual critic4 ,the manuscript once contained the entire ,bible1 but the whole of #a and #b ,thessalonians has been lost1 as also some #cg chapters from the ,gospels1 #aj from the ,acts1 #db from the ,epistles1 and #h from the ,apocalypse4 ,there is no trace of a chapter division in ,acts1 ,epistles1 or ,apocalypse4 ,this last seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of about #abj small leaves1 one of which had been displaced by some mistake4 ,the ,codex dates from the fifth century1 and may possibly have been written in ,egypt4 ,its earliest corrections are important1 and were inserted in the sixth century4 ,a detailed list of the contents of ,c is given by ,scrivener1 vol4 i4 #aba4 ,facsimile1 ibid41 ,plate ,x4 p4 #aba4 ,tischendorf1 ,th4 ,st4 und ,kr41 #ahda1 #abf ff2 ,n4 ,t4 edited #ahdc1 ,o4 ,t4 #ahde4 ,lagarde1 ,ges4 ,abhandlungen1 p4 #id4 ,the page of the ,o4 ,t4 which ,tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately disappeared1 as ,martin points out in his ,description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au ,n4 ,t41 etc41 ,paris1 #ahhd1 p4 #d4 ,a4 ,jacob1 ,notes sur les ,,mss4 grecs palimpsestes de la ,bibliothque ,nationale1 in ,melanges ,julien ,havet1 #gei-ggj4 ,the foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts which once contained the whole ,bible4 ,it will be observed that at the present time they are distributed among the ,capitals of the great branches of the ,christian ,church--viz41 ,st4 ,petersburg 7,greek71 ,rome and ,paris 7,roman71 and ,london 7,anglican74 ,german scholars have taken a foremost place in the work of their investigation4 ,sidenote3 ,d4 ,d4 ,,codex ,,bezae ,,cantabrigiensis1 inferior to the foregoing in age1 compass1 and repute1 but perhaps surpassing all of them in importance1 by reason of its unique character4 ,the manuscript was presented to the ,university of ,cambridge in #aeha by ,calvin's friend ,theodore ,beza1 8ut inter vere christianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus celeberrimae40 ,it is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century1 but is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the ,greek-,latin manuscripts of the ,bible4 ,it now contains1 with certain lacun1 the ,gospels 7in the order ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark71 the concluding verses of the ,latin text of #c ,john1 followed immediately by the ,acts1 showing that in this manuscript the ,epistle of ,jude either stood somewhere else or was absent altogether4 ,at least nine later hands can be distinguished in it4 ,the first scribe was more familiar with ,latin than ,greek1 and therefore inserts a ,roman letter here and there in the middle of a ,greek word1 and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the mistakes he makes in writing his manuscript4#fg ,innumerable passages occur1 particularly in ,luke and ,acts1 where the text of ,d differs in the most remarkable manner from that of all the ,greek manuscripts we are acquainted with4 ,it alone1 e4g41 contains after ,luke vi4 #d the incident of the man working in the field on the ,sabbath day1 to whom ,jesus said1 8,o ,man1 if thou knowest what thou doest1 blessed art thou1 but if thou knowest not1 thou art cursed and a transgressor of the ,law40 ,it is the only one also that has the words in ,luke xi4 #b1 8when ye pray1 use not vain repetitions as the 40 ,in ,luke xxiii4 #ec1 it says that the stone before the grave of ,jesus was of such a size 1 an addition in which it has the support of only one ,latin ,,ms4 and the ,sahidic ,version4 ,again in ,acts xii4 #aj1 it is alone in recording that there were seven steps down from the prison in ,jerusalem 7 74 ,other examples might be given of similar peculiar interpolations for the explanation of which reference must be made to c4 ,,iii4 below4 ,its companion ,latin text d is not translated directly from its own ,greek but from the ,greek of the parent manuscript4 ,seeing that the manuscript was discovered in the ,monastery of ,irenus at ,lyons1 and that its text agrees with the ,scripture quotations found in that ,father even in the matter of clerical mistakes1 it is possible that the ,greek text is derived from his copy4 ,the ,greek occupies the left-hand page of the open volume1 which is the place of honour4 7,see ,plates ,,ii and ,,iii47 ,kipling1 ,facsimile edition1 ,codex ,th4 ,bezae ,cantabrigiensis1 #agic1 #b vols42 ,scrivener1 ,bezae ,codex ,cantabrigiensis4 ,an exact copy in ordinary type 444 with critical introduction1 annotations1 and facsimiles4 #dto1 pp4 lxiv #dec1 #ahfd4 ,collation of the same by ,nestle1 ,supplementum1 #ahif 7see p4 #bf74 ,cambridge ,university ,press1 ,photographic facsimile4 ,codex ,bezae ,cantabrigiensis ,quattuor ,evangelia et ,actus ,apostolorum continens ,graece et ,latine4 #b vols41 pp4 #hcj1 #ahii4 #ab guineas4 7,see ,literature1 #bith ,april #ahii1 p4 #dea ff472 ,dav4 ,schulz1 ,disputatio de ,codice ,d41 #ahbg2 ,k4 ,a4 ,credner1 ,beitrge zur ,einleitung1 vol4 i41 #ahcb1 pp4 #deb-eah2 ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,codex ,bezae4 ,a study of the so-called ,western ,text of the ,n4 ,t4 7,texts and ,studies1 vol4 ii47 ,cambridge1 #ahia2 also ,credner and the ,codex ,bezae4 ,a ,lecture delivered in the ,divinity ,school1 ,cambridge1 #aith ,nov4 #ahib4 7,the ,classical ,review1 vol4 vii4 #f1 ,june #ahic1 pp4 #bcg-bdc72 ,chase1 ,the ,old ,syriac ,element in the text of ,codex ,bezae1 ,london1 #ahic2 also ,the ,syro-,latin ,text of the ,gospels1 ,london1 #ahie2 ,nestle1 ,some ,observations on the ,codex ,bezae in the ,expositor1 v4 #b1 #ahie1 p4 #bce2 ,h4 ,trabaud1 ,un curieux manuscrit du ,n4 ,t4 in the ,revue de thologie et de philosophie1 ,lausanne1 #ahif1 p4 #cgh2 ,fr4 ,blass3 #a4 ,die zwiefache ,textberlieferung in der ,apostelgeschichte 7,th4 ,st4 ,kr41 #ahid1 p4 #hf ff472 #b4 ,acta ,apostolorum sive ,lucae ad ,theophilum ,liber alter4 ,editio philologica1 ,gttingen1 #ahie2 #c4 ,acta ,apostolorum 444 secundum formam quae videtur ,romanam1 ,leipzig1 #ahif2 #d4 ,ueber die verschiedenen ,textformen in den ,schriften des ,lukas 7,neue ,kirchliche ,zeitschrift1 #ahie1 p4 #gab72 #e4 ,de duplici forma ,actorum ,lucae 7,hermathena1 ,dublin1 #ahie1 p4 #aba72 #f4 ,de variis formis ,evangelii ,lucani 7,ibid41 ,dublin1 #ahif1 p4 #bia72 #g4 ,neue ,texteszeugen fr die ,apostelgeschichte 7,th4 ,st4 ,kr41 #ahif1 p4 #dcf72 #h4 ,evangelium secundum ,lucam sive ,lucae ad ,theophilum ,liber prior4 ,secundum formam quae videtur ,romanam1 ,leipzig1 #ahig2 ,b4 ,weiss1 ,der ,codex ,d in der ,apostelgeschichte4 ,textkritische ,untersuchung1 ,leipzig1 #ahig1 7 ,texte und ,untersuchungen4 ,n4 ,f4 ,zweiter ,band1 ,heft #a72 ,f4 ,graefe1 ,der ,codex ,bezae und das ,lucasevangelium1 ,th4 ,st4 ,kr41 #ahih1 i4 #aaf-adj2 compare especially1 ,on the ,italian ,origin of ,codex ,bezae4 #a4 ,codex ,bezae and cod4 #ajga1 by the ,rev4 ,k4 ,lake2 #b4 ,the ,marginal ,notes of ,lections1 by the ,rev4 ,f4 ,e4 ,brightman in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #c 7,april #aijj7 pp4 #dda-ded4 ,codex #ajga is a minuscule on ,mt4 ,athos1 in which the text of the ,pericope ,adulterae 7,john viii47 is essentially the same as the singular text exhibited by ,d4 ,it seems to have come from ,calabria4 ,the lectionary indicated in the margin of ,d points to a mixed ,greek and ,latin population such as that in the ,south of ,italy4 ,in what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to their contents as copies of the ,gospels1 ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles1 ,pauline ,epistles1 or of the ,apocalypse4 ,sidenote3 ,gospels4 ,e4 ,,codex ,,basiliensis1 by some ascribed to the seventh century1 but belonging more probably to the eighth3 brought to ,europe by ,cardinal ,john de ,ragusio1 who was sent on a mission to the ,greeks by the ,council of ,basel 7#adca73 used by ,mill1 ,bengel1 and ,wettstein3 ,luke iii4 #d-ae and xxiv4 #dg-ec wanting3 has been in the ,university ,library at ,basel since #aeei4 7,scrivener1 i4 p4 #aca1 ,plate ,,xi4 #bg47 ,f4 ,,boreelianus1 written in the ninth century3 so called as belonging at one time to a ,dutchman named ,john ,boreel3 now in ,utrecht3 has many lacun1 some of which have arisen since ,wettstein collated the manuscript in #agcj4 7,scrivener1 i4 #aca1 ,plate ,,xi4 #bh47 ,fa4 ,,coislinianus1 of the seventh century1 though some say the sixth and others the eighth3 consists of only #bf verses from ,matthew1 ,luke1 ,john1 ,acts1 #a and #b ,cor41 ,gal41 ,col41 and ,heb41 written on the margin of a famous ,parisian manuscript of the ,octoteuch in ,greek containing ,gen4-,deut41 ,josh41 ,jud41 and ,ruth4 ,list of contents of ,fa in ,scrivener1 i4 #acd4 ,g4 ,,seidelianus1 of the tenth century3 part of it in the ,british ,museum in ,london and part in ,trinity ,college1 ,cambridge3 brought from the ,east by ,seidel and presented in #agah by the ,berlin ,librarian ,la ,croze to ,j4 ,chr4 ,wolf1 a clergyman in ,hamburg who cut out half a page to send to ,bentley in #agba4 7,scrivener1 i4 #aca1 ,plate ,,xi4 #bi47 ,h4 ,,seidelianus ,,ii41 of the ninth century1 in ,hamburg3 bequeathed with his library to his native city by ,wolf1 and rediscovered there in #ahch4 7,scrivener1 i1 #acd1 ,plate ,,xii4 #ca47 ,i4 ,,tischendorfianus ,,ii41 fragments of seven manuscripts in ,st4 ,petersburg found by ,tischendorf in the ,monastery of ,mar ,saba1 near the ,dead ,sea3 consists of #bh palimpsest leaves with ,greek writing of the tenth century containing only #bee verses of the ,new ,testament1 of which #aij are from the ,gospels3 the three oldest leaves are of the fifth century2 some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete ,bible3 detailed list of contents in ,scrivener1 i4 #acd f4 ,ib4 ,so indicated by ,tischendorf in his eighth edition1 formerly known as ,nb1 of the fourth or more probably the fifth century3 a threefold palimpsest written first in ,greek and afterwards twice in ,syriac3 contains #ag verses from ,john's ,gospel3 now in the ,british ,museum3 list of verses in ,scrivener1 i4 #ada4 ,k4 ,,cyprius1 ,no4 #fc in the ,national ,library at ,paris3 middle of the ninth century3 purchased in ,cyprus for ,colbert in #afgc3 one of the six1 or including seven1 complete uncial manuscripts of the ,gospels1 the others being ,,bmsu 774 ,facsimile in ,scrivener1 i41 ,plate ,,vii4 p4 #aec4 ,l4 ,,regius1 ,no4 #fb in the ,national ,library at ,paris3 of the eighth century3 contains the four ,gospels complete with the exception of five lacun in ,matthew iv4 v4 and xxviii41 ,mark x4 and xv41 and in ,john xxi43 important as showing the double conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel which is exhibited as yet1 except in versions1 in only three other uncials 71 1 and 7 and one minuscule 7see ,plate ,x474 ,facsimile of ,l1 ,mark xvi4 #h1 #i1 in ,scrivener1 i41 ,plate ,,ix4 #ba1 p4 #acg4 ,the conclusions1 as found in ,l1 1 1 and 1 are printed and discussed in ,swete's ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark1 pp4 xcviii1 xcix4 ,see also ,westcott and ,hort's ,introduction1 ,appendix1 p4 #bh ff42 ,scrivener1 ii4 #ccg2 ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 iii4 p4 #ac4 ,m4 ,,campianus1 #dh in the ,national ,library1 ,paris3 of the ninth century3 presented to ,louis ,,xiv4 by the ,abb ,franois de ,camps1 #ast ,january #agjf3 contains the four ,gospels complete3 one of the oldest manuscripts1 with the exception of ,d1 that exhibit the pericope of the adulteress1 ,john vii4 #ec ff4 ,facsimile in ,scrivener1 i41 ,plate ,,xii4 p4 #acd4 ,n4 ,,purpureus1 belonging to the end of the sixth century3 one of the most lovely manuscripts1 consisting of #de leaves1 of which #f are in the ,vatican ,library at ,rome1 #d in the ,british ,museum1 #b in ,vienna1 and the remaining #cc in the ,monastery of ,st4 ,john in ,patmos1 from which1 in all probability1 the others were carried off4 ,the manuscript is written with silver letters on a purple ground1 only the letters are not printed on it with movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the similar ,codex ,argenteus of ,ulfilas4 ,the contents are given in ,scrivener1 i4 #aci f41 and a facsimile at p4 #ih1 ,plate ,v4 #ahb other leaves belonging to this manuscript were recently acquired in ,cappadocia for ,russia4 ,the ,vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that superb work1 ,die ,wiener ,genesis1 edited by ,wilh4 ,ritter von ,hartel and ,franz ,wickhoff3 ,supplement to vols4 xv4 and xvi4 of the ,jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen ,sammlungen des ,allerhchsten ,kaiserhauses4 ,vienna1 #ahie4 ,hartel 7p4 #adb7 sees no reason why the manuscript should not be ascribed to the fifth century4 ,the text of ,codex ,n1 including the new ,russian fragments1 has been published with ,introduction and ,appendix by the ,rev4 ,h4 ,s4 ,cronin in ,texts and ,studies1 v4 #d1 #ahii4 ,the ,appendix contains a collation of the ,gospel of ,mark in the ,codex ,imperatricis ,theodorae 7,scriv4 #dgc3 ,hort #ha3 ,tisch4 #bpe3 ,greg4 #efe2 see note on p4 #aea74 ,see ,nestle in the ,zeitschrift fr wiss4 ,theologie1 #db 7#ahii71 pp4 #fba-fbc4 ,some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in ,paris4 ,see ,h4 ,omont1 ,acad4 des ,inscr41 ,mars-,avril #aijj4 ,o4 ,in ,moscow1 consists of a few leaves taken from the binding of a book3 contains #ae verses from ,john's ,gospel i4 and xx43 written in the ninth century4 ,oa-h4 ,psalters1 in which are found1 after the ,psalms among the poetic selections from the ,bible1 the ,magnificat1 the ,benedictus1 and the ,nunc ,dimittis from the first and second chapters of ,luke's ,gospel4 ,oc is a ,greek ,psalter of the sixth century written in ,latin characters and is at ,verona4 ,od is a purple ,psalter of the seventh century at ,zurich4 ,oe at ,st4 ,gall is a ,psalter of the ninth century1 written partly in ,latin and partly in ,greek4 ,p and ,q4 ,two palimpsests at ,wolfenbttel1 the former belonging to the sixth and the latter to the fifth century4 ,p1 it appears1 came from ,bobbio and was afterwards at ,weissenburg1 ,mayence1 and ,prague4 ,q1 together with a portion of ,ulfilas's ,gothic ,bible1 has been employed to receive the works of ,isidore of ,seville4 ,the codices were edited with great care by ,tischendorf in #ahfi4 ,r4 ,,nitriensis1 of the sixth century3 in the ,british ,museum3 consists of #dh leaves containing some #eaf verses from ,luke's ,gospel1 over which and a manuscript of #djjj verses of the ,iliad1 the ,syriac works of ,severus of ,antioch were written in the ninth century4 ,the palimpsest was brought from the ,nitrian ,desert in #ahdg1 and deposited in the ,british ,museum4 7,scrivener1 i4 #ade1 ,plate ,,vi1 #ag47 ,s4 ,,vaticanus #ced3 one of the earliest manuscripts of the ,greek ,new ,testament that bears an exact date4 ,at the end is written1 '1 1 '1 '1 '1 i4e4 at six o'clock on ,thursday1 #ast ,march #fdeg in the #gth ,indiction#fh or #idi ,a4,d4 ,ta4 ,of the fifth century3 in the ,museum ,borgianum at ,rome3 written probably by a ,coptic monk3 unfortunately a mere fragment containing only #ag leaves from ,luke and ,john3 is written in two columns1 that on the left containing a ,sahidic version4 ,tb1 similar small fragments of ,john in ,st4 ,petersburg of the sixth century4 ,tc1 also of the sixth century1 a fragment of ,matthew1 formerly in the possession of ,bishop ,porfiri ,uspenski of ,kiev1 and now at ,st4 ,petersburg4 ,td1 of the seventh century1 in ,rome1 part of a ,sahidic-,greek ,evangeliarium1 containing a few verses from ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,john4 ,te1 of the sixth century 7871 at ,cambridge1 consists of four verses1 ,matthew iii4 #ac-af4 ,th 7,tk in ,ti,gr4 p4 #dej71 three leaves from ,matthew xx4 and xxii4 ,ti-r1 fragments of six ,greek-,coptic and three ,greek ,gospels of the ninth and tenth centuries1 but possibly the seventh and eighth1 published by ,amlineau in vol4 xxxiv4 of the ,notices et ,extraits de la ,bibliothque ,nationale1 #ahie1 #cfc ff42 cf4 v4 ,dobschtz in the ,lit4 ,cent4-,blatt41 #ahie1 #db1 #aheg4 ,tl contains the double conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel4 ,twoi1 similar leaves at ,oxford which once belonged to ,woide1 but by a different hand from ,ta4 ,to these ,grco-,coptic fragments there is now to be added two chapters of ,john's ,gospel 7iii4 #e-;iv4 #di71 in ,greek and ,middle ,egyptian1 written in the sixth century4 ,they are published by ,w4 ,e4 ,crum and ,f4 ,g4 ,kenyon in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #c 7,april #aijj71 pp4 #dae-dcc4 ,the find contains no remarkable readings4 ,the editors call its text neutral1 and think it helps to show that ,egypt was the home of such correct and upright texts4 7,tw ,greg47 ,u4 ,,nanianus1 so called from a former possessor3 of the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century3 in ,venice3 a very beautiful and complete manuscript of the ,gospels1 with ornamentations in gold4 7,scrivener1 i4 #acg1 ,plate ,,ix4 #bb47 ,v4 ,formerly at ,mount ,athos1 now in ,moscow3 of the ninth century3 first employed by ,bengel and ,wettstein through the medium of ,g4 ,b4 ,bilfinger4 ,w4 ,various small fragments3 ,wa of the eighth century in ,paris3 a fragment of ,luke4 ,wb of the eighth century 7or the ninth7 in ,naples3 a palimpsest with parts of ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke4 ,wc of the ninth century at ,st4 ,gall3 a palimpsest1 containing fragments of ,mark and ,luke1 perhaps once bilingual1 ,greek-,latin4 ,wd of the ninth century in ,cambridge4 ,we of the ninth century3 part of ,john1 at ,mount ,athos1 ,oxford1 and ,athens4 ,wf of the ninth century3 in ,oxford3 fragment of ,mark4 ,wg of the ninth century3 consisting of #cf palimpsest leaves with #dig verses from ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john1 in the ,british ,museum4 ,wh of the ninth century3 in ,oxford3 part of ,mark4 ,wi-m in ,paris1 of the seventh to the eighth or ninth century3 fragments of ,mark and ,luke1 of which ,wl and ,wk are printed in ,omont's ,catalogue des ,manuscrits ,grecs1 ,latins1 ,franais1 et ,espagnols et des ,portulans1 recueillis par feu ,emmanuel ,miller1 ,paris1 #ahig4 ,wn of the seventh century1 in ,vienna3 fragments of ,john4 ,wo of the ninth century1 in ,milan3 #af mutilated palimpsest leaves1 containing portions of ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke4 ,x4 ,,monacensis1 written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century1 now in ,munich1 contains the ,gospels1 with lacun1 and a commentary1 in the order ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark4 ,scrivener1 i4 #cdc1 ,plate ,,xiii4 #ch2 for contents see ibid41 p4 #aeb4 ,xb4 ,fragment containing ,luke i4 #a-;ii4 #dj1 hitherto reckoned among the minuscules and numbered #dbi2 also in ,munich4 ,y4 ,belonging to the eighth century1 in the ,barberini ,library at ,rome3 #f leaves containing ,john xvi4 #c-xix4 #da4 ,z4 ,a palimpsest in ,dublin of the fifth or sixth century1 containing #bie verses of ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,scrivener1 i4 #aec2 ,plate ,,vii4 #ah4 ,the ,roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number of uncial manuscripts1 recourse was taken to those letters of the ,greek and ,hebrew which have a distinct form from those already employed4 ,it was proposed by others to reserve the ,greek letters for those manuscripts no longer extant1 whose text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred manuscripts as their common archetype4 4 ,of the ninth or tenth century3 part in ,oxford and part in ,st4 ,petersburg1 the former having been obtained from ,tischendorf in #ahee and the latter in #ahei3 contains the whole of ,luke and ,john1 but ,mark is defective from iii4 #cd to vi4 #bj1 while ,matthew is still more defective4 ,the writing of the manuscript was finished on a certain ,thursday1 the #bgth ,november1 in the eighth year of an indiction4 ,tischendorf accordingly fixed its date as #hdd4 ,it was previously assigned by ,gardthausen to the year #igi4 ,scrivener1 i4 #acd1 ,plate ,,xii4 #ce4 4 ,,sangallensis1 written at the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century3 now at ,st4 ,gall1 where it was probably transcribed by an ,irish monk3 has an interlinear ,latin version1 and was not1 therefore1 like ,d1 intended for church but for school purposes4 ,the ,codex has the four ,gospels complete with the exception of ,john xix4 #ag-ce4 ,in ,mark the text shows a closer agreement with ,,cl than in the other ,gospels4 ,the manuscript has been copied from one written scriptione continua1 and in consequence the words are often wrongly divided4 ,see ,g#c below1 p4 #gg4 a-d4 ,small fragments brought from the ,east by ,tischendorf1 of which a belongs to the seventh century1 and bcd to the seventh1 sixth1 and seventh or eighth century respectively4 ,the first is in ,leipzig1 the others in ,st4 ,petersburg4 e-h were formerly in the possession of ,bishop ,porfiri of ,kiev4 4 ,of the ninth century3 contains the ,gospels of ,luke and ,john entire3 evidently the second part of a minuscule brought to ,st4 ,petersburg by ,tischendorf1 ,no4 #eff;evv 7,greg47#fi3 marginal scholia are affixed to four passages in ,matthew--viz4 iv4 #e1 xvi4 #ag1 xviii4 #bb1 xxvi4 #gd1 giving the readings of o1 i4e4 the lost ,gospel according to the ,hebrews1 and its subscription runs1 ' 7#bead7 ' 7#cde74 ,the manuscript is in the ,bodleian ,library at ,oxford4 ,scrivener1 i4 #aca1 ,plate ,,xi4 #cj4 ,cf4 von ,dobschtz1 ,zwei ,bibelhandschriften mit doppelter ,schriftart 7,th4 ,lz41 #ahhi1 iii4 #gd f474 4 ,,zacynthius1 a palimpsest of the eighth century from ,zante1 now in the ,library of the ,british and ,foreign ,bible ,society in ,london3 the earliest manuscript with a commentary3 has the same system of chapter division as ,b1 and is oftener found supporting ,b against ,a than vice versa4 4 ,of the ninth century3 contains the ,gospels almost complete3 once the property of a ,greek of ,smyrna called ,parodos3 procured by ,tischendorf for the ,emperor of ,russia4 4 ,of the sixth century3 written on purple with gold and silver lettering and #ag miniatures1 being the earliest manuscript to contain such3 rescued from obscurity in #ahgi by ,oscar v4 ,gebhardt and ,a4 ,harnack1 who discovered it at ,rossano in ,calabria3 hence designated as ,codex ,rossanensis3 is nearly related to ,n4 ,scrivener1 i4 #abd1 ,plate ,,xiv4 #dc4 ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt1 ,die ,evangelien des ,matthus und des ,marcus aus dem ,codex ,purpureus ,rossanensis herausgegeben 7,t4 und ,u41 i4 #d1 #ahhc74 ,a4 ,haseloff1 ,cod4 ,pur4 ,rossanensis4 ,die ,miniaturen der griechischen ,evangelien-,handschrift in ,rossano4 ,nach photographischen ,aufnahmen herausgegeben4 ,leipzig1 #ahih 7contains #ad facsimiles of the text and #ae photographic plates74 ,vide ,s4 ,berger in ,bull4 ,crit41 #ahii1 #f3 also ,f4 ,x4 v4 ,funk1 ,die ,zeit4 des ,cod4 ,rossanensis in the ,hist4 ,jahrbuch der ,grresgeschellschaft1 xvii4 #b1 #ahif1 #cca-cdd4 4 ,,codex ,,beratinus1 of the sixth century3 at ,berat in ,albania3 like the last a purple ,codex with silver writing3 contains portions of ,matthew and ,mark3 seen and published by ,batiffol4 ,scrivener1 i4 #aff1 ,plate ,,xv4 4 ,fragments of the eighth or ninth century at ,athos3 contains ,mark ix4 #e to the end1 ,luke1 ,john1 ,acts1 seven ,catholic ,epistles1 ,romans to ,philemon1 and ,hebrews3 exhibits after ,mark xvi4 #h the same double conclusion as is found in ,l and one ,sinai manuscript4 ,on some readings of 1 see ,lake in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,no4 i4 p1 #hh2 ii4 pp4 #bij-bib4 4 ,of the eighth or ninth century3 in the ,monastery of ,dionysius at ,athos3 contains the ,gospels entire4 ,the last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly collated1 some of them having been only recently discovered4 ,the following are indicated by ,hebrew letters4 4 ,of the ninth or tenth century3 in the ,monastery of ,st4 ,andrew at ,athos3 contains the ,gospels with lacun4 4 ,,gregorianus1 a purple manuscript from ,cappadocia now admitted to be part of ,n4 #f-ac4 ,several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century1 discovered at ,sinai by ,j4 ,r4 ,harris and published by him 7,biblical fragments from ,mount ,sinai1 #ahij73 #ab contains the double conclusion of ,mark3 #ac is a purple fragment of the seventh century containing a few verses from the first chapter of ,luke1 perhaps only a quotation4 4 ,swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above as ,tl1 which exhibits the double conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel4 ,see his ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark1 pp4 xcii41 xcix4 4 ,an ,oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century1 published by ,grenfell and ,hunt1 ,the ,oxyrhynchus ,papyri1 ,part ,i4 with eight ,plates1 ,london1 #ahih3 contains only ,mark x4 #ej f4 and xi4 #aj f43 cited by ,swete4 7,tg ,greg47 ,part ,,ii4 of ,the ,oxyrhynchus ,papyri 7#ahii1 pp4 #a-h7 contains a fragment of ,john's ,gospel 7cc4 i4 and xx47 from a sheet of a papyrus codex written between #bjj and #cjj ,a4,d4 ,this is one of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a papyrus book 7not a roll74 ,it exhibits already the abbreviations usually found in theological manuscripts1 such as 1 1 1 4 ,the ,codex agrees with in several readings not found elsewhere4 7,tx ,greg47 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xv4 ,sidenote3 ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles4 ,the second group is composed of manuscripts of the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles which are distinguished from those in the first by affixing the exponent #b at the bottom of the symbol4 ,a ,b exhibit the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles complete3 ,e#b ,d have the ,acts all but entire3 ,k ,l have the ,catholic ,epistles complete3 ,c ,p have the greater part of them4 ,for ,a ,b ,c ,d ,fa 7a few verses of the ,acts71 see above4 ,e#b4 ,,laudianus #ce1 in ,oxford1 written at the end of the sixth century3 bilingual1 ,latin-,greek1 the ,latin occupying the place of honour on the left3 breaks off at ,acts xxvi4 #bi3 the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of ,d4 ,the manuscript was formerly in ,sardinia1 and was probably brought to ,england by ,theodore of ,tarsus in #ffh4 ,it was employed by the ,venerable ,bede 7d4 #gce7 in his ,expositio of the ,acts and afterwards in his ,expositio ,retractata4 ,archbishop ,laud presented the manuscript with many others to the ,university of ,oxford4 ,fell and ,mill made use of it4 ,scrivener1 i4 #aba1 ,plate ,x4 #be4 ,g#b4 ,of the seventh century1 a single leaf in ,st4 ,petersburg containing ,acts ii4 #de-;iii4 #h1 torn from the cover of a ,syriac manuscript4 ,gb4 ,of the ninth century1 a palimpsest of six leaves in ,rome containing portions of ,acts xvi4 #cb-xviii4 #bj4 7,vat4 ,gr4 #bcjb47 ,h#b4 ,ninth century1 in ,modena1 has the ,acts with some lacun4 ,i#b4 ,fragments in ,st4 ,petersburg of the fifth and seventh centuries3 four leaves from three different manuscripts of the ,acts4 ,k#b4 ,of the ninth century3 brought to ,moscow from ,athos3 contains the ,catholic and ,pauline ,epistles4 ,l#b4 ,written at the end of the ninth century3 in the ,angelica ,library at ,rome3 contains the ,acts from c4 viii4 onwards1 the ,catholic ,epistles1 and the ,pauline down to ,hebrews xiii4 ,p#b4 ,of the ninth century3 formerly in the possession of ,bishop ,porfiri of ,kiev and now at ,st4 ,petersburg3 published by ,tischendorf3 contains ,acts1 ,catholic and ,pauline ,epistles1 and ,apocalypse1 with several lacun4 ,s#b4 ,of the eighth or ninth century3 at ,athos3 contains ,acts1 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,romans1 portions of #a and #b ,corinthians1 and ,ephesians4 #b4 ,a palimpsest of the fifth century3 in ,rome3 rediscovered by ,batiffol3 consists of fragments of ,acts1 ,james1 #a and #b ,peter1 #a1 #b1 and #c ,john1 ,romans1 #a and #b ,corinthians1 ,ephesians1 ,philippians1 ,colossians1 #a ,thessalonians1 #a and #b ,timothy1 ,titus1 ,philemon1 and ,hebrews4 ,sidenote3 ,pauline ,epistles4 ,the third group is composed of manuscripts of the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,of these there is a comparatively large number1 which may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to ,paul even in early times4 1 however1 is the only ,codex that contains his ,epistles complete2 in ,d ,l they are almost complete1 and ,a ,b ,c ,e ,f ,g ,k exhibit the greater part of them4 ,for ,a ,b ,c1 see above4 ,a is defective in #b ,cor4 iv4 #ac-xii4 #f inclusive4 ,b breaks off at ,hebrews ix4 #ad1 consequently #a and #b ,timothy1 ,titus1 and ,philemon are wanting4 ,d#b4 ,,codex ,,claromontanus3 takes its name from ,clermont near ,beauvais4 ,the manuscript was written in the sixth century1 and is bilingual in ,greek and ,latin1 having the ,greek on the left-hand page4 ,the ,greek is wanting in ,rom4 i4 #a-g1 #bg-cj1 and in #a ,cor4 xiv4 #ac-bb4 ,in ,gal4 v4 #i ,d#b reads 1 and in verse #ad 1 in both places agreeing with ,marcion4 ,at least nine hands are distinguishable in the manuscript1 one of whom corrected the text in over #bjjj places in the ninth or tenth century4 ,two leaves are palimpsest1 their text being written over part of a play of ,euripides4 ,hebrews has evidently been copied into the ,codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe4 ,before it is a list of 8versus scribtuarum sanctarum10 one of the oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the ,old and ,new ,testaments1 which is derived from an early ,greek original4 ,this ,catalogus ,claromontanus is given in ,westcott's ,history of the ,canon1 ,app4 ,d1 xx4 p4 #efc1 and in his ,bible in the ,church1 ,app4 ,b1 p4 #cji4 ,see also ,zahn1 ,geschichte des ,n4 ,t4 ,kanons1 ,,ii4 #aeg-agb1 #ajab2 ,jlicher1 ,einleitung1 #dj4 ,thirty-five leaves of ,codex ,d#b were stolen by ,john ,aymont in #agjg1 but afterwards restored by their purchasers1 some of them in #agbj1 and the others in #agbi4 7,see ,plates ,,ii4 and ,,iii47 ,e#c4 ,,sangermanensis1 of the ninth century3 also ,greek-,latin3 brought from ,st4 ,germain de ,prs to ,st4 ,petersburg during the ,revolution3 in the ,greek merely an incorrect transcript of ,d#b1 and may therefore be dismissed4 ,see p4 #agi n4 #a4 ,f#b4 ,,augiensis1 of the ninth century3 another ,greek-,latin manuscript3 defective in ,rom4 i4 #a-;iii4 #ai2 #a ,cor4 iii4 #h-af2 vi4 #g-ad2 ,col4 ii4 #a-h2 ,philemon #ba-be3 ,hebrews from the first only in the ,latin4 ,the manuscript was formerly at ,reichenau 7,augia ,dives1 hence its name74 ,it was purchased by ,bentley in #agah for #bej ,dutch florins1 and is now at ,cambridge4 ,an edition of it was published by ,scrivener in #ahei4 ,for ,fa1 see above1 p4 #ff4 ,scrivener1 ,an exact transcript of the ,codex ,augiensis 444 to which is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various portions of the ,greek ,n4 ,t41 #ahei4 ,f4 ,zimmer1 ,der ,codex ,augiensis eine ,abschrift des ,boernerianus 7,zfw,th41 #ahhg1 i4 #gf-ia74 ,g#c4 ,,boernerianus1 of the ninth century1 so called from ,professor ,c4 ,f4 ,boerner of ,leipzig1 who purchased it in #agje3 now in ,dresden4 ,it is a ,greek-,latin manuscript1 the ,latin being interlinear4 ,it is manifestly the second part of 1 and has a close affinity with ,f#b1 though the ,greek of ,f was not copied from ,g1 as ,zimmer and ,hort assert4 ,the fact is rather that both are derived from one and the same original1 in which e4g4 1 sicut cancer ut serpat1 was found in #b ,tim4 ii4 #ag1 and 1 eramus autem servientes1 in ,gal4 iv4 #c4 ,this manuscript contains some interesting ,irish verses4#gj ,at the end of ,philemon there stands the title 1 ad laudicenses1 but the ,epistle that should have followed has been lost4 ,p4 ,corssen1 ,epistularum ,paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptos ,augiensem1 ,boernerianum1 ,claromontanum examinavit1 inter se comparavit1 ad communem originem revocavit4 ,specimen primum1 #ahhg4 ,alterum1 #ahhi4 ,sidenote3 ,euthalian ,recension4 ,h#c4 ,written in the sixth century1 one of the most valuable manuscripts1 but unfortunately incomplete4 ,its leaves were used in #ige and #abah to cover some manuscripts at ,mount ,athos4 ,forty-one of these have been rescued1 of which #bb are now in ,paris1 #h at ,mount ,athos1 #c in ,st4 ,petersburg1 #c in ,moscow1 #b in ,turin1 and #c in ,kiev4 ,they contain portions of #a and #b ,corinthians1 ,galatians1 ,colossians1 #a ,thessalonians1 #a and #b ,timothy1 ,titus1 and ,hebrews4 ,the value of the manuscript is indicated in the subscription1 which runs1 8,i1 ,euthalius1#ga wrote this volume of the ,apostle ,paul as carefully as possible in stichoi1 so that it might be read with intelligence3 the book was compared with the copy in the library at ,csarea1 written by the hand of ,pamphilus the saint40#gb ,the subscription may of course have stood in the original of ,h1 and simply been copied into it along with the text1 as in the case of the minuscules #ae1 #hc1 and #agc of the ,acts4 ,but no matter1 it serves to locate the text of this manuscript1 and it is one of our main witnesses for the so-called ,euthalian ,recension of the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles4 ,in or previous to the year #cif1 a deacon called ,euthalius1 afterwards known as ,bishop of ,sulce1#gc published an edition of the ,acts and ,catholic and ,pauline ,epistles1 in which1 following the rules laid down by the ,greek schools of oratory1 the text was carefully broken up into lines1 the length of which depended on the sense 7sense-clauses71 and divided into paragraphs or chapters4 ,euthalius also provided a system of ,church lections1 added a summary of contents to the various chapters1 and catalogued the quotations from the ,old ,testament and elsewhere in the separate ,epistles and in the entire group4 ,this edition became a sort of model for later times1 and seems to have been made use of for the ,armenian version among the rest4 ,the comparison of the manuscript with those of ,pamphilus1 as well as other additions1 would seem then to have been made on the occasion of a later revision4 ,ehrhard1 however1 thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in ,codex ,h1 but that ,evagrius is to be read instead of ,euthalius in the place where the name has been erased4 ,this view is combated by ,dobschtz1 and in part rightly4 ,working independently of both1 ,conybeare1 from ,armenian sources1 establishes the year #cif as the date of ,euthalius4 ,but in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the ,laura at ,mount ,athos1 ,wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription1 1 from which he makes out that ,euthalius lived in the second half of the seventh century and that ,sulce was in ,sardinia4 ,see ,g4 ,krger in the ,lit4 ,cent4 ,blatt #ahii1 ,no4 #ad4 ,omont1 ,notice sur un trs ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des ptres de ,s4 ,paul1 ,paris1 #ahhi4 ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson1 ,euthaliana1 ,texts and ,studies1 iii4 #c1 #ahie4 7,see ,s4 ,berger1 ,bull4 ,crit41 #if1 #h47 ,th4 ,zahn1 ,euthaliana1 ,theol4 ,lit4 ,blatt41 #ahie1 #eic1 #fja4 ,ehrhard1 ,der codex ,h ad ,epistolas ,pauli und ,euthalius diaconus1 ,eine palaeographisch-patrologische ,untersuchung in the ,centralblatt fr ,bibliothekswesen1 #ahia1 pp4 #che-daa4 ,e4 v4 ,dobschtz1 ,ein ,beitrag zur ,euthaliusfrage1 in the same magazine1 #ahic1 pp4 #di-gj2 ,euthaliusstudien in the ,,zkg4 xix4 pp4 #ajg-aed 7#ahih73 also1 ,euthalius1 in the ,,pre#c1 v4 pp4 #fca-fcc 7#ahih74 ,islinger1 ,die ,verdienste des ,euthalius um den neutestamentlichen ,bibeltext1 ,hof4 #ahfg 7,prog474 ,conybeare1 ,on the ,codex ,pamphili and date of ,euthalius1 in the ,cambridge ,journal of ,philology1 xxiii4 #bda 7#ahie74 ,r4 ,l4 ,bensly1 ,the ,harklean ,version etc41 pp4 #i1 #bg 7#ahhi74 ,see also ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson1 ,texts and ,studies1 vi4 #a2 ,c4 ,butler1 ,the ,lausiac ,history of ,palladius1 p4 #ajd ff41 and note #b1 p4 #ahh below4 ,i#b1 ,k#b1 ,l#b1 ,p#b3 ,see above1 p4 #ge4 ,m#b4 ,,codex ,,ruber1 of the ninth century3 four leaves written in bright red ink or other colouring matter1 two of them in ,london and the other two in ,hamburg4 ,n#b4 ,of the ninth century1 consisting of two leaves with portions of ,galatians and ,hebrews3 in ,st4 ,petersburg4 ,o#b4 ,of the ninth century1 two leaves in the same library containing portions of #b ,corinthians4 ,ob4 ,of the sixth century1 one leaf with part of ,ephesians3 in ,moscow4 ,q#b4 ,of the fifth century1 five papyrus leaves with fragments of #a ,corinthians3 in ,st4 ,petersburg4 ,r#b4 ,of the seventh century1 a single leaf with part of #b ,corinthians3 in ,grotteferrata4 ,s#b4 ,see above1 p4 #ge4 ,tg4 ,a few sentences from #a ,timothy4 ,see ,ti,gr41 p4 #dda4 ,ts4 ,two leaves containing #a ,corinthians i4 #bb-bi1 written in the ninth or tenth century1 and published simultaneously with ,ti-r4 ,gregory now designates ,tg as ,ta ,paul1 and ,ts as ,tb ,paul4 #b4 ,see above1 p4 #ge4 #ad4 ,a fragment of papyrus containing part of #a ,corinthians1 cc4 i41 ii41 iii41 written in the fifth century4 ,the first seven verses of the first chapter of ,romans have been published in ,the ,oxyrhynchus ,papyri1 ,part ,,ii4 7pp4 #h f41 ,plate ,,ii474 ,the fragment is probably a schoolboy's exercise4 ,it is written in a large rude uncial hand1 and dates from the first half of the fourth century4 ,in verse #g it reads 4 ,sidenote3 ,apocalypse4 ,there are fewest manuscripts of the ,apocalypse4 ,it is found entire only in ,a ,b1 while ,c and ,p exhibit portions of it4 ,in the ,apocalypse1 however1 it is to be observed that ,codex ,b is not the famous ,codex ,vaticanus #abji but a much later manuscript #bjff1 dating from the end of the eighth century4 ,it would be better1 therefore1 with some editors1 to call it ,q or ,b#b4 ,altogether the number of ,greek manuscripts is as follows#gd3-- ,,uncials3 ,gospels1 #gc ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles1 #ai ,pauline ,epistles1 #bh ,apocalypse1 #g --- ,total1 #abg ,,cursives1 #cgjb ,sidenote3 ,book-hand and hand of common life4 ,in closing our survey of the extant uncials1 it is to be borne in mind that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest of them as presenting the very form of the ,new ,testament autographs4 ,the books of the ,new ,testament1 at all events the majority of them1 were not originally intended for publication at all1 while the others were meant for only a limited circle of readers4 ,now these recent papyrus discoveries have shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even in those days between the book-hand and what we may call the hand of common life and business4 ,a glance at ,kenyon's ,palography of ,greek ,papyri will show how fundamental is the distinction between literary and non-literary papyri4 ,that writer states that in many cases the difference is just as marked as between handwriting and print at the present day1 and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand and the charter-hand of the ,middle ,ages4 ,of course documents of this or the other class may occasionally be found written in the hand that is not the usual one1 a prescription1 e4g41 in book-hand1 or conversely a literary text in the hand of common life4 ,the greater part of ,aristotle's work on the ,polity of the ,athenians1 for instance1 has been preserved in the common hand4 ,this papyrus1 which is attributed to the first century of the ,christian era1 is the work of four scribes4 ,but only one of these writes in a style approximating to the book-hand2 the other parts are written in a very cursive style on the back of an old account1 probably by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends or slaves4 ,kenyon quite properly instances this as an illustration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the ,new ,testament books1 and suggests that this mode of propagation has to be considered in connection with times of persecution4 ,our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices1 editions de luxe1 such as could be prepared only in an age when the ,church had attained a position of affluence and power4 ,the distinction referred to above is one that has had but little attention paid to it hitherto1 as is shown by the illustration given in ,harris's excellent work on the ,new ,testament autographs4 ,it is manifest at the same time that this consideration is of great importance in trying to understand the origin and dissemination of the various readings that occur in our manuscripts4 ,it is just a pity that ,kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of ,aristotle in his book1 seeing that the latter is more accessible to the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in #ahia by the ,trustees of the ,british ,museum1 or the ,plate published in the second volume of the work of the ,palographical ,society4 ,sidenote3 ,uncial and minuscule script4 ,a further consideration is emphasised by means of these papyrus discoveries--viz4 that no distinction of time can be drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the manuscripts4 ,even in the very earliest documents the hand of common life displays a very cursive character1 and a fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily later than an uncial hand without ligatures4 ,it is somewhat different in the case of writing on parchment3 here the old distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly maintained1 only we must guard against supposing that the minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing2 nor must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial and the later minuscule scripts were in use together4#ge ,the sharp line of demarcation1 therefore1 which has hitherto been drawn in the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament between these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact4 ,the present account1 however1 is intended merely as a survey of the position of things up to the present1 and the following description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation4 7b47 ,,some ,,of ,,the ,,more ,,important ,,minuscules4 ,sidenote3 ,minuscules4 ,when the ,greek ,new ,testament began to be printed1 the editors had necessarily to be content with indifferent and late minuscules1 and even those who followed them1 like ,bentley and ,lachmann1 thought they were at liberty to disregard these altogether and to found their text exclusively on the oldest uncials4 ,they forgot that the text of a late manuscript may be derived from a very early and good source through comparatively few intermediaries1 and that it is possible to reconstruct a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses4 ,accordingly1 in more recent times1 ,english editors like ,tregelles1 ,burgon1 ,ferrar1 ,hoskier1 and ,scrivener have rendered great service in the way of collating manuscripts1 and the last-mentioned as well as ,gregory in ,germany has also catalogued them4 ,at the present moment a systematic investigation in this department is being carried on in ,berlin4 ,most of the minuscules are still written on parchment which began to be mixed with paper in the ninth century1 and was ultimately superseded by it4 ,various minuscules contain commentaries and other additional matter1 such as the ,list of the ,seventy ,apostles1 short ,biographies of the ,apostles1 ,summaries of the journeys of ,st4 ,paul1 or notes as to the date and place of the composition of the different books4 ,when dates are given in the manuscripts1 they are still as a rule computed in the ,byzantine manner1 reckoning from the ,creation of the world 7#eejh ,b4,c474 ,in only a few cursives is the date reckoned from the ,birth of ,christ4 ,since the time of ,wettstein the minuscule manuscripts have been indicated by ,arabic numerals1 the numbers in each of the four groups beginning with #a1 so that one and the same manuscript may have three or four numbers--#ah;evv4 e4g4 being #aac;,acts1 #acb,paul1 and #ea;,apoc41 while #bji;evv is the same as #ie;,acts1 #ajh,paul1 and #df;,apoc4 ,it is still more awkward that in the two principal works on the minuscules1 that of ,scrivener and of ,gregory1 the recently discovered manuscripts are numbered differently4 ,our enumeration will follow that of ,scrivener4 ,,minuscules ,,of ,,the ,,gospels4 #a 7,acts #a1 ,paul #a74 ,of the tenth century1 but according to others of the twelfth or the thirteenth1 in ,basel1 with beautiful miniatures which were stolen prior to #ahfj4 ,the manuscript was borrowed by ,reuchlin and used by ,erasmus for his second edition4 7,scrivener1 i4 #acg1 ,plate ,,ix4 #bc47 #b4 ,of the twelfth century1 though some strangely suppose the fifteenth3 also in ,basel3 formerly purchased for two ,rhenish florins3 printed by ,erasmus4 #c4 ,of the twelfth century1 in ,vienna1 lent to ,erasmus for his second edition4 ,sidenote3 ,ferrar ,group4 #d-da are all in the ,national ,library at ,paris4 #d-i and #ch were used by ,stephen4 ,the most notable among them is #ac1 together with #fi1 #abd1 #baa1 #cdf1 #cdh1 #eef1 #efa 7#ghh71 #fbd1 and #fbf1 which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of text and their additions4#gf ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd is found after ,matthew xxvi4 #ci1 and ,john vii4 #ec--viii4 #aa after ,luke xxi4 #ch4 ,the subscriptions1 moreover1 state that ,matthew was written in ,hebrew eight years after our ,lord's ,ascension1 and contained #bebb and #befj stichoi1 ,mark ten years after the ,ascension with #afge and #afjd stichoi1 ,luke fifteen years after with #chjc 7lege #cjhc7 and #bgej stichoi1 and ,john thirty-two years after with #aich 4 ,these manuscripts were referred to a common archetype by the ,irish scholar ,ferrar1 and were accordingly denominated the ,ferrar ,group1 and indicated by the letter before that symbol was appropriated to the ,codex ,beratinus4 ,most of them came from ,calabria1 and another has lately been added to the number4 ,their additions1 however1 as ,rendel ,harris shows1 are rather of ,syrian origin4 ,in the first edition ,i ventured to suggest that these manuscripts might go back to ,lucian the ,martyr 7d4 #cab7 of whom ,jerome makes mention1 saying that he knew of codices quos a ,luciano 7et ,hesychio7 nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio1 quibus 444 nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse1 cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita 7cod4 ,e edita7 sunt4 ,that1 however1 is not possible in the event of the so-called ,syrian recension being the work of ,lucian1 which ,hort indicates as possible4 ,in any case1 these minuscules have preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text4 #af is noteworthy as being written in four different colours according to the contents4 ,the continuous narrative is written in green1 the words of ,jesus and the ,angels are in red and occasionally in gold1 the words of ,his followers are in blue1 while those of the ,pharisees1 the multitude1 and of the devil1 are written in black4 #bh4 ,contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some resemblance to ,d4 #cc4 ,written about the tenth century3 the 8queen of the cursives03 its text bears a greater resemblance to that of ,b1 ,d1 ,l than does that of any other cursive4 ,the manuscript is much damaged1 but #cd1 which is equally old1 is still in splendid condition1 as though it were fresh from the hand of the artist4 7,scrivener1 i4 #cdc1 ,plate ,,xiii4 #ci47 #ch4 ,sent by the ,emperor ,michael ,palologus to ,st4 ,louis 7d4 #abgj74 #ea4 ,at ,oxford3 text resembles that of the ,complutensian4 #ei4 ,at ,cambridge3 has many points of connection with ,d4 #fa4 ,of the fourteenth or fifteenth century4 ,this is the notorious ,codex ,montfortianus1 now in ,dublin1 which derives its name from one of its later possessors4 ,it was this manuscript1 8codex apud ,anglos repertus10 that decided ,erasmus to insert in his third edition of #aebb the passage of the ,three ,heavenly ,witnesses1 #a ,john v4 #g1 #h4 ,it was probably written by a ,franciscan monk of the name of ,froy or ,roy4 ,its twin brother1 the parchment codex ,ravianus 7,rau71 formerly numbered #aaj1 and now in ,berlin1 which also contains the passage1 proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the text of the ,complutensian4 ,manuscripts1 it may be observed1 continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing4 ,melanchthon1 e4g41 wrote out the ,epistle to the ,romans three times in ,greek2 and the manuscript in the ,zurich ,library hitherto cited as #ef,paul is nothing else than a copy of ,erasmus's printed edition of #aeaf made by ,zwingli in the following year4 #fi4 ,cf4 #ac above1 and see ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,origin of the ,leicester ,codex of the ,new ,testament1 #ahhg4 7,scrivener1 i4 #cdc1 ,plate ,,xiii4 #dj47 #gg and #gh4 ,formerly in the fine library of ,matthias ,corvinus1 ,king of ,hungary 7d4 #adij74 #ij4 ,in this manuscript the ,gospels are in the order ,john1 ,luke1 ,matthew1 ,mark4 #ajf4 ,would be important1 but has been lost sight of since the time of ,wettstein4 #adj4 ,presented to ,pope ,innocent ,,vii4 by the ,queen of ,cyprus4 ,this manuscript reads in ,luke i4 #fd1 therein agreeing with the ,complutensian4 #adf-aec4 ,in ,rome1 came from ,heidelberg4 #aed-aef4 ,once the property of ,christina1 ,queen of ,sweden4 #aeg4 ,in ,rome3 its text is said to bear a considerable resemblance to the quotations found in the early ,christian writer ,marcion4 ,see below1 p4 #baa4 #afd4 ,the subscription of this manuscript states that it was compared with certain ancient manuscripts in ,jerusalem4 #bje-bae and #bag are in ,venice1 being part of the donation of ,cardinal ,bessarion4 #bji contains the whole of the ,new ,testament1 and was the ,cardinal's own copy which he had with him at the ,council of ,florence in #adci4 #bah-bbe are in ,vienna4 #bbf-bcc are in the ,escorial4 #bcg-bei are at ,moscow1 with the exception of four at ,dresden4 #bfc-cbj are in ,paris1 with the exception of #bgb1 which was removed thence to the ,british ,museum4 #bgd exhibits the shorter conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel in the lower margin4 7,see ,plate ,x47 #dje-dah are now in ,venice1 and1 like ,u1 once belonged to the ,nani family4 #dbb-dcj4 ,in ,munich4 #dca4 ,this manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished at ,strassburg1 in the war of #ahgj1 like #ahj;,acts4 ,this1 however1 is incorrect4 #deb4 ,in ,parma1 one of the most superb codices4 #dgc4 ,of the ninth and tenth centuries1 a purple manuscript with gold lettering1 said to have been written by the ,empress ,theodora4 ,see under ,n4 above1 and note1 p4 #aea4 #dha1 dated #gth ,may #hce1 is the earliest manuscript of the ,greek ,new ,testament bearing an exact date4 #eca4 ,written in a microscopic hand4 #fjd4 ,written in the twelfth century1 now in the ,british ,museum1 exhibits #bgbd variations from the ,textus ,receptus1 and has besides #bgj readings peculiar to itself4 ,it is the only witness we know that supports that peculiar form of the second petition of the ,lord's ,prayer found in ,marcion in the second century1 and in ,gregory of ,nyssa in the fourth1 ' 7,luke xi4 #b74gg #gdc has the double conclusion in ,mark4 #ajga4 ,see under ,d1 p4 #ff4 ,in his ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark1 ,swete cites frequently1 in addition to those just mentioned and those of the ,ferrar ,group1 #a1 #bh1 #cc1 #ff1 #aji1 #aah1 #aca1 #aeg1 #bji1 #bch1 #bdb1 #bii1 #dce1 #dgc1 #dge1 #eef1 #egj1 #gcf4 ,,acts4 #b and #d4 ,used by ,erasmus4 #g-aj4 ,used by ,stephen4 #ae1 #hc1 #agc4 ,these1 like in the ,old ,testament and ,h#c1 were compared with the ,codex of ,pamphilus--i4e4 were faithfully copied from such an exemplar4 #cc4 ,the parent manuscript of ,montfortianus4 ,see above1 p4 #hf4 #db4 ,closely related to the ,complutensian4 #eb4 ,once in the possession of ,stunica1 the chief editor of the ,complutensian4 ,it has now disappeared4 #fa has been designated the most important minuscule of the ,acts4 ,this1 however1 is an exaggeration4 #acg supplements ,d ,e where these are defective4 #aeh4 ,used by ,cardinal ,mai to supply the defects of ,codex ,b in the ,pauline ,epistles4 #afb4 ,of the fourteenth or fifteenth century1 now in ,rome3 a bilingual in ,latin and ,greek3 contains the passage #a ,john v4 #g4 #ahb4 ,numbered #aaj by ,hort1 who calls it one of the best of the cursives4 #bbj4 ,one of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the ,new ,testament4 #bcb4 ,an equally superb copy1 on which a monk called ,andreas bestowed three years' labour4 #bdf4 ,written in gold letters for ,charlotte1 ,queen of ,cyprus 7d4 #adhg74 #dai4 ,written in #hjj by the ,empress ,maria1 after being divorced by ,constantine ,,vi4 ,,pauline ,,epistles4 #g4 ,used by ,erasmus4 #ef and #ff are quite worthless1 being simply copies of ,erasmus's printed text4 7,see above under #fa;evv74 #fg4 ,a valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having evidently made use of an exemplar with a text very closely akin to that of ,b ,m4 #hj bears a close resemblance to #fi;evv4 ,,apocalypse4 #a4 ,this was the only manuscript at ,erasmus's command for this part of the ,new ,testament4 ,it is defective in the last chapter from verse #af to the end4 ,for the rest it exhibits a fairly good text4 7,see p4 #c f47 #cf4 ,a text akin to 4 #ch has a text resembling that of ,a ,c4 #fh4 ,resembles ,a4 #ie does so still more4 ,this last has the reputation of being one of the best minuscules of the ,apocalypse4 ,the number of minuscules under each class is1 according to ,scrivener 7,miller71 as follows3-- ,gospels1 #acbf ,acts and ,catholic #dbb ,epistles1 ,pauline ,epistles1 #dig ,apocalypse1 #ahd ---- #bdbi ,a great many ,new ,testament manuscripts are in ,england4 ,some are in the possession of private individuals1 like those at ,parham ,park in ,sussex belonging to ,lord de la ,zouche4 ,in #ahgj-gb the ,baroness ,burdett ,coutts brought with her from ,janina in ,epirus over one hundred manuscripts1 of which sixteen were of the ,gospels1 one of them belonging to the ,ferrar ,group1 and as many were ,evangeliaria4 ,there are #acf manuscripts of the ,new ,testament in the ,british ,museum4 ,the number in ,great #dch ,britain is ,in the ,national #bih ,library of ,paris1 ,in ,germany1 #adj ,in ,italy1 #fdd ,for the total number of ,greek manuscripts arranged according to countries1 see ,scrivener1 i41 ,indices ,i41 ,,ii41 pp4 #cib ff4 ,what a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be examined is shown by the account given by ,dr4 von der ,goltz4 ,accompanied by ,dr4 ,g4 ,wobbermin1 he made a journey to ,athos in the winter of #ahig-ih1 and there in that ancient ,monastery1 the ,laura of ,st4 ,athanasius1 he found1 among about #ahjj manuscripts altogether1 including ,lectionaries1 some #bej codices of the ,new ,testament1 of which only a very few have been noted by ,gregory4 ,and these manuscripts may be of the very utmost importance1 as witness the further statement of the same explorer4 ,he was looking through the manuscripts of the ,apostolos1 to which he and his companion had to give most of their attention1 when his eye fell on one written in the tenth or eleventh century1 containing the following note before the ,pauline ,epistles3 1 444 1 1 4 ,and from the subscription at the end of the ,pauline ,epistles we learn that the manuscript1 or1 as von der ,goltz believes1 the exemplar from which it was copied1 was written by a monk called ,ephraim4 ,see further in von der ,goltz1 ,eine textkritische ,arbeit des zehnten bezw4 sechsten ,jahrhunderts herausgegeben nach einem ,kodex des ,athosklosters ,lawra4 ,mit einer ,doppeltafel in ,lichtdruck4 ,leipzig1 #ahii4 7,texte und ,untersuchungen1 ,neue ,folge1 ii4 #d72 and compare below1 p4 #aij4 ,,literature4--,on #b;evv1 see ,hoskier1 above1 p4 #e4 ,on #ac1 see ,w4 ,h4 ,ferrar1 ,collation of four important ,manuscripts of the ,gospels1 edited by ,t4 ,k4 ,abbott1 ,dublin1 #ahgg4 ,j4 ,p4 ,p4 ,martin1 ,quatre manuscrits du ,n4 ,t41 auxquels on peut ajouter un cinquime1 ,amiens1 #ahhf4 ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,on the ,origin of the ,ferrar ,group1 ,london1 #ahid4 ,k4 ,lake1 8,some new members of the ,ferrar ,group of ,,mss4 of the ,gospels10 in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,i4 i4 pp4 #aag-abj4 ,the well-known manuscript of the pre-,lutheran ,german ,bible1 the ,codex ,teplensis1 has the words from ,john viii4 #b1 8in the morning he came again into the temple10 after ,luke xxi4 #ch1 an arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the ,ferrar ,group1 in which ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa is found after ,luke xxi4 #ch4 ,see ,s4 ,berger1 ,bull4 ,crit41 #ahid1 p4 #cij4 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xv4 ,on #efa1 ,codex ,algerinae ,peckover1 see ,j4 ,r4 ,harris in the ,journal of the ,exegetical ,society1 #ahhf1 #gi-if4 ,on #hib;evv1 see ,harris1 8,an ,important ,manuscript of the ,n4 ,t40 in the ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 ix41 #ahij1 #ca ff4 ,on ,minuscules of the ,apocalypse1 see ,bousset1 ,textkritische ,studien in ,t4 und ,u41 xi4 #d4 ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory1 8,die ,kleinhandschriften des ,n4 ,testaments0 7,theologische ,studien fr ,b4 ,weiss41 ,gttingen1 #ahig1 #bgd-bhc74 ,e4 ,j4 ,goodspeed1 8,a ,twelfth ,century ,gospel ,manuscript0 7,biblical ,world1 x4 #d74 7c47 ,,lectionaries4 ,sidenote3 ,lectionaries4 ,till quite recently the ,lectionaries1 or ,books of ,church ,pericopae1 were even more neglected than the minuscules4 ,and yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the ,bible in the provinces to which they belong1 on account of their official character and because their locality can be readily distinguished4 ,the slight alterations of the text occurring at the beginning of the pericopae1 and consisting usually in the insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory clause1 are easily recognisable as such1 and deceive no one4 ,it is not always easy to determine the date of such books1 because the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuscript much longer than in the others4 ,among the oldest1 perhaps1 is #ace1 a palimpsest 7of which there is a considerable number among the ,lectionaries71 assigned by ,tischendorf to the seventh century1 and #ifh1 written on papyrus and ascribed to the sixth century1 which was found in ,egypt in the year #ahij4 ,when these ,lectionaries originated has not yet been clearly made out4#gh ,up till the present #ihj ,evangeliaria--i4e4 ,lessons from the ,gospels--have been catalogued1 and #bfh ,apostoli or ,praxapostoli--i4e4 ,lessons from the ,acts and ,epistles4 ,some of them are magnificently executed2 some1 alas1 have been sadly mutilated4 #aag1 in ,florence1 is a very beautiful codex2 and #afb1 in ,siena1 is perhaps 8one of the most splendid ,service-books in the world40 #bce may have been written in part by the ,emperor ,alexius ,comnenus 7#ajha-aaah74 #bhf is the ,golden ,evangeliarium on ,mount ,sinai1 dating from the ninth to the eleventh century1 though the tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a personage than the ,emperor ,theodosius 7d4 #cie74 ,tischendorf's #ceb-cfj are now in the ,national ,library at ,paris4 #cee is printed in ,omont's ,catalogue 7see above1 p4 #ga74 #de;evl is a fragment of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at ,vienna4#gi #dj is kept in the ,escorial along with the reliques of ,st4 ,chrysostom1 and regarded as his autograph4#hj ,bilingual ,lectionaries are also found1 in ,greek and ,arabic for example4 ,the arrangement of these ,service-books varies with the time and region in which they were composed4 ,several fragments which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the ,gospels should perhaps be classed among the ,evangeliaria--e4g4 the solitary leaf of a ,bible manuscript ,wrttemberg is known to possess1 and the ,tbingen ,fragment1 formerly classed among the uncials as ,r of the ,gospels1 but now enumerated as #dha;evl4 ,an important ,syriac ,lectionary will fall to be considered under the head of the ,versions4 ,for further details1 reference must be made to ,scrivener1 to ,ti,gr41 and now especially to ,gregory1 ,textkritik1 i4 pp4 #cbg-dgh4 #b4 ,,versions4 ,sidenote3 ,versions4 ,our second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the ,new ,testament is the early ,versions4 ,the value of their testimony depends on their age and fidelity4 ,when did the first versions originate8 ,this question reminds us of the ,inscription on the ,cross1 a portion of which is still exhibited in ,rome4 ,it was written in ,hebrew1 ,greek1 and ,latin4 ,but we may get further back still4 ,palestine at the time of ,christ was a country where the most diverse languages and dialects came into contact with each other4 ,in the last century ,b4,c4 a transformation had occurred1 which might be regarded as a counterpart to the supplanting of ,norman ,french by ,english1 or of ,low by ,high ,german4 ,aramaic had already taken the place of the old ,hebrew1 and after the time of ,alexander came the intrusion of ,greek1 and later still of ,latin4 ,some of the disciples of ,jesus bore old ,hebrew names1 like ,james 77 and ,john 772 others had names wholly or partly ,aramaic1 as ,cephas 7 ,peter71 the cognomen of ,simon1 and ,bartholomew2 while others1 again1 had ,greek names1 as ,philip 77 and ,andrew 774 ,to the question what language ,jesus ,himself spoke1 the most probable answer is that it was ,aramaic with a ,galilean colouring4 8,thou art a ,galilean1 thy speech bewrayeth thee10 said the ,jerusalem girl to ,peter4 ,the ,galileans1 like the ,babylonians and the ,samaritans1 were recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the pure ,jews did4 ,at the same time1 ,jesus certainly understood the ,hebrew of the ,old ,testament4 ,but those words of ,his that have been preserved are ,aramaic--talitha1 abba1 and so is sabaqtani in ,matthew xxvii4 #df1 and ,mark xv4 #cd1 if that is the original form of the text1 and not asabthani1 as a number of manuscripts show4 ,in what language1 however1 the first record of the preaching of the ,gospel was made1 whether it was in the classic ,hebrew of the ,old ,testament or in the ,aramaic of the time1 is still subject of dispute4#ha ,but as this question is of moment only for the original sources1 and even then for only a certain part of the ,new ,testament--viz4 the ,gospels--it does not fall to be considered here4 ,we have to do only with those versions that are derived from the ,greek1 and again with those of them only that are important for the criticism of the text1 which are the oldest4 ,the versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or four heads4 ,sidenote3 ,east4 ,in the ,east1 ,antioch1 with its semi-,greek1 semi-,syrian population1 very early became the centre of the new faith1 which1 indeed1 obtained its name there1 and must very soon have established itself in ,damascus and ,mesopotamia4 ,in that region the form of ,aramaic now commonly known as ,syriac was spoken4 ,sidenote3 ,west1 ,south4 ,in the ,west1 ,greek was mostly spoken and understood1 even in ,rome4 ,paul consequently1 and others as well as he1 wrote to ,rome in ,greek4 ,at the same time1 the need must have existed1 even in the second century1 of having the ,gospel in the ,latin language in parts of ,africa1 in the north of ,italy1 and in the ,south of ,gaul4 ,quite as early1 perhaps1 the new faith spread to ,egypt1 which at that time was a kind of centre of religious culture1 and so we find in ,egypt not one but several versions in various dialects4 ,the ,gothic version of ,ulfilas deserves special mention as being the oldest monument of ,christianity among the ,germanic people1 and valuable too in the criticism of the text4 ,l4 ,j4 ,m4 ,bebb1 ,evidence of the ,early ,versions and ,patristic ,quotations1 etc41 in ,studia ,biblica1 ii41 ,oxford1 #ahij4 ,lagarde1 ,de ,novo ,testamento ad ,versionum ,orientalium fidem edendo4 ,berlin 7#aheg72 with slight alterations in his ,ges4 ,abhandlungen1 #ahhf1 pp4 #hd-aai4 ,reprinted #ahif4 ,urtext 7see p4 #g74 ,copinger 7see p4 #f74 ,an earlier bibliographical work is the ,bibliotheca ,sacra post 444 ,jacobi ,le ,long et ,c4 ,f4 ,boerneri iteratas curas ordine disposita1 emendata1 suppleta1 continuata ab ,a4 ,g4 ,masch4 ,halle1 #aggh-ij1 #dto4 ,pars ,i41 ,de editionibus textus originalis4 ,pars ,,ii41 ,de versionibus librorum sacrorum 7#c ,vols474 ,r4 ,simon1 ,histoire critique des versions du ,n4 ,t41 #afij4 ,nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du ,n4 ,t41 #afie4 7a47 ,,syriac ,,versions4 ,sidenote3 ,peshitto4 ,the ,bible used in the ,syrian ,church has long and deservedly borne the honourable appellation of 8the ,queen of the ,versions40 ,it was first published in #aeee at the expense of the ,emperor ,ferdinand ,i4 by ,j4 ,albert ,widmanstadt with the assistance of a ,syrian ,jacobite called ,moses1 who came from ,mardin as legate to ,pope ,julius ,,iii4 ,the type for this edition was beautifully cut by ,caspar ,kraft of ,ellwangen4 ,all the branches into which the ,syrian church was divided in the fifth century have used the same translation of the ,scriptures4 ,to this day the ,syriac ,new ,testament wants the five so-called ,antilegomena--viz4 #b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 ,jude1 and the ,apocalypse--a sufficient proof that it goes back to a time and a region in which these books were not yet reckoned in the ,canon of the ,new ,testament4 ,in place of these it contained in early times an alleged ,third ,epistle of ,paul to the ,corinthians1 and an ,epistle of the ,corinthians to ,paul 7cf4 below1 p4 #adb74 ,to distinguish it from other ,syriac translations1 this ,version has been called by ,syriac scholars1 since the tenth century1 the ,peshito--i4e4 the 8,simple0 or perhaps the 8,common10 which is sometimes pronounced ,peshit 77 and spelt simply ,peshitto4 ,when and where was this translation made8 ,an ancient ,syrian tradition asserts that it was done by the ,apostle ,thaddaeus1 who came on a mission to ,abgar ,uchama--i4e4 ,abgar the ,black--,king of ,edessa1 after the death of ,jesus1 which mission1 they say1 arose out of a correspondence that ,abgar had previously had with ,jesus4 ,another tradition ascribes it to ,aggaeus 7,aggai71 the disciple of ,thaddaeus1 and it is even attributed to ,mark the ,evangelist4 ,it is also said that ,luke was by birth a ,syrian of ,antioch1 a tradition which may preserve an element of truth4 ,the earliest notice of a ,syriac ,gospel is found in ,eusebius's ,ecclesiastical ,history1 iv4 #bb4 ,that historian mentions that ,hegesippus 7c4 #afj-ahj7 quotes certain things from the ,gospel of the ,hebrews--i4e4 of the ,palestinian 787 ,jewish ,christians1 and from the ,syriac 7sc4 ,gospel71 and particularly from the ,hebrew dialect1 showing that he himself was a convert from the ,hebrews 7 ' 1 74 ,this can hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a ,syriac version was already in existence4 ,whether it contained all the four ,gospels or only one of them1 or ,tatian's ,harmony of the ,gospels1 as ,michaelis supposed and as ,zahn has recently shown some ground for believing1 or whether it contained a primitive ,gospel1 now perished1 cannot be established with certainty4 ,from the middle of the present century manuscripts of this version have found their way into ,european libraries in great numbers4 ,some of these are inestimable4 ,at least ten date from the fifth1 and thirty from the sixth century4 ,this is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small a remnant of the ,greek manuscripts has been preserved4 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam is at present engaged on an edition of the ,syriac ,tetraevangelium for the ,university of ,oxford on the basis of forty manuscripts4 ,the task might seem to be an easy one1 considering that these ,syriac manuscripts display a far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any written in ,greek4 ,the difficulty in their case lies in another direction4 ,sidenote3 ,curetonian4 ,in the year #ahdb a ,syriac manuscript containing considerable portions of the ,gospels was brought from ,egypt and deposited in the ,british ,museum4 ,it was afterwards published by ,dr4 ,cureton in #aheh with the title 8,remains of a very antient recension of the four ,gospels in ,syriac hitherto unknown in ,europe40 ,cureton himself thought he had discovered the original of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel in this version4 ,while this was easily shown to be a mistake1 the question as to the relationship between the ,curetonian ,syriac and the ,peshitto1 whether the two texts are independent of each other1 or if not1 which is the earlier and which the recension1 is not yet decided4 ,sidenote3 ,lewis4 ,it seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight when fragments of a ,syriac palimpsest were discovered on ,mount ,sinai in ,february #ahib by ,mrs4 ,lewis and her sister1 ,mrs4 ,gibson4 ,these they perceived to be part of a very old manuscript of the ,gospels1 and ,professor ,bensly of ,cambridge recognised that their text was closely related to that of the ,curetonian4 7,see ,plate ,v47 ,a second expedition was made to ,sinai in the spring of #ahic1 when the fragments were transcribed by ,professor ,bensly1 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt1 and ,j4 ,r4 ,harris4 ,as ,bensly died three days after their return1 the manuscript was published by the others in #ahid1 with an introduction by ,mrs4 ,lewis4 ,on a third visit to ,sinai this lady completed the work of the triumvirate1 and also published an ,english translation of the whole4 ,how1 then1 is this ,sinai-,syriac or ,lewis-,syriac1 as it is called1 related to the ,curetonian and to the ,peshitto8 ,the problem becomes more complicated still by the introduction of a fourth factor1 the most important of them all4 ,sidenote3 ,tatian4 ,from early sources it was known that ,tatian1#hb a ,syrian and a pupil of ,justin ,martyr1 composed a harmony of the ,gospels called the ,diatessaron--i4e4 1 an expression which may be taken either as referring to the four ,gospels or as a musical term equivalent to harmony or chord4 ,this ,harmony was in use among the ,syrians till the fifth century4 ,theodoret1 ,bishop of ,cyrus1 informs us that he destroyed #bjj copies of it in his semi-,syriac1 semi-,greek diocese4#hc ,about the same time ,bishop ,rabbulas of ,edessa 7#djg-dce7 instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that all the churches possessed and read a copy of the ,distinct ,gospel--i4e4 not mixed or harmonised4 ,the ,lewis-,syriac bears this very title1 ,gospel of the ,distinct or ,divided1 which is found also as the title of ,matthew's ,gospel in the ,curetonian version4 ,tatian's ,harmony has not yet been discovered in ,syriac1 but a ,latin ,harmony of the ,gospels derived from it has long been known1 and in #ahhc a ,harmony in ,arabic was published by ,ciasca which proves to be a translation from the ,syriac made by ,ibn et-,tabib 7d4 #ajdc7 or a recension of it4 ,again1 in #ahcf the ,armenian version of a ,syriac ,commentary by ,ephraem of ,edessa 7d4 #cgc7 was printed1 and translated into ,latin in #ahgf4 ,evangelii concordantis expositio facta a ,s4 ,ephraemo doctore ,syro4 ,in ,latinum translata a ,j4 ,b4 ,aucher1 ed4 ,g4 ,moesinger4 ,venetiis4 ,finally ,theodor ,zahn discovered in the works of the ,syriac writer ,aphraates1 who wrote between #ccg and #cde1 quotations which must be derived from this ,harmony of ,tatian2 and isolated quotations from ,tatian are also found in later ,syriac authors4 ,and so the materials are provided for deciding the question whether or not ,tatian made use of an earlier ,syriac version in the preparation of his ,harmony1 and how ,t7atian71 ,syrcu7reton71 ,syrsin and ,syrsch7aaf7#hd are related to each other4 ,the most probable view perhaps is that ,t is the earliest form in which the ,gospel came to ,syria1 that in ,syrcu and ,syrsin we have two attempts to exhibit ,t in the form of a version of the separate ,gospels which were not generally accepted1 while ,syrsch actually succeeded and passed into general use4 ,the interest attaching to this question may be learned from the form in which the text of ,matthew i4 #af is given in these witnesses4 ,syrsch agrees exactly with our present ,greek text1 but ,syrcu presents a form which1 when translated into ,latin1 reads1 ,joseph cui desponsata virgo ,maria genuit ,jesum ,christum4 ,now1 the only ,greek manuscripts that present a form corresponding to this are four minuscules1 #cdf1 #eef1 #fbd and #fbf1 which differ in this respect even from the other members of the ,ferrar ,group to which they belong4 ,in these four manuscripts the verse reads1 7sic7 4 ,in the ,latin1 however1 this text is represented by a number of the oldest manuscripts1 seven at least1 one of which omits the word virgo1 while two have peperit instead of genuit1 and is omitted4 ,but in ,syrsin we find3 ,joseph3 ,joseph autem cui desponsata 7erat7 virgo ,maria genuit ,jesum ,christum4 ,the passage is similarly cited in the recently published ,dialogue of ,timotheus and ,aquila1#he along with two other forms1 thus3-- 1 1 4 ,the exact wording of ,tatian can no longer be determined1 but it is evident that of these three forms in which the verse is found1 only one or none can be the original4 ,if we had no more than our oldest uncials or the great body of our minuscules to go by1 no one could have the slightest suspicion that in our ,greek text all is not in perfect order4 ,but here1 in an old ,syriac fragment from the far ,east1 there suddenly appears a reading which is also found in ,latin witnesses from the far ,west1 and which is confirmed by four solitary ,greek manuscripts1 written probably in ,calabria at the close of the ,middle ,ages4 ,how are these facts connected1 and how do they stand to the other two readings1 that of the common ,greek text1 and that of the ,lewis-,syriac8 ,the history of the text of the ,new ,testament presents many such problems4 ,sidenote3 ,philoxenus-,polycarp4 ,but ,syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of the ,new ,testament already mentioned4 ,in the year of ,alexander #hai 7,a4,d4 #ejh71hf a new and much more literal version was made from the ,greek at the desire of ,xenaia 7,philoxenus71 ,bishop of ,mabug#hg 7#dhh-eah71 by his rural ,bishop ,polycarp4 ,part of this version was published in ,england by ,pococke in #afcj--viz4 the four ,epistles in the ,antilegomena not included in the ,peshitto1 #b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 and ,jude4 ,unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat inaccurate manuscript1 which is now in the ,bodleian ,library4 ,the later ,european editions of the ,syriac ,new ,testament took the text of these ,epistles from ,pococke's edition1 which was also the one used for critical editions of the ,greek text4 ,in #ahhf ,isaac ,h4 ,hall published a phototype edition of another manuscript of this version 7the ,williams ,,ms471 the property of a private gentleman in ,america1 and corrected from it the text of the ,syriac ,new ,testament issued by the ,american ,bible ,society4 ,the other parts of this version have not yet been found1 but the same ,american scholar thought he discovered the ,gospels in a ninth century manuscript belonging to the ,syrian ,protestant ,college in ,beirut1 and deposited in the ,library of the ,union ,theological ,seminary in ,new ,york4#hh ,bernstein thought he made the same discovery in #ahec in a manuscript belonging to the ,angelica ,library in ,florence4 ,sidenote3 ,thomas of ,heraclea4 ,on the basis of four manuscripts sent from ,diarbeker in #agcf to ,dr4 ,gloucester ,ridley1 ,joseph ,white published1 between #aggh and #ahjc1hi a version which he designated by the name of ,versio ,philoxenia1 and which still passes under this title4 ,but this so-called ,philoxenian version is not the identical version made for ,philoxenus by ,polycarp1 but a revision undertaken by ,thomas of ,heraclea 7,charkel71 in the year #faf-g4 ,this revision was made at ,alexandria with the object of making the ,syriac text represent the ,greek as closely as possible1 even to the order of the words and the insertion of the article4 ,the critical symbols used by ,homeric commentators1 the asterisk and the obelus1 as well as numerous marginal notes1 were employed to indicate the various readings found in the manuscripts4 ,and it is very remarkable to observe that there were manuscripts in ,alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century which were regarded by ,thomas of ,harkel as particularly well authenticated1 but which deviate in a marked degree from the bulk of our present manuscripts1 and which1 especially in the ,acts1 agree almost entirely with ,codex ,d1 which occupies so singular a position among ,greek manuscripts4 ,a new edition of the ,syriac text is necessary before any further use can be made of it in the criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,mr4 ,deane set himself to this task1 going on the basis of sixteen manuscripts in ,england alone1 but unfortunately he was unable to bring it to a conclusion4 ,sidenote3 ,apocalypse4 ,the ,apocalypse was first edited in #afbg by de ,dieu at ,leyden1 from a manuscript that had been in the possession of ,scaliger4 ,it is found in a few other manuscripts1 in one1 e4g41 that was transcribed about this same time for ,archbishop ,ussher from a ,maronite manuscript at ,kenobin on ,mount ,lebanon4 ,it is not found in the ,syriac ,new ,testament1 but the later editions insert it from de ,dieu4 ,in ,apoc4 viii4 #ac1 instead of 8an eagle in the midst of heaven0 7 71 the ,syriac translator took it as 8in the midst with a bloody tail0 71 1 74 ,another ,syriac version1 in which this error is avoided1 was discovered in #ahib by ,j4 ,gwynn in a ,codex belonging to ,lord ,crawford1 and published by him as the first book printed in ,syriac at the ,dublin ,university ,press4 ,still more interesting is it to know that in a manuscript1 once the property of ,julius ,mohl1 and now in ,cambridge1 both the so-called ,epistles of ,clement are found after the ,catholic ,epistles4 ,this manuscript1 part of which was published by ,bensly in #ahhi 7see above1 p4 #gi71 contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived1 so far as the ,pauline ,epistles are concerned1 from the copy of ,pamphilus4#ij ,about the same time and in the same region1 ,paul of ,tella translated one of the best ,greek manuscripts of the ,old ,testament into ,syriac almost as literally as ,thomas of ,harkel1 thereby doing immense service in the construction of the ,syriac ,hexapla1 a work of inestimable value for the textual criticism of the ,old ,testament4 ,sidenote3 ,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum4 ,mention may be made here of another ,syriac version of the ,new ,testament1 the so-called ,jerusalem or ,palestinian ,syriac 7,syrhr or ,syrhier74 ,this version1 hitherto known almost solely from an ,evangeliarium in the ,vatican of the year #ajcj1 was edited by ,count ,miniscalchi ,erizzo at ,verona in #ahfa-d1 and an excellent edition was published in #ahib in ,bibliothecae ,syriacae a ,paulo de ,lagarde collectae quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent4 ,and now not only have two fresh manuscripts of this ,evangeliarium been discovered on ,mount ,sinai by ,j4 ,r4 ,harris and ,mrs4 ,lewis1 and edited by ,mrs4 ,lewis and ,mrs4 ,gibson1 but fragments of the ,acts and ,pauline ,epistles have also been found and published1 as well as portions of the ,old ,testament and other ,church literature4#ia ,the dialect in which these fragments are written is quite different from ordinary ,syriac1 and may1 perhaps1 bear a close resemblance to that in which ,jesus spoke to ,his disciples4 ,at what time and in what region this entire literature took its rise is not yet determined with certainty4 ,the ,greek text on which the ,evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities4 ,in ,matthew xxvii4 #ag1 e4g41 the robber is called ,jesus ,barabbas1 or1 rather1 ,jesus ,barrabbas1 a fact known to ,origen1 but now recorded only in a few ,greek minuscules by the first or second hand4 ,what used to be called the ,versio ,karkaphensis or ,montana is not really a version1 but merely the ,massoretic work of a monastery school intended to preserve the proper spelling and pronunciation of the text of the ,bible4 ,no other branch of the ,church has taken such pains as the ,syrian1 faithfully to transmit and to circulate the ,gospel4 ,from the mountains of ,lebanon and ,kurdistan1 from the plains of ,mesopotamia and the coast of ,malabar1 and even from distant ,china there have come into the libraries of ,europe ,syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,,literature on the ,syriac ,versions3-- ,j4 ,g4 ,christian ,adler1 ,novi ,testamenti ,versiones ,syriacae1 ,simplex1 ,philoxeniana1 et ,hierosolymitana4 ,denuo examinatae et ad fidem codicum manu scriptorum 444 novis observationibus atque tabulis aere incisis illustratae4 ,hafniae1 pp4 viii4 #bjf4 ,with eight ,plates4 #aghi1 #dto4 ,for the complete list of editions up to #ahhh1 see my ,litteratura ,syriaca 7,syr4 ,gr41 #bnd edition1 pp4 #bj ff474 ,appendix thereto in ,urt41 #bbg ff42 ,r4 ,duval1 ,la ,littrature ,syriaque4 ,paris1 #ahii1 pp4 #db-fg2 ,ti,gr41 #hac-hbb2 ,scrivener1 fourth edition1 ii4 #f-dj1 with the help of ,gwilliam and ,deane2 ,the ,printed ,editions of the ,syriac ,new ,testament1 in the ,church ,quarterly ,review1 #ahhh1 ,july1 #beg-big2 ,g4 ,h4 ,gwilliam1 in the ,studia ,biblica et ,ecclesiastica 7,oxford71 ii4 #ahij1 iii4 #ahia2 ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 ,the growth of the ,peshitta ,version of the ,new ,testament1 in the ,american ,journal of ,theology1 #ahig1 iv4 #hhc-iab2 ,burkitt1 in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 7,july #aijj71 #efi ff41 referring to his forthcoming edition of the ,evangelion da-,mepharreshe1 says that he has had to go over the ,gospel quotations of ,st4 ,ephraem1 and closes by saying1 8,i confess that ,i am unconvinced that what we call the ,new ,testament ,peshitta was in existence in ,st4 ,ephraem's day1 and ,i believe that we owe both its production and victorious reception to the organizing energy of the ,great ,rabbula1 ,bishop of ,edessa from #daa to #dce ,a4,d40 #a4 ,till ,gwilliam's edition of the ,gospels appears1 which has been promised since #ahia1 the best edition will be the ,editio ,princeps of ,widmanstadt1 #aeee2 then that of ,leusden and ,schaaf1 ,novum ,domini nostri ,jesu ,christi ,testamentum ,syriacum cum versione latina cura et studio ,j4 ,leusden et ,c4 ,schaaf editum4 ,ad omnes editiones diligenter recensitum et variis lectionibus magno labore collectis adornatum4 ,lugd4 ,bat41 #agji1 #dto4 ,acc4 ,schaaf1 ,lexicon ,syriacum concordantiale4 ,the text reprinted by ,jones at ,oxford1 #ahje2 the editions of the ,london ,bible ,society1 #ahaf and #ahbf1 and better still1 the ,syriac and ,new-,syriac editions of the ,american ,mission in ,urmia1 #ahdf1 and of the ,american ,bible ,society of ,new ,york1 #ahfh1 #ahgd1 and frequently 7with the ,nestorian vocalisation74 ,an edition is promised from the ,jesuit ,press at ,beyruth1 ,nouveau ,testament ,syriaque en petits caractres1 d'aprs plusieurs manuscrits anciens1 d4 par le ,p4 ,l4 ,cheikho4 ,the ,new ,testament part of the ,peshitto has been very much neglected in the present century4 ,on the ,o4,t41 investigations1 chiefly in the form of dissertations on most of the books1 have been published1 establishing the relation of the ,syriac to the ,massoretic text1 the ,septuagint1 and the ,targum4 ,but almost nothing of this sort has been done for the ,n4,t41 at least in ,germany1 since the time of ,michaelis and ,lhlein4 ,the question has never once been taken up how many translators' hands can be distinguished in the ,n4,t4 ,j4 ,d4 ,michaelis1 ,curae in ,versionem ,syriacam ,act4 ,apost4 cum consectariis criticis de indole1 cognationibus et usu versionis ,syriacae tabularum ,novi ,foederis4 ,gttingen1 #agee4 ,c4 ,l4 ,e4 ,lhlein1 ,syrus ,epistolae ad ,ephesios interpres in causa critica denuo examinatus1 ,erlangen1 #ahce4 #b4 ,cureton's ,remains 7#aheh7 is now out of print4 ,till ,burkitt's new edition appears its place will be taken by ,baethgen's ,retranslation into ,greek 7,evangelienfragmente4 ,der griechische ,text des ,curetonschen ,syrers wiederhergestellt1 ,leipzig1 #ahhe72 and more especially by ,albert ,bonus's ,collatio codicis ,lewisiani rescripti evangeliorum ,syriacorum cum codice ,curetoniano1 ,oxford1 #ahif2 and by ,carl ,holzhey's ,der neuentdeckte ,codex ,sinaiticus untersucht4 ,mit einem vollstndigen ,verzeichnis der ,varianten des ,codex ,sinaiticus und ,codex ,curetonianus1 ,munich1 #ahif4 ,see ,a4 ,bonus1 ,the ,sinaitic ,palimpsest and the ,curetonian ,syriac1 in the ,expository ,times1 ,may #ahie1 p4 #chj ff4 ,the publications of ,t4 ,r4 ,crowfoot1 ,fragmenta ,evangelica1 ,pars ,i41 ,,ii41 #ahgj1 #ahgb1 and ,observations on the ,collations in ,greek of ,cureton's ,syriac ,fragments1 #ahgb1 contain useful material1 but there are a good many mistakes4 #c4 ,the ,editio ,princeps of the ,lewis text is1 of course1 that of ,bensly1 ,harris1 and ,burkitt1 ,the ,four ,gospels in ,syriac1 transcribed from the ,sinaitic ,palimpsest 444 ,cambridge1 #ahid4 ,to this must be added its complement by ,mrs4 ,lewis1 ,some ,pages of the ,four ,gospels retranscribed 7with or without an ,english translation71 ,london1 #ahif2 further1 ,last ,gleanings from the ,sinai ,palimpsest1 ,expositor1 ,aug4 #ahig1 pp4 #aaa-aai2 also1 ,an ,omission from the ,text of the ,sinai ,palimpsest1 ,expositor1 ,dec4 #ahig1 p4 #dgb4 ,on the discovery of the manuscript1 see ,mrs4 ,gibson1 ,how the ,codex was found1 444 ,cambridge1 #ahic1 and ,mrs4 ,lewis1 ,in the shadow of ,sinai1 444 ,cambridge1 #ahih2 also ,mrs4 ,bensly1 ,our ,journey to ,sinai1 444 ,with a chapter on the ,sinai ,palimpsest4 ,london1 #ahif4 ,see also ,mrs4 ,lewis1 ,the ,earlier ,home of the ,sinaitic ,palimpsest1 ,expositor1 ,june #aijj1 pp4 #dae-dba4 ,the text has been translated into ,german by ,adalbert ,merx1 who has added a brief but valuable critical discussion4 ,berlin 7,reimer71 #ahig4 ,the second part1 comprising the commentary1 has not yet appeared4 ,see also ,gwilliam's notice of the editio princeps in the ,expository ,times1 ,jan4 #ahie1 p4 #aeg ff4 #d4 ,on ,tatian1 the latest and best is ,zahn1 ,evangelienharmonie1 ,,pre#c1 v4 7#ahih71 #fec ff42 also his ,forschungen1 i4 7#ahha71 ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 ii4 p4 #bhf ff4 7#ahhc71 iv4 7#ahia72 ,gesch4 des ,kanons1 i4 #chg-dad1 ii4 #ecj-eef4 ,j4 ,h4 ,hill1 ,the earliest ,life of ,christ ever compiled from the ,four ,gospels1 being the ,diatessaron of ,tatian 7c4 ,a4,d4 #afj71 literally translated from the ,arabic ,version4 ,edinburgh1 #ahic4 ,j4 ,r4 ,harris1 ,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 a ,preliminary ,study4 ,cambridge1 #ahij4 ,the ,diatessaron1 a ,reply1 in the ,contemporary ,review1 ,aug4 #ahie1 in answer to ,w4 ,r4 ,cassels1 in the ,nineteenth ,century1 ,april #ahie2 also by the same writer1 ,fragments of the ,commentary of ,ephrem ,syrus upon the ,diatessaron4 ,london1 #ahie4444 ,j4 ,h4 ,hill1 ,a ,dissertation on the ,gospel ,commentary of ,s4 ,ephrem the ,syrian 444 ,edinburgh1 #ahif4 ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson1 ,tatian's ,diatessaron and a ,dutch ,harmony1 in the ,academy1 #bdth ,march #ahid4 ,hope ,w4 ,hogg1 ,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 with introduction and translation1 in the ,ante-,nicene ,library4 ,additional ,volume 444 edited by ,allan ,menzies4 ,edinburgh1 #ahig1 pp4 #cc-ach4 ,w4 ,elliott1 ,tatian's ,diatessaron and the ,modern ,critics4 ,plymouth1 #ahhh4 ,i4 ,h4 ,hall1 ,a ,pair of ,citations from the ,diatessaron1 in the ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 x4 #b 7#ahia71 #aec-aee4 ,j4 ,goussen1 ,pauca ,fragmenta genuina ,diatessaroniana1 appended to the ,apocalypsis ,s4 ,joannis ,versio ,sahidica1 #ahie4 ,see also ,bumer in the ,literarischer ,handweiser1 #ahij1 #aec-afi2 the article ,tatian in the ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 and ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 vol4 ii4 p4 #fig f4 #e4 ,on the later ,syriac versions1 see ,urt41 #bbh1 #bcf f42 ,gwynn1 ,the older ,syriac ,version of the four ,minor ,catholic ,epistles1 ,hermathena1 ,no4 xvi4 7vol4 vii471 #ahij1 #bha-cad4 ,merx1 ,die in der ,peschito fehlenden ,briefe des ,neuen ,testamentes in arabischer der ,philoxeniana entstammender ,uebersetzung 444 ,zeitschrift fr ,assyriologie1 xii4 #bdj ff41 #cdh ff41 xiii4 #a-bh4 ,bensly1 ,the ,harklean ,version of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 444 ,cambridge1 #ahhi4 ,in this edition will be found the subscription mentioned above1 connecting the manuscript with that of ,pamphilus4 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xv4 #f4 ,on the ,jerusalem ,evangeliarium1 see ,urt41 #bbh1 #bcg4 ,zahn1 ,forschungen1 i4 #cbi ff4 ,lagarde1 ,mitteilungen1 i4 #aaa1 iv4 #cbh1 #cdj4 ,a4 de ,lagarde1 ,erinnerungen an ,p4 de ,lagarde1 p4 #aab ff4 ,lewis and ,gibson1 ,the ,palestinian ,syriac ,lectionary of the ,gospels re-edited from two ,sinai ,,mss4 and from ,p4 de ,lagarde's edition of the ,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum1 ,london1 #ahii4 ,the ,lectionary published in the ,studia ,sinaitica1 vi41 contains1 in the ,n4,t41 passages from ,acts1 ,romans1 #a and #b ,cor41 ,gal41 ,ephes41 ,philip41 ,col41 #a ,thess41 #a and #b ,tim41 ,heb41 ,james4 ,see notice in the ,expository ,times1 ,jan4 #ahih1 p4 #aij ff4 ,the ,liturgy of the ,nile1 published by ,g4 ,margoliouth1 #ahif 7,journal of the ,royal ,asiatic ,society1 ,oct4 #ahif1 #fgg-gca1 and also published separately71 contains ,acts xvi4 #af-cd4 ,see also ,woods1 ,the ,new ,syriac ,fragments in the ,expository ,times1 ,nov4 #ahic4 7b47 ,,latin ,,versions4 ,sidenote3 ,jerome4 ,the name most closely associated with the ,latin ,versions of the ,new ,testament is that of ,jerome 7,hieronymus74 ,this scholar was born at ,stridon1 on the borders of ,dalmatia1#ib about the year #cde1 and educated at ,rome4 ,after leading for some time a hermit life in ,palestine1 ,jerome returned to ,rome1 and it was during his residence there1 in the year #chb1 that he was urged by ,pope ,damasus to undertake a revision of the ,latin version of the ,new ,testament then in use4 ,this he did1 and in #chc sent the ,pope1 who died in the following year1 the first instalment of the work1 the ,four ,gospels1 accompanied with a letter beginning thus3--8,thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old2 after so many copies of the ,scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world1 ,i am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter1 as it were1 and seeing they disagree1 to decide which of them accords with the truth of the ,greek2 a pious task1 verily1 yet a perilous presumption1 to pass judgment on others and oneself to be judged by all40 ,he anticipates that everyone1 no matter who1 learned or ignorant1 that takes up a ,bible and finds a discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to or alter or correct the ancient ,scriptures4 ,but he comforts himself with the reflection that it is the ,high ,pontiff himself that has laid this task upon him1 and that the testimony of his jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepancies are an indication of error 7verum non esse quod variat1 etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur72 for if they tell us we are to rest our faith on the ,latin exemplars1 they must first say which1 because there are almost as many versions as manuscripts 7tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices72 if it is to be the majority of these1 why not rather go back to the ,greek original which has been badly rendered by incompetent translators 7a vitiosis interpretibus male edita71 made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful correctors 7a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius71 and added to or altered by sleepy scribes 7a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata74 ,in a letter to his learned friend ,marcella1 written in the year #chd1 he gives instances of what he complains of1 citing1 e4g41 ,romans xii4 #aa1 where tempori servientes had hitherto been read instead of domino servientes 7 instead of 71 and #a ,tim4 v4 #ai1 8against an elder receive not an accusation10 where the qualifying clause1 8except before two or three witnesses10 was dropped1 and also #a ,tim4 i4 #ae1 iii4 #a1 where humanus sermo was given in place of fidelis4 ,in all three instances1 our most recent critical editions decide in favour of ,jerome1 against the ,old ,latin ,version4 ,in the last instance cited1 we know of only one ,latin-,greek manuscript that has instead of 1 and that only in c4 iii4 #a1 viz4 ,d994 ,jerome accordingly issued an improved version of the ,new ,testament1 beginning with the ,gospels4 ,for this purpose he made a careful comparison of old ,greek manuscripts 7codicum ,graecorum emendata conlatione sed veterum74 ,in his version he was also careful only to make an alteration when a real change of meaning was necessary1 retaining in all other cases the familiar ,latin wording4 ,the ,gospels were in the order which has been the prevailing one since his day--,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 ,john4 ,sidenote3 ,augustine4 ,we learn from the great ,church ,teacher ,,augustine1 who lived in ,africa about the same time 7#ced-dcj71 that there was an endless variety and multitude of translators 7latinorum interpretum infinita varietas1 interpretum numerositas74 ,he tells us that while it was possible to count the number of those who had translated the ,bible--i4e4 the ,old ,testament--from ,hebrew into ,greek1 the ,latin translators were innumerable2 that in the early age of the ,christian faith 7primis fidei temporibus71 no sooner did anyone gain possession of a ,greek ,codex1 and believe himself to have any knowledge of both languages1 than he made bold to translate it 7ausus est interpretari74 ,sidenote3 ,itala4 ,the advice he himself gives is to prefer the ,italic version to the others1 as being the most faithful and intelligible 7in ipsis autem interpretationibus ,itala praeferatur2 nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae4 ,de ,doctrina ,christiana1 ii4 #ad1 #ae74 ,sidenote3 ,vulgate4 ,on the ground of this passage1 the pre-,jeromic versions have been comprehended under the title of the ,itala1 as distinguished from ,jerome's own work1 which is called the ,vulgate1 seeing that it became the prevailing text in the ,church of the ,middle ,ages4 ,by the ,itala1 ,augustine himself1 however1 must have referred to a particular version1 and1 according to the usage of that time1 the word cannot mean anything else than a version originating in or prevalent in ,italy--i4e4 the ,north of ,italy1 what is called ,lombardy4 ,it is not difficult to understand how it came to pass that ,augustine used such a version in ,africa1 seeing that he was a pupil of ,ambrose1 ,bishop of ,milan4 ,in recent times ,burkitt has revived the opinion that by ,itala ,augustine means neither more nor less than ,jerome's ,revision of the ,gospels4 ,he demonstrates that ,augustine's ,de ,consensu1 written about the year #djj1 is based on ,jerome's revised text4 ,in this1 ,zahn#ic agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far as this point is concerned4 ,but ,wordsworth-,white#id will not admit the inference that ,augustine must have meant this ,revision when he spoke of ,itala in the year #cig1 seeing that in his letter to ,jerome1#ie written in #djc1 he thanks ,god for the interpretation of the ,gospel1 8quasi de opere recenter cognito10 while in his earlier letters to ,jerome#if he makes no mention of it3 8quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex annos publici iuris facto eam collaudasset40#ig 7#a47 ,,latin ,,versions ,,before ,,jerome4 ,sidenote3 ,old ,latin ,texts4 ,where1 when1 and by whom was the ,new ,testament1 or at least were parts of it1 first translated into ,latin8 ,from the passage in ,augustine quoted above1 we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the ,christian faith4 ,rome used to be regarded as the place where the ,latin versions took their rise4 ,but it was observed that ,greek was very commonly employed as the written language at ,rome1 especially among ,christians4 ,the first ,bishops of ,rome have pure ,greek names1 and even the first representative of the ,roman ,church with a ,latin name1 the ,clement that wrote the ,epistle to the ,corinthians about the year #ie1 even he wrote in ,greek4 ,moreover1 when the relics of the ,old ,latin ,bibles began to be examined1 it was observed that their language1 both in vocabulary and grammar1 entirely agreed with that found in ,african writers of that age1 and in some things agreed with these alone4 ,sidenote3 ,african ,latin4 ,it is1 of course1 a fact that the majority of the writers of that age known to us are ,african4 ,till quite recently1 therefore1 it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the ,latin ,bible is to be found in ,africa4 ,it was regarded by many as equally certain1 that in spite of the statements of ,jerome and ,augustine1 and in spite too of the various forms in which the ,old ,latin ,bible now exists1 these all proceed from a common origin1 or at most from two sources1 so that it was not quite correct to speak of a 8multitude of translators0 in the very earliest times4 ,the settlement of this question is rendered more difficult by the fact that1 while the extant copies of the pre-,jeromic ,bible are undoubtedly very early1 they are few in number1 and for the most part mutilated4 ,the reason of this is not far to seek4 ,for1 as time went on and ,jerome's new version came to be more and more exclusively used1 manuscripts of the earlier version lost their value1 and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and book covers4 ,one has also to take into account how liable the text of both was to be corrupted1 either by the copyist of an ,old ,latin ,bible inserting in the margin1 or even interpolating in the text1 various passages from ,jerome's translation that seemed to him to be a decided improvement1 or conversely1 by the scribe who should have written the new rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in from the old4 ,it is estimated that we have about #hjjj manuscripts of ,jerome's recension1 of which #bbbh have been catalogued by ,gregory4 ,samuel ,berger1 the most thorough investigator in this field1 examined #hjj manuscripts in ,paris alone4 ,but on the other hand1 only #ch manuscripts of the ,old ,latin ,version of the ,new ,testament are known to exist4 ,the credit of collecting the relics of these pre-,jeromic versions of the ,old and ,new ,testament1 so far as they were accessible at that time1 belongs to ,peter ,sabatier the ,maurist 7,rheims1 #agdc1 #c vols4 folio74 ,in critical editions of the ,new ,testament the manuscripts of the pre-,jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters of the ,roman alphabet4 ,they are the following3-- #a4 ,,gospels4 a4 ,vercellensis3 according to a tradition recorded in a document of the eighth century this manuscript was written by ,eusebius1 ,bishop of ,vercelli1 who died in the year #cgj or #cga4 ,recent scholars1 however1 date it somewhat later4 ,it is written on purple with silver letters4 ,the order of the ,gospels is that found in most of these ,old ,latin ,,mss4--viz4 ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark4 ,the manuscript is defective in several places4 ,the codex was edited by ,irico in #agdh1 and by ,bianchini in #agdi along with some of the others in his ,evangeliarium ,quadruplex4 ,this latter edition was reprinted1 with some inaccuracies1 in ,migne's ,patrologia ,latina1 vol4 xii4 ,the manuscript was again edited by ,belsheim2 ,codex ,vercellensis4 ,quatuor ,evangelia ante ,hieronymum latine translata ex reliquiis ,codicis ,vercellensis1 saeculo ut videtur quarto scripti1 et ex ,editione ,iriciana principe denuo ededit 7sic7 ,jo4 ,belsheim4 ,christiania1 #ahid4 b4 ,veronensis3 of the fourth or fifth century1 also written with silver on purple4 ,in this ,codex1 ,john vii4 #dd-viii4 #ab has been erased4 ,the manuscript is defective4 ,edited by ,bianchini 7see above74 ,a ,spagnolo1 ,l',evangeliario ,purpureo ,veronese4 ,nota 7,torino1 #ahii4 ,estratta dagli ,atti dell' ,accademia ,reale delle ,scienze di ,torino74 c4 ,colbertinus3 in ,paris1 written in the twelfth century1 but still containing the ,old ,latin text in the ,gospels1 though exhibiting ,jerome's version in other parts4 ,edited by ,sabatier1 and again by ,belsheim2 ,codex ,colbertinus ,parisiensis4 ,quatuor ,evangelia ante ,hieronymum latine translata post editionem ,petri ,sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit ,jo4 ,belsheim4 ,christiania1 #ahhh4 d4 ,the ,latin part of ,codex ,d2 see p4 #fd ff4 e4 ,palatinus3 of the fourth or fifth century1 written like a b f i j on purple with gold and silver letters3 now in ,vienna1 with one leaf in ,dublin4 ,two other fragments were published in #ahic by ,hugo ,linke from a transcript made for ,bianchini in #agfb4 ,the entire codex was edited by ,belsheim1 ,christiania1 #ahif4 ,see von ,dobschtz in the ,l,cbl41 #ahif1 #bh4 f4 ,brixianus1 of the sixth century1 in ,brescia4 ,in their new edition of the ,vulgate1 ,wordsworth and ,white printed the text of this manuscript underneath that of ,jerome for comparison's sake as probably containing the text most nearly resembling that on which ,jerome based his recension4 ,but see ,burkitt's ,note in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,i4 i4 7,oct4 #ahii71 #abi-acd1 and the note to p4 #aci in ,addenda4 ff#a4 ,corbeiensis ,i41 contains the ,gospel according to ,matthew alone4 ,the manuscript formerly belonged to the ,monastery of ,corbey1 near ,amiens1 and with others was transferred to ,st4 ,petersburg during the ,french ,revolution4 ff#b4 ,corbeiensis ,,ii41 written in the sixth century and now in ,paris3 contains the ,gospels with several lacun4 ,on ,belsheim's editions of ff#a and ff#b 7#ahha and #ahhg71 see ,e4 ,ranke in the ,th,lz41 #ahhg1 col4 #eff1 and ,s4 ,berger1 ,bull4 ,crit41 #ahia1 #cjb f4 g#a4 ,sangermanensis ,i41 of the ninth century1 in ,paris1 exhibits a mixed text4 ,the manuscript was used by ,stephen for his ,latin ,bible of #aech4 g#b4 ,sangermanensis ,,ii41 written in an ,irish hand of the tenth century1 has a mixed text3 in ,paris 7,lat4 #acjfi74 h4 ,claromontanus1 of the fourth or fifth century1 now in the ,vatican3 has the ,old ,latin text in ,matthew only4 ,the manuscript is defective at the beginning down to ,matt4 iii4 #ae and also from ,matt4 xiv4 #cc-xviii4 #ab4 ,edited by ,mai in his ,scriptorum ,veterum ,nova ,collectio1 iii4 #beg-bhh1 and by ,belsheim1 ,christiania1 #ahib4 i4 ,vindobonensis1 of the seventh century1 contains fragments of ,luke and ,mark written on purple with silver and gold4 ,edited by ,belsheim1 ,codex ,vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus 444 antiquissimae evangeliorum ,lucae et ,marci translationis ,latinae fragmenta edidit ,jo4 ,belsheim4 ,lipsiae1 #ahhe 7cum tabula74 j 7z in ,ti,gr474 ,saretianus or ,sarzannensis1 of the fifth century1 contains #bib verses from ,john written on purple4 ,the manuscript was discovered in #ahgb in the ,church of ,sarezzano1 near ,tortona1 and is not yet completely edited4 ,compare ,g4 ,amelli1 ,un antichissimo codice biblico ,latino purpureo conservato nella chiesa di ,sarezzano presso ,tortona4 ,milan1 #ahgb4 k4 ,bobiensis1 of the fifth century1 is perhaps the most important of the ,old ,latin manuscripts1 but unfortunately contains only fragments of ,matthew and ,mark4 ,it is said to have belonged to ,st4 ,columban1 the founder of the monastery of ,bobbio1 who died in the year #fae4 ,it is now preserved at ,turin4 ,see ,burkitt on ,mark xv4 #cd in ,codex ,bobiensis in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #b 7,jan4 #aijj71 p4 #bgh f4 l4 ,rehdigeranus1 in ,breslau1 purchased in ,venice by ,thomas von ,rehdiger in #aefi4 ,matthew i4 #a-;ii4 #ae and a good deal of ,john wanting4 ,edited by ,h4 ,fr4 ,haase1 ,breslau1 #ahfe1 #ahff3 ,evangeliorum quattuor vetus latina interpretatio ex codice ,rehdigerano nunc primum edita4 m4 ,does not represent any particular manuscript and should properly be omitted here4 ,it indicates the ,liber de divinis scripturis sive ,speculum1 a work mistakenly ascribed to ,augustine1 consisting of a collection of proof-passages 7testimonia7 from the ,old and ,new ,testaments4 ,all the books of the latter are made use of except ,philemon1 ,hebrews1 and #c ,john1 but the ,epistle to the ,laodicans is cited among the number4 ,fragmenta ,novi ,testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana ex libro qui vocatur ,speculum eruit et ordine librorum ,novi ,testamenti exposuit ,j4 ,belsheim4 ,christiania1 #ahii4 n o p4 ,are fragments at ,st4 ,gall3 published in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts1 see below1 p4 #aca f4 n4 ,written in the fifth or sixth century1 has probably been in the ,library at ,st4 ,gall since its foundation4 ,it contains portions of ,matthew and ,mark1 with ,john xix4 #ac-db4 o4 ,written in the seventh century1 possibly to take the place of the last leaf of n1 which is wanting1 contains ,mark xvi4 #ad-bj4 p4 ,two leaves of an ,irish missal written in the seventh or eighth century4 a#b4 ,is part of the same manuscript as n4 ,it consists of a leaf containing ,luke xi4 #aa-bi and xiii4 #af-cd4 ,it was found in the ,episcopal archives at ,chur1 and is preserved in the ,rhtisches ,museum there4 q4 ,monacensis1 written in the sixth or seventh century1 came originally from ,freising4 ,published in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts4 r or r#a and r#b4 ,usserianus ,i4 and ,,ii41 are both in ,dublin4 ,the former is written in an ,irish hand of the seventh century1 and has several lacun4 r#b belongs to the ninth or tenth century and has an ,old ,latin text in ,matthew resembling that of r#a4 ,it shows affinity with ,jerome's text in ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john1 of which1 however1 only five leaves remain4 ,edited by ,t4 ,k4 ,abbott1 ,evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana ex codice ,usseriano 7,dublinensi71 adjecta collatione codicis ,usseriani alterius4 ,accedit versio ,vulgata4444 ,dublin1 #ahhd1 #b ,parts4 s4 ,four leaves with portions of ,luke1 written in the sixth century4 ,the fragments came originally from ,bobbio1 and are now in the ,ambrosian ,library at ,milan4 ,published in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts4 t4 ,a palimpsest very difficult to decipher1 containing portions of the first three chapters of ,mark1 written in the fifth century1 and now at ,berne4 ,published in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts4 v4 ,bound in the cover of a volume at ,vienna entitled1 ,pactus ,legis ,ripuari3 exhibits ,john xix4 #bg-xx4 #aa4 ,published in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts4 aur4 ,aureus or ,holmiensis1 written in the seventh or eighth century1 exhibits the ,gospels entire1 with the exception of ,luke xxi4 #h-cj4 ,an inscription in old ,english states that the manuscript was purchased from the heathen 7the ,danes87 by ,alfred the ,alderman for ,christ ,church1 ,canterbury1 when ,alfred was ,king and ,ethelred ,archbishop 7#hga-hhi74 ,it was afterwards in ,madrid1 and is now at ,stockholm4 ,it is really a ,vulgate text with an admixture of ,old ,latin readings4 ,published by ,belsheim in #ahgh4 4 ,is the interlinear ,latin version of 7see p4 #gb71 and is interesting on account of its alternative readings given in almost every verse--e4g4 uxorem vel conjugem for 1 ,matt4 i4 #bj4 ,compare ,harris1 ,the ,codex ,sangallensis1 ,cambridge1 #ahia4 ,on the ,prolegomena found in many ,old ,latin and ,vulgate manuscripts of the ,gospels1 see ,peter ,corssen1 ,monarchianische ,prologe zu den vier ,evangelien4 ,leipzig1 #ahif 7,,tu41 xv4 #a74 ,this has been supplemented by von ,dobschtz's ,prolog zur ,apostelgeschichte4 ,see also ,jlicher in the ,,gga41 #ahif1 xi4 #hda-hea4 ,j4 ,s4 in the ,revue ,critique1 #ahig1 vii4 #ace f4 ,h4 ,holtzmann in the ,th4 ,lz41 #ahig1 xii4 col4 #bca ff4 ,a4 ,hilgenfeld1 ,altchristliche ,prolegomena zu den ,evangelien in the ,zfw,th41 #ahig1 iii4 #dcb-ddd4 #b4 ,,acts4 d m ,as for the ,gospels4 e4 ,the ,latin text of ,e4 ,see above1 p4 #ge4 g4 ,gigas ,holmiensis1 the immense manuscript of the entire ,latin ,bible preserved at ,stockholm4 ,the text is ,old ,latin only in the ,acts and ,apocalypse1 the rest of the ,new ,testament exhibiting ,jerome's version4 ,the manuscript was brought to ,sweden from ,prague as a prize of war in #afdh1 along with the ,codex ,argenteus4 ,the ,acts and ,apocalypse were edited by ,belsheim1 ,christiania1 #ahgi4 ,on this see ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt in the ,th,lz41 #ahhj1 col4 #ahe4 ,a new collation of this manuscript was made for ,w4-,w4 by ,h4 ,karlsson in #ahia4 g#b4 ,in ,milan1 is part of a ,lectionary written in the tenth or eleventh century1 and contains the pericope for ,st4 ,stephen's day1 ,acts vi4 #h-vii4 #b1 vii4 #ea-viii4 #d4 ,published by ,ceriani in his ,monumenta ,sacra et ,profana1 i4 #b1 pp4 #abg1 #abh4 ,milan1 #ahff4 h4 ,floriacensis1 a palimpsest formerly belonging to the ,abbey of ,fleury on the ,loire1 and now in ,paris1 written probably in the seventh century4 ,it contains fragments of the ,apocalypse1 ,acts1 #a and #b ,peter1 and #a ,john1 in this order4 7,tischendorf's reg43 ,blass's f47 ,the latest and best edition is that of ,s4 ,berger3 ,le ,palimpseste de ,fleury4 ,paris1 #ahhi4 p#b1 written in the thirteenth century1 exhibits a text with an admixture of ,old ,latin readings in the ,acts only4 ,the manuscript came originally from ,perpignan1 and is now in ,paris1 ,no4 #cba4 ,it was used by ,blass4 ,published by ,berger3 ,un ancien texte latin des ,actes des ,aptres1 etc4 ,paris1 #ahie4 ,see von ,dobschtz in the ,th,lz41 #ahif1 #d2 ,haussleiter in the ,th4 ,lbl41 no4 #i2 ,schmiedel in the ,l4 ,cbl41 no4 #cc2 ,e4 ,beurlier1 ,bull4 ,crit41 #ahif1 #cb1 p4 #fbc4 s#b4 ,bobiensis1 a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at ,vienna1 containing fragments of ,acts xxiii41 xxv4-xxviii41 and of ,james and #a ,peter4 x#a4 ,written in the seventh or eighth century1 contains the ,acts with the exception of xiv4 #bf-xv4 #cb4 ,the manuscript is preserved at ,oxford and is not completely published4 w4 ,is the symbol given by ,blass to a paper manuscript of the ,new ,testament written1 it seems1 in ,bohemia in the fifteenth century1 and now at ,wernigerode4 ,in the main it exhibits ,jerome's text even to a greater extent than p1 but preserves elements of the ,old ,latin1 particularly in the latter half of the ,acts4 ,the mixture is similar to that observed in the ,provenal ,new ,testament1#ih which is derived from a ,latin manuscript of this nature1 and to that in the pre-,lutheran ,german ,bible4 7,see ,urt41 p4 #abg f47 ,on ,acts1 see especially ,p4 ,corssen1 ,der ,cyprianische ,text der ,acta ,apostolorum4 ,berlin1 #ahib4 #c4 ,,catholic ,,epistles4 h m s4 ,as above4 ff4 ,corbeiensis1 at ,st4 ,petersburg1 of the tenth century1 contains the ,epistle of ,james4 ,edited by ,belsheim in the ,theologisk ,tidsskrift for den evangelisk-lutherske ,kirke i ,norge 7,n4,s4 ,vol4 ix4 ,part #b72 also by ,j4 ,wordsworth1 ,the ,corbey ,st4 ,james1 etc41 in ,studia ,biblica1 i4 pp4 #aac-aej4 ,oxford1 #ahhe4 q4 ,written in the seventh century1 and preserved at ,munich1 contains fragments of #a ,john1 and of #a and #b ,peter4 ,the text exhibits the passage of the ,three ,heavenly ,witnesses in #a ,john v41 but verse #g follows verse #h4 ,published by ,ziegler in #ahgg1 ,bruchstcke einer vorhieronymianischen ,uebersetzung der ,petrusbriefe4 #d4 ,,pauline ,,epistles4 m4 ,as for the ,gospels4 d e f g4 ,the ,latin versions of the ,greek ,codices ,d ,e ,f ,g4 gue4 ,guelferbytanus1 of the sixth century1 contains fragments of ,romans cc4 xi4-xv41 found in the ,gothic palimpsest at ,wolfenbttel4 ,see p4 #fi4 ,published by ,tischendorf in his ,anecdota ,sacra et ,profana1 #ahee1 pp4 #aec-aeh4 ,see ,burkitt1 in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #a 7,oct4 #ahii71 p4 #acd1 and compare the note to p4 #aci in the ,addenda1 p4 xv4 r4 ,written in the fifth or sixth century1 came originally from ,freising1 and is now at ,munich3 contains portions of ,romans1 #a and #b ,corinthians1 ,galatians1 ,ephesians1 ,philippians1 #a ,timothy1 and ,hebrews4 ,ziegler1 ,italafragmente der paulinischen ,briefe4 ,marburg1 #ahgf4 ,wlfflin1 ,neue ,bruchstcke der ,freisinger ,itala 7,mnchener ,sitzungsberichte1 #ahic1 ii4 #bec-bhj74 r#b4 ,also at ,munich1 a single leaf1 with part of ,phil4 iv4 and of #a ,thess4 i4 r#c4 ,in the ,benedictine ,abbey of ,gttweih on the ,danube3 fragments of ,romans v4 and vi4 and of ,galatians iv4 and v41 written on leaves used as a book cover4 ,published by ,rnsch in the ,zfw,th41 xxii4 7#ahgi71 pp4 #bcd-bch4 x#b4 ,at ,oxford1 of the ninth century1 contains the ,pauline ,epistles3 defective from ,heb4 xi4 #cd-xiii4 #be4 ,see also ,fr4 ,zimmer1 ,der ,galaterbrief im altlateinischen ,text1 als ,grundlage fr einen textkritischen ,apparat der ,vetus ,latina in the ,theologische ,studien und ,skizzen aus ,ostpreussen4 ,knigsberg1 i4 7#ahhg71 pp4 #a-ha4 #e4 ,,apocalypse4 ,the only manuscripts are m as for the ,gospels1 and g and h as for the ,acts1 h exhibits only fragments of cc4 i4 and ii41 viii4 and ix41 xi4 and xii41 and xiv4-xvi4 ,for the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts edited by ,wordsworth and ,white1 see below1 p4 #aca4 ,sidenote3 ,latin ,fathers4 ,on account of the small number of these manuscripts the quotations of the ,latin ,fathers are valuable1 especially those of ,cyprian of ,carthage1#ii and after them the recently discovered citations in ,priscillian1 who was the first to suffer death as a heretic in the year #che4 ,in the ,apocalypse we have the quotations of ,primasius1 ,bishop of ,hadrumet 7ca4 #eej71 who used in his commentary on the ,apocalypse not only his own ,old ,latin ,bible but also a revised version the same as that used by the ,african ,donatist ,tyconius4 ,in attempting to classify these witnesses it was found that the text of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the ,bible used by ,cyprian--viz41 in the ,gospels k especially1 in ,acts h1 and in the ,apocalypse ,primasius and h4 ,this family has accordingly been designated the ,african4 ,tertullian1 a still earlier ,african ,father1 undoubtedly refers to the existence of a ,latin ,version in his time1 but the quotations found in his ,latin works cannot be taken into account1 for this reason1 that in citing the ,new ,testament he seems to have made an independent translation from the ,greek for his immediate purpose4#ajj ,as for the quotations in ,augustine1 they are found to resemble the text of f and q in the ,gospels1 particularly the former1 and that of q1 r1 and r#c in the ,epistles4 ,to this group1 therefore1 the name ,italian has been given4 ,it has1 however1 been deemed necessary to regard this ,italian family as being itself a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled the ,european1 which is thought to be represented by g1 g#b1 and s in the ,acts1 by ff in the ,epistles1 and by g in the ,apocalypse4 ,sidenote3 ,old ,latin ,texts4 ,as illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate from each other1 take the text of ,luke xxiv41 verses #d1 #e1 #aa1 and #ac as exhibited by a b c d e f and the ,vulgate 7vg74 v4 #d4--;,all the seven agree in the opening words1 ,et factum est dum2 but after that there follows3-- 7#a7 stuperent a c1 mente consternatae essent b1 vg2 mente consternatae sunt e1 aporiarentur d1 haesitarent f4 7#b7 de hoc a c f1 de facto b1 de eo d1 de isto e1 vg4 7#c7 ecce a c d f1 vg2 et ecce b e4 7#d7 viri duo a f1 duo viri b c d e1 vg4 7#e7 adstiterunt a f1 astiterunt c1 adsisterunt d1 steterunt b e1 vg4 7#f7 iuxta illas a f1 secus illas b c e1 vg2 eis d4 7#g7 in veste fulgenti a f1 vg2 in veste fulgente b c e1 in amictu scoruscanti d4 7#h7 v4 #e3 timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad terram a2 cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram b e f1 vg2 conterritae autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c2 in timore autem factae inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d4 7#i7 v4 #aa3 et visa sunt a b c 7visae7 e f1 vg2 et paruerunt d4 7#aj7 illis a1 ante illos b1 vg2 apud illos c e1 in conspectu eorum d1 coram illos f4 7#aa7 tanquam a1 sicut b e1 vg2 quasi c d f4 7#ab7 delira a1 deliramentum b e f1 vg2 7b spells -lirr-1 and f -ler-71 deliramenta c1 derissus d4 7#ac7 v4 #ac3 municipium a1 castellum b c d e f1 vg4 7#ad7 stadios habentem ,,lx ab hierusalem a1 quod aberat stadia sexaginta ab hierusalem b1 quod abest ab ierosolymis stadia sexag4 c1 iter habentis stadios sexag4 ab hierus4 d1 quod est ab hierosolymis stadia septem e1 quod aberat spatio stadiorum ,,lx ab hierus4 f1 quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexaginta ab hierusalem vg4 7#ae7 cui nomen a1 nomine b c d e f1 vg4 7#af7 ammaus a1 cleopas et ammaus b1 emmaus c f1 vg2 alammaus d1 ammaus et cleopas e4 ,is not this almost exactly as ,jerome said3 tot exemplaria1 quot codices8 ,and when we take into account that all this variety in the ,latin manuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation1 but that a similar diversity exists in the ,greek1#aja we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate the original text from out these conflicting witnesses4 ,at the same time1 we have evidence of the singular position in which ,d stands to all the others2 while the last example also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise4 ,the reading in verse #ac would preclude any possibility of misunderstanding4 ,but suppose the reader or the translator had before him a manuscript like ,d1 in which the reading was 4 ,what happened1 we shall suppose1 was this4 ,the phrase1 8,emmaus by name10 was taken as referring1 not to the village1 but to the subject of the sentence2 the other name1 ,cleopas1 was then inserted from verse #ah1 and in time placed even before ,emmaus by a later copyist4 ,and accordingly we find1 even in ,ambrose of ,milan1 that the two travellers are regularly called ,ammaon et ,cleopas4 ,it was just as ,jerome said3 a vitiosis interpretibus male edita1 a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius1 a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata4 7#b47 ,,the ,,latin ,,version ,,of ,,jerome4 ,sidenote3 ,codex ,epternacensis4 ,it is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of ,jerome2 first of all because all our present manuscripts are derived from one and only one source1 secondly because the number of existing manuscripts is very great1 and lastly because some of them at least go back to the sixth century4 ,there is a ,codex in ,paris which formerly belonged to the ,church of ,st4 ,willibrord at ,echternach1 written by an ,irish hand of the eighth or ninth century1 and containing a subscription copied from its original to the following effect3 proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca ,eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci ,hieronymi1 indictione ,,vi4 p7ost7 con7sulatum7 ,bassilii u4 c4 anno septimo decimo4 ,that must have been in the year #eeh4 ,sidenote3 ,codex ,amiatinus4 ,codex ,amiatinus1 now in ,florence1 was formerly supposed to belong to the same time1 but this turns out to be a mistake1 because it has been proved that it was written for ,ceolfrid1 ,abbot of ,wearmouth1 who died at ,langres on the #beth ,september #gaf1 on his way to ,rome1 where he intended to present this ,codex to the ,pope4 ,sidenote3 ,codex ,fuldensis4 ,one of the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the ,vulgate is at ,fulda1 where it has been preserved1 perhaps1 from the time of ,boniface4 ,this ,codex ,fuldensis was written between #edj and #edf1 by order of ,bishop ,victor of ,capua1 and corrected by himself4 ,it contains the whole of the ,new ,testament according to ,jerome's version1 only in place of the four separate ,gospels it has a ,harmony composed by ,victor1 who followed ,tatian's plan1 using the ,latin text of ,jerome4 ,victor's ,harmony in turn became the basis of the so-called ,old ,german ,tatian4 ,sidenote3 ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,the task of restoring the original text of ,jerome's version has been undertaken in ,england by the ,bishop of ,salisbury1 who has been at work on all the available material for more than fifteen years4 ,the edition bears the title1 ,novum ,testamentum ,domini nostri ,jesu ,christi secundum editionem sancti ,hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit ,johannes ,wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto ,henrico ,juliano ,white4 ,five parts of the first volume have already appeared1 containing the four ,gospels with an ,epilogus ad ,evangelia4#ajb ,in ,france1 ,j4 ,delisle1 the ,director of the ,paris ,national ,library1 has rendered great service by his work upon the manuscripts under his care2 while ,samuel ,berger has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the ,vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early ,middle ,ages and the remotest provinces of the ,church to bear upon the history of the ,vulgate and its text as well as on the origin and dissemination of the different forms4 ,in his compendious ,histoire de la ,vulgate pendant les premiers sicles du moyen ge 7,paris1 #ahic71 he has1 e4g41 indicated no fewer than #bab different ways in which the books of the ,old ,testament were arranged in the manuscripts that he examined1 and thirty-eight varieties in the order of the ,new ,testament books4 ,in ,germany ,bengel applied himself to the reconstruction of the ,latin text of the ,bible in the last century1 and in this he was followed by ,lachmann in the present century1 while ,riegler1 van ,ess1 and ,kaulen have added to our knowledge of the history of the ,vulgate4 ,dr4 ,peter ,corssen has followed up the labours of ,ziegler and ,rnsch in the particular field of the pre-,jeromic ,bible and its text with a methodical examination of the earlier editions1 and ,e4 v4 ,dobschtz has begun to publish ,studies in the ,textual ,criticism of the ,vulgate4 ,the valuable researches of ,carlo ,vercellone 7#ahfj-fd7 were concerned almost exclusively with the ,old ,testament1 and do not seem to have been followed up in ,italy4 8,utinam ,papa ,leo ,,xiii410 says ,gregory1 8tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum ,bibliorum ,latini edendi2 cura1 opus ecclesia et ,papa dignum40 ,meanwhile ,wordsworth and ,white appear to have accomplished as much as is possible at present in the field of the ,gospels4#ajc ,sidenote3 ,,mss4 used by ,jerome4 ,the principles on which ,jerome went in his revision of the text have been already referred to1 but what the early ,greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly made out4 ,the relics of the material he used are as scanty as those of his own work4 ,he must1 however1 have been able to make use of manuscripts that went back to ,eusebius1 seeing that he adopted the ,eusebian ,canons in his ,new ,testament4 ,but there are certain readings in ,jerome which we have not yet been able to discover in any ,greek manuscript that we know4 ,for instance1 he gives docebit vos omnem veritatem in ,john xvi4 #ac1 where our present ,greek editions read 1 so that he would seem to have read 4 ,as a matter of fact1 this reading does occur in two passages of ,eusebius and in ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 as well as in the ,arabic version of ,tatian1 but it has not been discovered in any ,greek manuscript4#ajd ,in the other parts of the ,new ,testament1 the revision of which was perhaps completed by the year #chf1 ,jerome inserted hardly any new readings from the ,greek1 but contented himself with improving the grammar and diction of the ,latin4 ,his work on the ,old ,testament was much more comprehensive1 but does not fall to be discussed here4 ,sidenote3 ,history of the ,vulgate4 ,it was only by degrees that ,jerome's recension gained ground4 ,in ,rome1 ,gregory the ,great 7d4 #fjd7 for one preferred it to the old1 though at the same time he says expressly3 sedes apostolica1 cui auctore ,deo praesideo1 utraque utitur4 ,sidenote3 ,alcuin4 ,owing to the use of both forms the diversity of copies grew to such an extent that in #gig ,charles the ,great ordered ,alcuin to make a uniformly revised text from the best ,latin manuscripts for use in the ,churches of his ,empire4 ,for this purpose ,alcuin sent to his native ,northumbria for manuscripts1 by which he corrected the text of the ,bible1 and he was able to present the first copy to the ,emperor at ,christmas #hja4 ,a good many of the superb ,carolingian manuscripts1 as they are called1 which are found in our libraries1 contain ,alcuin's ,revision1 as for instance the ,bible of ,grandval near ,basel1 which was probably written for ,charles the ,bald1 and which is now in the ,british ,museum 7see ,plate ,,vii472 the ,bible presented to the same monarch by ,vivian1 ,abbot of ,st4 ,martin of ,tours1 which was sent by the ,chapter of ,metz from the ,cathedral treasury there to ,colbert in #afge1 and is now in ,paris 7,b4 ,n41 ,lat4 #a72 another written in the same monastery of ,st4 ,martin1 and now at ,bamberg2 and that in the ,vallicellian ,library of the ,church of ,sta4 ,maria in ,rome1 which is perhaps the best specimen of the ,alcuinian ,bible4 ,sidenote3 ,theodulf4 ,another revision was introduced into ,france by ,alcuin's contemporary ,theodulf1 ,bishop of ,orleans 7#ghg-hba74 ,he was a ,visigoth1 born in the neighbourhood of ,narbonne1 and the type of text he introduced was taken essentially from ,spanish manuscripts4 ,we have his revision in the so-called ,theodulfian ,bible1 which formerly belonged to the ,cathedral ,church of ,orleans1 and is now in ,paris 7,lat4 #ichj72 in its companion volume1 formerly in the ,cathedral of ,puy1 and now in the ,british ,museum 7#bdadb72 and in the ,bible of ,st4 ,hubert1 which came from the monastery of that name in the ,ardennes4 ,sidenote3 ,harding4 ,a further revision was made by ,stephen ,harding1 third ,abbot of ,citeaux4 ,about the year #aaji he prepared a standard ,bible for his congregation1 in which the ,latin text of the ,new ,testament was corrected by the ,greek4 ,at the same time the ,old ,testament was revised from the ,hebrew with the help of some ,jewish scholars4 ,harding's copy of the standard ,bible1 in four volumes1 is still preserved in the ,public ,library at ,dijon4 ,a similar work was done for his monastery by ,william1 ,abbot of ,hirsau4 ,sidenote3 ,correctoria4 ,attempts were also made to settle the text by means of the so-called ,correctoria ,bibliorum1 in which those readings which were supposed to be correct were carefully collected and arranged4 ,the ,university of ,paris in particular did a great deal in this way1 and such was its influence1 that by the middle of the fifteenth century the ,parisian text was the one most commonly followed in manuscripts1 and the invention of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the others4 ,sidenote3 ,printed text4 ,the first fruits of the printing press are understood to be the undated 8forty-two line ,bible10 usually called the ,mazarin ,bible1 seeing that it was the copy in the library of ,cardinal ,mazarin that first attracted the attention of bibliographers4 ,the first dated ,bible is of the year #adfb4 ,copinger estimates that #abd editions were printed before the close of the fifteenth century1 and over #djj during the sixteenth4 ,the first edition in octavo1 8for the poor man10 was issued at ,basel in #adia from the ,press of ,froben1 the same printer who prompted ,erasmus to prepare the first ,greek ,new ,testament4 ,the first edition in ,latin with various readings was printed in #aejd4 ,in the following year ,erasmus published the ,annotationes which ,laurentius ,valla had prepared for the ,latin ,bible as early as #addd4 ,the year #aebh saw the first really critical edition4 ,it was brought out by ,stephen1 who used in its preparation three good ,paris manuscripts--the ,bible of ,charles the ,bald already referred to1 that of ,st4 ,denis1 and another of the ninth century1 the ,new ,testament portion of which has now disappeared4 ,he afterwards published in #aech-dj another edition1 for which he employed seventeen manuscripts1 and which became the foundation of the present authorised ,vulgate4 ,sidenote3 ,henten4 ,about the same time ,john ,henten published a very valuable edition #aedg on the basis of thirty-one manuscripts1 in the preparation of which he was assisted by the theologians of ,louvain4 ,this was followed in #aegc and #aehj by two further editions containing important annotations by ,lucas of ,brgge4 ,sidenote3 ,authorised ,vulgate4 ,in the year previous to that in which ,henten's edition appeared1 the ,council of ,trent1 in its fourth sitting of the #hth ,april #aedf1 decided 8ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis lectionibus1 disputationibus1 praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur10 and at the same time ordained 8posthac sacra scriptura1 potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur40 ,sidenote3 ,sixtine4 ,the latter part of this decree was carried into effect in the papacy of ,sixtus ,v4 ,his predecessor1 ,pius ,v41 began the work of revising the text of the ,bible1 and a 8,congregatio pro emendatione ,bibliorum0 gave twenty-six sittings to it in the year #aefi4 ,his successor seems to have allowed the work to lapse1 but ,sixtus ,v4 appointed a new commission for the purpose under the ,presidency of ,cardinal ,caraffa4 ,the ,pope himself revised the result of their labours1 which was printed at the ,vatican ,press that he had founded4 ,this edition1 which takes its name from him1 was issued under the ,bull 8,aeternus ille0 of the #ast ,march #aehi1 and published in the following year4 ,it is the first official edition of the ,vulgate4 ,sixtus died on the #bgth ,august #aeij1 and was succeeded by four ,popes in the space of two years4 ,sidenote3 ,clementine4 ,his fourth successor in the ,chair of ,peter1 ,clement ,,viii41 issued a new edition under the name of the old ,pope1 accompanied by the ,bull 8,cum sacrorum0 of the #ith ,november #aeib4 ,this edition1 containing a preface written by ,cardinal ,bellarmin1 was substituted for the former1 and has continued from that day without any alteration as the authorised ,bible of the entire ,roman ,church4 ,the text of this second edition approximated more closely to that of ,henten1 for which the ,commission of ,pope ,sixtus had also expressed their preference1 though their printed edition went rather by that of ,stephen4 ,the number of the variations between these two editions has been estimated at #cjjj4 ,for our purpose both alike are superseded by the edition of ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,it may be added that the first edition to contain the names of both the ,popes upon the title page is that of #afjd4 ,the title runs3 8,sixti ,v4 ,pont4 ,max4 iussu recognita et ,clementis ,,viii4 auctoritate edita40 ,those printed at ,rome at the present day are entitled3 8,sixti ,v4 et ,clementis ,,viii4 ,pontt4 ,maxx4 iussu recognita atque edita40 ,see below1 p4 #acb4 ,an enumeration of all the manuscripts of the ,vulgate mentioned by ,tischendorf in his eighth edition1 or even of the earliest and most important of them1 cannot be attempted4 ,those1 however1 mentioned by ,gebhardt in his ,adnotatio ,critica are given here1 with the notation adopted by ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,the best manuscripts1 in the judgment of the ,english editors1 are ,codex ,amiatinus1 ,codex ,fuldensis1 and the one in the ,ambrosian ,library at ,milan 7,c #ci inf471 written in the sixth century4 7,m in ,w4-,w42 not cited by ,tischendorf47 am4 ,amiatinus 7vide supra1 p4 #abb71 written ca4 #gjj1 is an excellent manuscript1 and particularly interesting as containing in the introduction a double catalogue of the ,books of the ,bible resembling that of the ,senator ,cassiodorus4 ,see ,westcott1 ,bible in the ,church1 ,appendix ,b2 ,canon1 ,appendix ,d4 7,a in ,w4-,w47 7,see ,plate ,,vi47 bodl4 ,bodleianus1 of the seventh century1 formerly belonging to the ,library of ,st4 ,augustine at ,canterbury4 7,o in ,w4-,w47 demid4 ,demidovianus1 belonging to the thirteenth century1 but copied from an earlier exemplar2 formerly at ,lyons2 present locality unknown2 not cited in ,w4-,w4 em4 ,emeram1 written in the year #hgj1 in gold uncials with splendid miniatures3 at ,munich1 ,cimelie #ee3 not cited in ,w4-,w4 erl4 ,erlangen1 of the ninth century 7,irmischer's ,catalogue1 #dfg73 used only indirectly by ,tischendorf1 and not cited in ,w4-,w4 for4 ,foroiuliensis1 written in the sixth or seventh century1 and now at ,cividale1 ,friuli3 fragments of it at ,venice and ,prague4 7,j in ,w4-,w47 fos4 ,of the ninth century3 from ,st4 ,maur des ,fosss1 now in ,paris4 7,lat4 #aaiei47 fu4 ,fuldensis 7vide supra1 p4 #abb71 written between #edj and #edf3 contains the ,epistle to the ,laodicaeans after ,colossians3 edited with facsimiles by ,e4 ,ranke4 7,f in ,w4-,w47 gat4 ,gatianus1 from ,st4 ,gatien's in ,tours3 written in the eighth or ninth century3 stolen from ,libri3 purchased by ,lord ,ashburnham and now in ,paris3 not cited in ,w4-,w4 harl4 ,harleianus #agge1 of the sixth or seventh century3 in the ,british ,museum1 formerly in ,paris #dehb3 stolen from there by ,john ,aymont in #agjg4 7,z in ,w4-,w47 ing4 ,ingolstadt1 of the seventh century1 now in the ,university ,library at ,munich3 defective4 7,i in ,w4-,w47 ,see von ,dobschtz1 ,vulgatastudien 7with two facsimiles74 mm4 ,of the tenth or eleventh century1 from ,marmoutiers1 near ,tours3 in the ,british ,museum1 ,egerton #fji4 7,e in ,w4-,w47 mt4 ,of the eighth or ninth century1 from ,st4 ,martin's1 and still at ,tours3 written in gold letters4 7,m1 in ,w4-,w47 pe4 ,a very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at ,perugia1 containing ,luke i4 #a-xii4 #g4 7,p in ,w4-,w47 prag4 ,the fragments cited under for4 7see above74 reg4 ,regius1 of the seventh or eighth century1 a purple manuscript inscribed in gold1 containing ,matthew and ,mark1 with lacun3 at ,paris #aaiee3 not cited in ,w4-,w4 rus4 ,the so-called ,rushworth ,gospels1 written by an ,irish scribe who died in the year #hbj3 has an interlinear ,anglo-,saxon version4 7,r in ,w4-,w47 san4 ,at ,st4 ,gall1 a fragment containing ,matthew vi4 #ba-;,john xvii4 #ah1 written by a scribe who says that he used two ,latin and one ,greek manuscripts4 ,in the ,epistles san4 is a palimpsest at ,st4 ,gall containing ,ephes4 vi4 #b to #a ,tim4 ii4 #e1 the ,biblical text being the uppermost4 taur4 ,of the seventh century1 at ,turin1 contains the ,gospels beginning at ,matthew xiii4 #cd3 not cited in ,w4-,w4 tol4 ,written in the eighth century3 this manuscript1 which was written by a ,visigoth1 was given by ,servandus of ,seville to ,john1 ,bishop of ,cordova1 who presented it to the ,see of ,seville in #ihh3 it was afterwards at ,toledo1 and is now at ,madrid4 ,it was collated for the ,sixtine ,recension by ,palomares1 but reached ,rome too late to be of use4 7,t in ,w4-,w47 ,in addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as cited by ,wordsworth and ,white1 twenty-one others are regularly used by them1 and a great number are cited occasionally4 ,for these reference must be made to their edition1 and for further particulars to ,berger's incomparable work4 ,on the ,latin ,versions compare ,ti,gr41 #idh-aajh1 #acac1 and especially ,scrivener4 ,the chapter on ,the ,latin ,versions in the ,fourth ,edition of the latter work 7c4 iii47 was re-written by ,h4 ,j4 ,white1 the collaborateur of ,wordsworth4 ,see also ,urt41 #he-aah1 which deals with the ,old ,testament as well1 and the article on the ,old ,latin ,versions in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 iii4 #dg-fb4 #a4 ,g4 ,riegler1 ,kritische ,geschichte der ,vulgata1 ,sulzbach1 #ahbj2 ,lean4 van ,ess1 ,pragmatisch-kritische ,geschichte der ,vulgata im ,allgemeinen und zunchst in ,beziehung auf das ,trientische ,decret1 ,tbingen1 #ahbd2 ,kaulen1 ,geschichte der ,vulgata1 ,mainz1 #ahfh2 ,berger1 ,histoire de la ,vulgate pendant les premiers sicles du moyen ge1 ,paris1 #ahic 7,list of the chief works dealing with the history of the ,vulgate given on p4 xxii4 ff474 #b4 ,on the subject of the ,itala see ,ziegler1 ,die ,lateinischen ,bibelbersetzungen vor ,hieronymus und die ,itala des ,augustinus1 ,munich1 #ahgi2 ,zycha1 ,bemerkungen zur ,italafrage1 in the ,eranos ,vindobonensis1 #ahic1 #agg-ahd2 ,burkitt1 ,the ,old ,latin and the ,itala 7,texts and ,studies1 vol4 iv41 ,no4 #c1 #ahif74 #c4 ,on the language see ,rnsch 7d4 #ahhh71 ,itala und ,vulgata1 #bnd ,edition1 #ahge2 also ,die ltesten lateinischen-,bibelbersetzungen nach ihrem ,werthe fr die lateinische ,sprachwissenschaft1 by the same writer in the ,collectanea ,philologa1 ,bremen1 #ahia1 #a-bj2 ,kaulen1 ,handbuch zur ,vulgata1 ,eine systematische ,darstellung ihres ,sprachcharakters1 ,mainz1 #ahgj4 ,saalfeld1 ,de ,bibliorum ,s4 ,vulgat ,editionis ,graecitate1 ,quedlinburg1 #ahia4 #d4 ,editions of the ,text3--,among the earlier works the most important is that of ,sabatier1 which is not yet superseded1 in the ,old ,testament at least1 ,bibliorum sacrorum ,latin ,versiones antiqu1 seu ,vetus ,italica1 et cter qucunque in codicibus ,,mss4 et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt1 etc41 opera et studio ,d4 ,petri ,sabatier1 #c vols4 folio1#aje ,rheims1 #agdc4 ,jos4 ,bianchini 7,blanchinus71 ,evangeliarium ,quadruplex1 #b vols4 folio1 ,rome1 #agdi 7copies now cost about #d74 ,after a long interval work in this field has been resumed in the ,old ,latin ,biblical ,texts1 published at the ,clarendon ,press1 ,oxford1 of which four parts have appeared3--#a4 ,the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,matthew from the ,st4 ,germain ,,ms4 7g#a71 now numbered ,lat4 #aaeec in the ,national ,library at ,paris1 with ,introduction and five ,appendices1 edited by ,john ,wordsworth1 ,d4,d41 #ahhc 7#f_/-74 #b4 ,portions of the ,gospels according to ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,matthew from the ,bobbio ,,ms4 7k71 now numbered ,g4 ,,vii4 #ae in the ,national ,library at ,turin1 together with other fragments of the ,gospels from six ,,mss4 in the ,libraries of ,st4 ,gall1 ,coire1 ,milan1 and ,berne 7usually cited as n1 o1 p1 a#b1 s1 and t74 ,edited1 with the aids of ,tischendorf's ,transcripts and the printed ,texts of ,ranke1 ,ceriani1 and ,hagen1 with two facsimiles1 by ,j4 ,wordsworth1 ,d4,d41 444 ,w4 ,sanday1 ,d4,d41 444 and ,h4 ,j4 ,white1 ,m4,a41 #ahhf 7#ba_/-74 #c4 ,the ,four ,gospels1 from the ,munich ,,ms4 7q71 now numbered ,lat4 #fbbd in the ,royal ,library at ,munich1 with a ,fragment from ,st4 ,john in the ,hof-,bibliothek at ,vienna 7,cod4 ,lat4 #ejb74 ,edited1 with the aid of ,tischendorf's ,transcript 7under the direction of the ,bishop of ,salisbury71 by ,h4 ,j4 ,white1 ,m4,a41 #ahhh 7#ab_/f74 #d4 ,portions of the ,acts of the ,apostles1 of the ,epistle of ,st4 ,james1 and of the ,first ,epistle of ,st4 ,peter from the ,bobbio ,palimpsest 7s71 now numbered ,cod4 #af in the ,imperial ,library at ,vienna4 ,edited1 with the aid of ,tischendorf's and ,belsheim's printed ,texts1 by ,h4 ,j4 ,white1 ,m4,a41 with a ,facsimile1 #ahig 7#e_/-74 7,see notice in the ,expository ,times1 ,april #ahih1 p4 #cbj ff47 #e4 ,wordsworth and ,white's edition of the ,vulgate is noticed by ,berger in the ,bull4 ,crit41 #ahii1 viii4 #ada-add4 ,it may be added here1 as that critic observes1 that insufficient regard is paid to the later history of the ,latin text in this edition4 ,at least one representative of a recension so important as that of the ,university of ,paris in the thirteenth century might have been collated1 and perhaps also the first printed edition1 8the forty-two line0 ,bible4 ,on the authorised edition of #aeij and #aeib1 see ,eb4 ,nestle1 ,ein ,jubilum der lateinischen ,bibel4 ,zum #i ,november #ahib1 in ,marginalien und ,materialien1 #ahic2 also printed separately4 ,an exact reprint of the ,latin ,vulgate has recently been published by ,m4 ,hetzenauer from his ,greek-,latin ,new ,testament 7see above1 p4 #be71 entitled ,novum ,testamentum ,vulgatae ,editionis4 ,ex ,vaticanis ,editionibus earumque ,correctorio critice edidit ,michael ,hetzenauer4 ,oeniponte1 #ahii4 ,as an introduction to this edition reference may be made to the same writer's ,wesen und ,principien der ,bibelkritik auf katholischer ,grundlage4 ,unter besonderer ,bercksichtigung der offziellen ,vulgataausgabe dargelegt4 ,innsbruck1 #aijj4 7c47 ,,egyptian ,,versions4 ,next in importance to the ,syriac versions from the ,east and the ,latin from the ,west are the ,egyptian versions from the ,south4 ,here too we find not one early version but several4 ,sidenote3 ,dialects4 ,what used till lately to be called ,coptic#ajf is merely one of the dialects into which the language of ancient ,egypt was divided4 ,and here we must distinguish three main branches--the ,bohairic1 the ,sahidic1 and the ,middle ,egyptian4 ,sidenote3 ,bohairic4 7#a7 ,bohairic#ajg is the name given to the dialect that was spoken in the ,bohaira--i4e4 the district by the sea and therefore ,lower ,egypt1 the neighbourhood of ,alexandria4 ,it was the principal dialect1 and being that used for ecclesiastical purposes over the whole country1 and1 moreover1 that with which ,european scholars first became acquainted1 the versions written in it were described as the ,coptic simply4 ,the term ,memphitic1 which was preferred for a time1 is incorrect1 because it was not till the eleventh century that the ,patriarchate was transferred to ,cairo--i4e4 the district of ,memphis1 and in early times a different dialect was spoken there4 ,sidenote3 ,sahidic4 7#b7 ,sahidic is the name used to describe the dialect of ,upper ,egypt4 ,it is sometimes and not improperly spoken of as the ,thebaic in distinction to the ,memphitic4 ,sidenote3 ,middle ,egyptian4 7#c7 ,under the ,middle ,egyptian#ajh we have to distinguish-- 7a7 ,the ,fayumic1 spoken in the ,fayum--i4e4 the district to the ,s4,w4 of the ,delta1 watered by the ,joseph ,canal1 and separated from the valley of the ,nile by a narrow strip of the desert4 ,it was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries were made which have enriched the libraries and museums of ,europe4 7b7 ,the ,middle ,egyptian proper1 or ,lower ,sahidic1 a dialect which has its home on the site of ancient ,memphis4 7c7 ,the dialect of ,achmim1 which preserves a more primitive form of early ,egyptian than any of those already referred to4 ,in the eleventh century the ,coptic ,bishop ,athanasius specifies three dialects of the ,coptic language--the ,bohairic1 the ,sahidic1 and a third which he says was already extinct1 and to which he gives the name of ,bashmuric2 but whether this last is to be identified with the dialects included above under the name of ,middle ,egyptian1 is not quite certain4 7#a47 ,the ,bohairic ,version4 ,sidenote3 ,bohairic4 ,this version1 formerly designated as the ,coptic1 was first used for the ,new ,testament by ,bishop ,fell of ,oxford1 who was indebted for his knowledge of it to ,marshall4 ,it was afterwards employed by ,mill for his edition of #agjg4 ,it was first published in #agaf by ,wilkins 7or rather ,wilke71 a ,prussian who had settled in ,england1 with the title1 8,novum ,testamentum ,aegyptium vulgo ,copticum40 ,his edition was accompanied with a ,latin translation4 ,in #agcd ,bengel obtained a few particulars regarding this version from ,la ,croze1 the ,berlin ,librarian4 ,an edition of the ,gospels by ,moritz ,schwartze appeared in #ahdf-dg1 and after his death the ,acts and ,epistles were published 7#aheb7 by ,paul ,boetticher1 afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of de ,lagarde4 ,about the same time ,tattam prepared a wholly uncritical edition of the entire ,new ,testament1 including the ,apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version4#aji ,steindorff is of opinion that the ,bohairic version originated in the ,natron ,valley during the fourth or fifth century1 but others affirm that it is older1 or at all events rests on an older foundation4 ,the order of the ,new ,testament books was originally3 7#a7 the ,gospels1 in which ,john stood first1 followed by ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 7#b7 the ,pauline ,epistles1 with ,hebrews between #b ,thess4 and #a ,tim41 7#c7 the seven ,catholic ,epistles1 and 7#d7 the ,acts4 ,more than fifty ,bohairic manuscripts are preserved in the libraries of ,europe1 and from these an edition has been prepared for the ,clarendon ,press in two volumes1 with exhaustive ,introduction by ,g4 ,horner 7#ahih74 ,the ,greek text on which this version is based is regarded by present critics as particularly pure1 and free from so-called ,western additions4 7#b47 ,the ,sahidic ,version4 ,sidenote3 ,sahidic4 ,it was a long time before this version attracted any attention4 ,in his ,new ,testament1 ,wilkins mentioned two manuscripts1 8lingua plane a reliquis ,,mss4 ,copticis diversa10 and ,woide in #aggh announced his intention of editing certain fragments of the ,new ,testament 8iuxta interpretationem superioris ,aegypti quae ,thebaidica vocatur10 which were afterwards published by ,ford in #agii4 ,at the close of last century and the beginning of this1 various other fragments were issued by ,tuki1 ,mingarelli1 ,mnter1 ,zoega1 and ,engelbreth1 but it was not till more recent times that really important parts of the ,old and ,new ,testaments were published by ,amlineau1 ,ciasca 7in two vols471 ,bouriant1 ,maspero1 ,ceugney1 and ,krall4 ,in #ahie ,goussen gave us a large part of the ,apocalypse4#aaj ,this version1 like the former1 contained the entire ,new ,testament1 with the exception of the ,apocalypse1 and originally exhibited the ,gospels in the same order--,john1 ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke4 ,hebrews1 however1 stood between #b ,corinthians and ,galatians4 ,its ,greek original was quite different from that of the ,bohairic version4 7,see ,plate ,,viii47 7#c47 ,the ,middle ,egyptian ,versions4 ,sidenote3 ,middle ,egyptian4 ,of these only fragments are as yet known to exist4 ,portions of ,matthew and ,john1 and of #a ,cor41 ,ephes41 ,phil41 ,thess41 and ,hebrews in the ,fayumic1 or1 as it used to be called1 the ,bashmuric dialect1 were first published by ,zoega in #ahji1 by ,engelbreth in #ahaa1 and especially by ,bouriant 7#ahhi7 and ,crum 7#ahic74 ,fragments in the ,lower ,sahidic have been published in the ,mitteilungen aus der ,sammlung der ,papyrus des ,erzherzogs ,rainer4 ,in the ,achmim dialect1 ,james iv4 #ab1 #ac and ,jude #ag-bj are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet1 and these have been published by ,crum4 ,whether these fragments are really parts of a separate version1 or merely dialectical modifications of the ,sahidic1 is not quite certain4#aaa ,as to the date of these versions we have no definite information4 ,it has been understood from certain passages in the ,life of ,st4 ,anthony1 who was born about the year #bej1 that in his boyhood he heard the ,gospel read in ,church in the language of ,egypt1 but that need not imply the existence of a written version1 as the translation may have been made by a reader who interpreted as he read4 ,in the third century1 however1 versions may have arisen1 and it was certainly in the ,south that the first attempts at translation were made4 ,our oldest known manuscripts1 a ,sahidic containing #b ,thess4 iii41 and one in ,middle ,egyptian of ,jude #ag-bj1 date from the fourth or fifth century4 ,the ,sahidic version seems to have been made first1 then the ,middle ,egyptian1 and finally the ,bohairic4 ,to what extent the one influenced the other is a question requiring further investigation4 ,a correct edition and a critical application of these ,egyptian versions is1 next to a fresh examination of the minuscules1 the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,for the ,sahidic version in particular represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in the ,west1 and looked upon as the outcome of ,western corruption and licence1 whereas it may really bear the most resemblance to the original form4 ,in the ,acts especially its agreement with the text of ,codex ,d is remarkable4 ,one might instance1 e4g41 the mention of ,pentecost in ,acts i4 #e1 the insertion of the ,golden ,rule in its negative form in xv4 #bj1 #bi1 the relation of the vision in xvi4 #aj1 and the description of the stone which twenty men could not roll away in ,luke xxiii4 #ec1 all of which are now found in a ,greek-,sahidic manuscript4 ,the ,sahidic version1 like the ,bohairic1 is well represented in ,european libraries1 and the manuscripts are dated as a rule in the ,egyptian fashion according to the years of the ,martyrs--i4e4 according to an era reckoned from ,august or ,september #bhd ,a4,d4 ,ti,gr41 #hei-hic4 ,scrivener#d1 ii4 #ia-add1 revised by ,horner1 with additions by ,headlam4 ,h4 ,hyvernat1 tude sur les ,versions ,coptes de la ,bible 7,revue ,biblique1 v4 7#ahif7 #dbg-dcc1 #edj-efi2 vi4 #a 7#ahig7 #dh-gd47 ,urt41 #add-adg4 ,forbes ,robinson1 ,egyptian ,versions1 in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 vol4 i4 7#ahih7 #ffh-fgc4 ,w4 ,e4 ,crum1 ,coptic ,studies from the ,egypt ,exploration ,fund's ,report for #ahig-ahih1 #ae pp4 #dto4 ,for the ,gospels1 ,horner's edition eclipses all others4 ,it is entitled1 ,the ,coptic ,version of the ,new ,testament in the ,northern dialect1 otherwise called ,memphitic or ,bohairic1 with ,introduction1 ,critical ,apparatus1 and literal ,english ,translation4 ,vol4 ,i4 ,introduction1 ,matthew and ,mark1 cxlviii4 #dhd4 ,oxford1 ,clarendon ,press1 #ahih2 ,vol4 ,,ii4 ,luke and ,john1 #edh pp41 #ahih4 ,see notice by ,hyvernat in the ,revue ,biblique1 #ahii1 pp4 #adh-aej1 and also ,w4 ,e4 ,crum1 lib4 cit41 where reference is also made to the ,manuscrits ,coptes au ,muse 444 ,leide1 #ahig4 ,as ,horner's edition as yet only covers the ,gospels1 the remaining portions of the ,new ,testament must still be sought in the two parts published by ,lagarde after ,schwartze's death1 ,acta ,apostolorum coptice 7#aheb71 and ,epistulae ,novi ,testamenti coptice 7#aheb74 ,on ,brugsch's ,recension in the ,zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen ,gesellschaft1 vii4 7#ahec7 pp4 #aae-aba1 see ibid41 p4 #def1 and ,lagarde1 ,aus dem deutschen ,gelehrtenleben1 pp4 #be-fe1 #gc-gg4 ,tattam's ,bohairic-,arabic edition was published by the ,society for ,promoting ,christian ,knowledge4 ,the first fragments of the ,new ,testament in ,sahidic appeared in ,tuki's ,rudimenta in #aggh1 and ,woide's editio princeps1 announced in the same year1 was brought out after his death by ,ford in #agii4 ,amlineau's ,fragments ,thbaines indits du ,nouveau ,testament were published in vols4 xxiv4-xxvi4 of the ,zeitschrift fr gyptische ,sprache 7#ahhf-ahhh74 ,considerable portions of the ,apocalypse were issued in facsimile by ,goussen in the first ,fasciculus of his ,studia ,theologica 7,lipsiae1 #ahig74 ,apocryphal and ,pseudepigraphical writings have also been discovered in recent times1 as1 for example1 the ,acta ,pauli in a manuscript of the seventh century1 written in ,sahidic consonants with ,middle ,egyptian vocalisation4 ,these are to be published by ,a4 ,schmidt4 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xv4 ,see also ,amlineau1 ,notice des manuscrits coptes de la ,bibliothque ,nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du ,nouveau ,testament1 in the ,athenum1 ,no4 #cfja1 p4 #eii4 ,the foregoing versions are those of most importance in the criticism of the text4 ,there are1 however1 one or two others which1 though inferior in value1 are still interesting4 ,among these is-- 7d47 ,,the ,,gothic ,,version4 ,sidenote3 ,gothic4 ,this is the work of ,ulfilas--i4e4 ,wlflin--a ,cappadocian by descent1 who in the year #cdj succeeded ,theophilus1 the first ,bishop of the ,goths4#aab ,while the tribe was still settled in the ,crimea1 he is said to have invented an alphabet1 and translated both the ,old and the ,new ,testament for their use4 ,in the ,old ,testament ,ulfilas followed the ,septuagint according to the ,recension of ,lucian of ,antioch 7d4 #cab71 which circulated in the diocese of ,constantinople4 ,in the ,new ,testament the text is likewise essentially that of ,chrysostom4 ,the traces of ,latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the version1 and which may either have existed from the first or been introduced at a later time1 relate at most1 perhaps1 to matters of orthography4 7#a7 ,the ,gothic version first became known through the so-called ,codex ,argenteus which ,ant4 ,morillon1 ,granvella's secretary1 and ,mercator the geographer saw in the ,monastery of ,werden in the sixteenth century4 ,it was afterwards seen at ,prague by ,richard ,strein 7d4 #afja74 ,in #afdh it was brought to ,sweden as a prize of war1 and presented to ,queen ,christina1 or her librarian1 ,isaac ,voss4 ,it was purchased by ,marshall de la ,gardie in #affb1 bound in silver1 and deposited in the library at ,upsala1 where it has since remained4 ,ten leaves were stolen from the manuscript between #ahba and #ahcd1 but restored1 after many years1 by the thief upon his deathbed4 ,this magnificent ,codex was written in the fifth or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering4 ,it now comprises #ahg leaves out of #ccj1 and contains fragments of the four ,gospels in the order1 ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark4 ,it was published for the first time in #affe1 from a transcript made by ,derrer ten years before4 7#b7 ,codex ,carolinus1 the ,wolfenbttel palimpsest already referred to as ,q of the ,gospels 7see p4 #fi above7 and the ,old ,latin gue of ,paul 7see p4 #aah71 contains some forty verses of the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,it was first published in #agfb4 7#c7 ,fragments of seven palimpsests in the ,ambrosian ,library at ,milan1 discovered by ,cardinal ,mai in #ahag4 ,like ,codex ,carolinus1 they are in all probability from the ,monastery of ,bobbio4 ,they exhibit part of the ,pauline ,epistles and fragments of the ,gospels4 ,a few quotations from ,hebrews are also found in a theological work4 ,no portion of ,acts1 7,hebrews71 ,catholic ,epistles1 or ,apocalypse has as yet been discovered4 ,editions of the ,gothic version have been published by ,gabelentz and ,lbe 7#ahcf-ahdc71 ,stamm 7#aheh71 ,heyne #e7ahgb7 #i7ahif71 ,bernhardt 7,halle1 #ahge1 #ahhd71 and ,balg 7,milwaukee1 #ahia74 ,st4 ,mark was edited by ,mller and ,hppe in #ahha1 and by ,skeat in #ahhb4 ,,literature4--,on ,ulfilas1 see ,scott1 ,ulfilas1 the ,apostle of the ,goths1 ,cambr41 #ahhe4 ,bradley1 ,the ,goths1 in the 8,story of the ,nations0 ,series1 #ahhh4 ,gwatkin1 ,studies of ,arianism1 #ahhb4 ,urt41 pp4 #aai-abj1 where see literature1 to which add ,eckstein1 ,ulfilas und die gothische ,uebersetzung der ,bibel1 in ,westermann's ,illustr4 ,monatshefte1 ,dec4 #ahib1 #djc-djg2 ,jostes1 ,das ,todesjahr des ,ulfilas und der ,uebertritt der ,gothen zum ,arianismus 7,beitrge zur ,geschichte der deutschen ,sprache1 xxii4 i4 #aeh ff474 ,jostes gives #chc as the date of ,ulfilas's death4 ,on the other side1 see ,kauffmann1 ,der ,arianismus des ,wulfila in the ,zfd,phil41 xxx4 7#ahig7 #ic-aac2 ,luft1 ,die arianischen ,quellen ber ,wulfila in the ,zfd,altert41 xlii4 #d2 ,vogt1 ,zu ,wulfilas ,bekenntnis und dem ,opus imperfectum1 ibid4 ,kauffmann1 ,beitrge zur ,quellenkritik der gotischen ,bibelbersetzung in the ,zfd,phil42 7ii47 das ,n4 ,t4 7xxx41 #ahig1 #ade-ahc72 7iii47 das gotische ,matthusevangelium und die ,itala2 7iv47 die griechische ,vorlage des gotischen ,johannesevangeliums 7xxxi41 #ahih1 #agg-aih73 also by the same author1 ,aus der ,schule des ,wulfila4 ,auxentii ,dorostorensis epistula de ,fide1 ,vita1 et ,obitu ,wulfila im ,zusammenhang der ,dissertatio ,maximini contra ,ambrosium herausgegeben4 ,strassburg1 #ahii4 ,p4 ,batiffol1 ,de quelques homilies de ,st4 ,chrysostome et de la version gothique des critures 7,revue ,biblique1 ,oct4 #ahii1 pp4 #eff-egb71 see also ,th,lz41 #aijj1 ,no4 i42 ,l,cbl41 #aijj1 ,no4 #bh4 ,on the relation of the ,gothic version to the codex ,brixianus 7f71 see ,burkitt in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 p4 #aca ff41 and compare ,addenda1 p4 xv4 ,on the ,gothic language and writing1 see ,douse1 ,introduction to the ,gothic of ,ulfilas4 ,london1 #ahhf2 the grammars of ,braune and ,skeat1 and the dictionaries of ,schulze1 ,heyne1 and ,bernhardt2 see also ,luft1 ,studien zu den ltesten germanischen ,alfabeten1 ,gtersloh1 #ahih1 viii4 #aae1 who traces eighteen characters to the ,greek alphabet and nine to the ,latin and ,ulfilas's own invention4 ,on ,r4 ,lwe's ,reste der ,germanen am schwarzen ,meer 7,halle1 #ahif71 see the story told by ,melanchthon according to ,pirkheimer 7,th4 ,st4 und ,kr41 #ahig1 #ghd ff474 ,to what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken directly from the ,greek or influenced by one or other of those already described is still subject of dispute4 7e47 ,,the ,,ethiopic ,,version4 ,according to the tradition of the ,abyssinian ,church1 the ,ethiopic version of the ,new ,testament was made from the ,greek previous to the fifth century4 ,dillmann accepts this as correct1 but ,gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or seventh century1 and thinks that traces are discernible of ,syrian ,monophysitism4 ,guidi decides for the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century4 ,in addition to the usual twenty-seven books1 the ,ethiopic ,new ,testament has an ,appendix consisting of a work on ,canon ,law in eight books called the ,synodos1 so that the ,ethiopian ,church reckons in all thirty-five books in the ,new ,testament4 ,in later times the version was undoubtedly corrected from ,arabic and ,coptic texts4 ,the first edition appeared in ,rome in #aedh-aedi1 but neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth4 ,at least a hundred ,ethiopic manuscripts1 mostly of late origin1 exist in the libraries of ,europe4 ,what is perhaps the oldest is preserved in ,paris4 ,it dates from the thirteenth century1 and exhibits the ,gospels in an unrevised text4 ,,literature4--,see ,ti,gr41 #hid-iab4 ,scrivener1 ii4 #aed ff4 re-written by ,margoliouth4 ,urt41 #adg-aej 7,f4 ,praetorius74 ,r4 ,h4 ,charles1 ,ethiopic ,version in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 i4 #gia-gic4 ,c4 ,conti ,rossini1 ,sulla ,versione e sulla ,revisione delle ,sacre ,scritture in ,etiopico1 in the ,z4 fr ,assyriologie1 x4 #b1 #c 7#ahie74 ,the view of ,lagarde 7,ankndigung1 #ahhb1 p4 #bh2 cf4 also ,gesammelte ,abhandlungen1 lxi4 #aac71 that this version may have been made from the ,arabic or ,egyptian in the fourteenth century1 is now generally rejected4 7f47 ,,the ,,armenian ,,version4 ,la ,croze1 the ,berlin ,librarian1 thought this the 8,queen of the ,versions40 ,till the fifth century of the ,christian era ,syrian influence was supreme in ,armenia1 and the inhabitants of that region first received the ,scriptures of the ,old and ,new ,testaments in the form of a translation from the ,syriac4 ,but in the year #dcc two pupils of ,mesrob1 returning from the ,synod of ,ephesus1 are said to have brought back with them from ,constantinople a ,greek ,bible1 and having learned ,greek in ,alexandria1 to have translated it into ,armenian4 ,according to another account this was done by ,st4 ,sahak 7#cij-dbh7 about the year #djf4 ,the first edition of the ,armenian ,new ,testament was brought out in ,amsterdam in the year #afffaac by ,osgan of ,eriwan1 who had been sent to ,europe four years previously by the ,armenian ,synod4 ,it was edited from a defective manuscript1 the missing portions of which ,osgan supplied from the ,vulgate4 ,a better edition was published in #aghi by ,zohrab1 who used twenty manuscripts1 and especially a ,cilician ,codex of the year #acaj4 ,he was of opinion that the ,armenians did not receive the ,apocalypse before the eighth century4 ,zohrab's text was collated for ,tregelles by ,rieu1 whom ,tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his editions4 ,the ,armenian manuscripts display variations of several sorts4 ,in some ,john's ,gospel precedes the ,synoptists1 in others it is followed by the ,apocryphal 8,rest of ,st4 ,john40 ,the ,apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfth century4 ,in the oldest manuscript of the entire ,new ,testament1 at ,venice1 which dates from the year #abbj1 the order of the other books is ,acts1 ,catholic ,epistles1 ,apocalypse1 ,pauline ,epistles1 with the ,epistle of the ,corinthians to ,paul4 ,in ,moscow there is a manuscript of the year #hhg1 in ,venice one dated #ijb1 in ,etschmiadzin one written in the year #ihf and bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century4 ,in the last-mentioned ,codex the words1 8of ,ariston the ,presbyter10 are found after ,mark xvi4 #h1 as the heading of what follows4 7,see ,plate ,,ix47 ,we learn from this1 what is evidently correct1 viz41 that the present conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel is due to a certain ,ariston1 who may perhaps be identified with ,aristion1 the teacher of ,papias in the second century4 ,the earlier ,armenian version also contained the two verses ,luke xxii4 #dc1 #dd1 which were omitted in the later4 ,,literature4--,ti,gr41 #iab-ibb4 ,scrivener1 ii4 #adh-aed4 ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare1 ,armenian ,versions of ,n4 ,t41 in ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 i4 #aec f4 ,see also ,j4 ,a4 ,robinson1 ,euthaliana1 c4 v42 ,the ,armenian ,version and its supposed relation to ,euthalius1 in ,texts and ,studies1 vol4 iii4 7#ahie74 ,on ,aristion see ,expositor1 #ahid1 p4 #bda1 and below1 p4 #bie4 7g47 ,,the ,,georgian ,,version4 ,this version1 called also the ,grusinian or ,iberian1 is thought to have been made from the ,greek in the sixth century1 though it may also be derived from the ,armenian4 ,it contains the pericope adulter 7,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa71 but places it immediately after ch4 vii4 #dd1 which is the more remarkable1 seeing that in the ,old ,latin ,codex b1 the passage from vii4 #dd onwards has been erased4 ,the ,georgian version was first printed at ,moscow in #agdc4 ,scrivener1 ii4 #aef-aeh2 re-written by ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare4 ,ti,gr41 #ibb f4 7h47 ,,the ,,arabic ,,versions4 ,some of these were made directly from the ,greek1 others from the ,syriac and the ,coptic1 while there are also manuscripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at ,alexandria in the thirteenth century1 ,the ,new ,testament was even cast into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the ,koran4 ,as early as the eighth century we find ,mohammedan scholars quoting various passages of the ,new ,testament1 particularly the sayings regarding the ,paraclete in ,john xv4 #bf1 #bg1 xvi4 #ac1 which they understood of ,mohammed4 ,he himself1 however1 knew the ,gospel narrative from oral tradition only4 ,the oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at ,sinai1 written in the ninth century1 from which ,mrs4 ,gibson edited the text of ,romans1 #a and #b ,cor41 ,gal41 and ,ephes4 i4 #a-;ii4 #i1 in the ,studia ,sinaitica1 ii4 ,the four ,gospels were published in #ahfd by ,lagarde from a ,vienna manuscript1 in which a number of various readings were cited from the ,coptic1 ,syriac1 and ,latin1 this last1 e4g41 being adduced in support of a reading hitherto found only in ,d1 one ,old ,latin 7g71 and the ,lewis-,syriac3 444 ' 7,matthew xviii4 #bj74 ,the first edition of the ,gospels appeared at ,rome in #aeia4 ,sidenote3 ,other versions4 ,in common with the remaining versions of the ,new ,testament1 ,persic1 ,old ,high ,german1 ,anglo-,saxon1 ,bohemian1 and ,slavonic1 these secondary ,arabic versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point of view of the history of language and culture1 but they are also valuable here and there for the restoration of the original text4 ,in the present work1 however1 we cannot enter more fully into them4 ,,literature4--,ti,gr41 #ibh-idg4 ,scrivener1 ii4 #afa-afd4 ,urt41 #aej-aee4 ,f4 ,c4 ,burkitt1 ,arabic ,versions1 in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 i4 #acf-ach1 where see literature4 ,burkitt thinks that the oldest monument of ,arabic ,christianity is the manuscript formerly belonging to the ,convent of ,mar ,saba1 now known as ,cod4 ,vat4 ,arab4 #ac1 and numbered #aja in ,ti,gr41 which is generally assigned to the eighth century4 ,it originally contained the ,psalter1 ,gospels1 ,acts1 and ,epistles1 and is derived from the ,syriac4 ,fragments of ,matthew1 ,mark1 and ,luke1 and of the ,pauline ,epistles1 are all that now remain4 ,from the same convent come two manuscripts of the ninth century1 containing a version made directly from the ,greek1 and perhaps ultimately derived from the ,greek-,arabic manuscript cited as h1 of which only four leaves have been preserved 7see above1 p4 #gb74 ,on a ,grco-,arabic ,,ms4 connected with the ,ferrar ,group 7#baa;ev71 see ,lake in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #aag ff4 ,most of the ,coptic manuscripts are accompanied by an ,arabic version4 ,the one contained in ,cod4 ,vat4 ,copt4 #i of the year #abjb is the best1 and forms the basis of our printed editions4 ,the first revision was undertaken in the year #abej1 at ,alexandria1 by ,hibat ,allh ibn el-,assl1 and a second towards the end of the thirteenth century1 from which the variants in ,lagarde's edition are derived4 ,an ,arabic version of the ,acts and all seven ,catholic ,epistles1 found in a ninth century manuscript at ,sinai1 and numbered #aed in ,mrs4 ,gibson's ,catalogue1 is published by her in ,studia ,sinaitica1 vii4 7#ahii74 ,for the remaining versions of the ,n4 ,t41 see ,scrivener1 ii4 pp4 #aeh-aff 7,slavonic1 ,anglo-,saxon1 ,frankish1 ,persic74 ,these minor versions will be treated in vol4 iv4 of ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 under the general heading of ,versions4 ,see also ,urtext und ,uebersetzungen der ,bibel4 #c4 ,,quotations4 ,our third source of material for the restoration of the text of the ,new ,testament is ,quotations found in other books4 ,these are of great value1 because they represent1 for the most part1 definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them1 and also because a large number of them belong to a time from which no codices have come down to us4 ,the value of their testimony depends1 of course1 on the conditions already mentioned 7p4 #cb7--viz41 that the author quoted accurately1 and the copyist copied faithfully1 and the editor edited correctly4 ,quotations made by ,jewish writers as well as by ,christian will fall to be considered1 only it is doubtful if in their case we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to ,matthew v4 #ag4 ,so1 too1 will the quotations made by pagan opponents of ,christianity1 particularly those of ,celsus in the second century1 and of the ,emperor ,julian4 ,but here again we are not in possession of their complete works1 which can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the ,apologists4#aad ,the books of those ,christian ,churches which were isolated from the main church will also be valuable4 ,even a verse of ,scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell us4 ,brief quotations were usually made from memory4 ,it was not so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy printed editions4#aae ,in the case of longer passages and verbal quotations generally1 indolent copyists were sometimes content with simply adding 4 ,in the ,apostolic ,constitutions1 ii4 #bb1 for example1 where the entire prayer of ,manasses was meant to be given1 the copyist of a certain manuscript1#aaf after writing the opening words from down to 1 omitted all the rest1 amounting to thirty-one lines of print1 substituting simply 4 7,see further1 ,apost4 ,const41 i4 #g1 ,lagarde1 p4 #h1 #bc2 ii4 #ad1 p4 #bh1 #g4 #aa2 #bi1 #b74 ,this1 however1 is not without its parallel in modern times4 ,as late as #ahgb1 an ,oxford editor1 in bringing out ,cyril of ,alexandria's ,commentary on the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,john1 wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in his manuscript1 and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a printed edition of the ,textus ,receptus4 ,another editor in ,vienna1 in preparing an edition of ,cyprian's ,works1 preferred those very manuscripts in which the ,scriptural quotations had been accommodated to the current text of later times4 ,only when a quotation is given by an author several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on the actual wording1 or when in a ,commentary1 e4g41 the context agrees with the quoted text4 ,collections of ,scriptural passages like the ,testimonia of ,cyprian and the so-called ,speculum of ,augustine are also taken directly from manuscripts of the ,bible4 ,francis ,lucas of ,brgge was the first to explore the writings of the ,church ,fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism4 ,they are referred to in four notes found in the ,complutensian ,polyglot4 ,in his edition of #aeaf1 ,erasmus cites a whole series of ,patristic witnesses--,ambrosius1 ,athanasius1 ,augustine1 ,cyprian1 ,gregory of ,nazianzen1 ,origen1 and ,theodoret4 ,since that time all judicious critics have paid attention to them4 ,valuable service has been rendered for ,tertullian by ,rnsch1 and for ,origen by ,griesbach4 ,for ,augustine1 ,lagarde is specially to be mentioned4 ,most of the ,fathers were thus cared for by ,burgon1 who indexed the ,new ,testament quotations in sixteen large volumes1 which were deposited in the ,british ,museum after his death4 ,the only pity is that the works of those very ,fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily edited4 ,all the more welcome1 therefore1 is the appearance of the ,vienna ,academy's ,corpus ,scriptorum ,ecclesiasticorum ,latinorum1 of which forty volumes have been issued since #ahfg1 and of the ,berlin ,academy's edition of the ,ante-,nicene ,greek ,fathers1 of which one volume of ,hippolytus and two of ,origen have made their appearance4#aag ,the earliest ,fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of the ,canon4 ,that is to say1 their evidence must be taken simply as showing what ,new ,testament writings they were acquainted with1 and here the argumentum ex silentio is to be applied with caution4 ,this is the case with ,barnabas and ,clement#aah in the first century1 and ,ignatius and ,hermas in the first half of the second4 ,even with the much more extensive writings of ,justin1 there is still considerable dispute--e4g41 as to what ,gospels he made use of4#aai ,irenus of ,lyons is valuable on account of his extreme carefulness1 and would be particularly so if it could be proved that he brought his ,new ,testament with him from ,smyrna#abj and if his writings were extant in ,greek1 and not1 as is the case with most of them1 in ,latin only4 ,in ,egypt ,clement of ,alexandria holds a prominent place1 but by far the most distinguished of all is the great ,biblical scholar of antiquity1 ,origen 7d4 #bdh74 ,already we find these writers appealing to manuscripts1 and distinguishing them by such epithets as 8good10 8old10 8emended10 8most10 or 8few40 ,in the case of the ,ante-,nicene ,fathers their locality is an important consideration1 whether ,antioch1 ,csarea 7,eusebius71 ,egypt1 ,constantinople 7,chrysostom71 or ,cappadocia 7,theodore71 etc4 ,their expositions of ,scripture are preserved in the so-called ,caten1 or continuous commentaries1 in which the interpretations of different ,fathers are arranged continuously like the links of a chain4 ,it not unfrequently happens in these ,caten that the words of one writer are cited under the name of another4 ,the evidence afforded by the writings of the ,heretics is no less valuable1 if we except those passages1 which are not numerous1 in which they are understood to have altered the text of the ,scriptures4 ,the works of ,marcion have been preserved for the most part in ,latin by ,tertullian4 ,they have recently been collected and restored by ,zahn4 ,the ,latin translator of ,irenus also belongs1 in all probability1 to the time of ,tertullian1 and not to the fourth century4 ,this unknown translator seems to have preserved the ,scriptural quotations of ,irenus with greater fidelity than the later ,church ,fathers who cite them in the ,greek4 ,of ,latin writers contemporary with or subsequent to ,tertullian1 those of most importance for the text of the ,old ,latin ,bible are ,cyprian1 ,hilary of ,poictiers1 ,ambrose of ,milan1 ,augustine and his opponent ,pelagius1 and for the ,apocalypse1 ,tyconius and ,primasius4 ,from the works of ,augustine ,lagarde collected no fewer than #biedj quotations from the ,new ,testament in addition to #acbgf from the ,old4 ,valuable testimony is also afforded by ,syrian and ,armenian writers4 ,it is only with their assistance1 e4g41 that it has been possible to restore one of our oldest authorities--the ,diatessaron of ,tatian--which dates from the second century4 7#a7 ,further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature of manuscripts and printed editions4 ,we find1 e4g41 in the voluminous commentary of the so-called ,ambrosiaster1#aba the following note on the quotation in #a ,cor4 ii4 #i3--8;,eye hath not seen1 etc40--8hoc est scriptum in ,apocalypsi ,heliae in apocryphis40 ,in place of the last five words1 two manuscripts and all the printed editions previous to that of ,st4 ,maur--i4e4 prior to the year #afij--;have 8in ,esaia propheta aliis verbis40 ,compare also what ,zahn says in his ,einleitung1 ii4 #cad4 8,a comparison of the quotations in ,matthew with the ,,lxx4 is rendered more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written by ,christians1 and especially in ,cod4 ,alexandrinus1 the text of the ,o4 ,t4 has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in the ,n4 ,t4 ,cf41 also1 p4 #efc on the quotation from ,zechariah xii4 #aj1 found in ,john xix4 #cg40 ,the same writer says 7p4 #dfe73 8,in the ,chronicle of ,georgios ,hamartolos 7circa #hfj71 all the manuscripts save one assert the peaceful death of ,john 7 71 but this one says the very opposite1 1 and goes on to make certain other additions40 ,on the other hand1 we must not forget in this connection the testimony preserved by ,eusebius to the scrupulous care taken by ,irenus for the propagation of his writings in the identical form in which he wrote them4 ,according to that historian1 he wrote at the end of one of his works the following note3-- 1 1 1 4#abb 7#b7 ,it was ,lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the unsatisfactory way in which the ,fathers had previously been edited4 ,how much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by the discussions connected with the treatment of ,scriptural quotations in the new ,vienna edition of ,augustine 7see ,urt41 #gf1 #id2 ,preuschen1 in the ,th,lz4 for #ahig1 #bd1 col4 #fcj74 ,even in the new ,berlin edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the ,scriptural quotations exhibited in the text1 but must always verify it by means of an independent examination of the apparatus4 ,a few passages from the first volume of ,origen recently published will show this1 and prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been hitherto4 ,this first volume of ,koetschau's new edition of ,origen opens with the ,exhortation to ,martyrdom 7 71 a work which is to be assigned to the year #bce4 ,the text of previous editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at ,basel written in the sixteenth century 7,no4 #ca1 ,a4 iii4 #i71 which is itself a copy1 and a not altogether correct copy1 of a ,parisian manuscript written in the year #acci1 not known to the first editors of ,origen 7,p suppl4 grec4 #faf74 ,moreover1 the ,basel manuscript was not transcribed with sufficient accuracy1 or the print was not superintended with sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first printed edition of #afgd4 ,with the help of a fresh manuscript 7,m ,venetus ,marc4 #de1 of the fourteenth century7 it is now established that the writer of ,p arbitrarily altered the text in a great number of passages1 and1 above all1 abridged it mainly by the excision of ,scriptural quotations4 ,where ,origen1 e4g41 in citing a passage gives all three ,synoptists1 ,p quite calmly drops one of them4 ,the ,panegyric of ,gregory ,thaumaturgus is treated in the same way1 this manuscript omitting about #ajj out of some #abjj lines of print4 ,and these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for our ,patristic quotations6 ,to take an example3 ,on 1 ,luke ix4 #bf1 ,tischendorf1 who in his seventh edition gave 7 my followers7 as the correct reading1 observed that this reading1 without 1 was supported by ,dael ,or41 i4 #bih4 ,but he added--and this is a proof of the carefulness with which the quotation from ,origen is employed here--sed prcedit 4 ,but if we turn up this passage in the new edition1 we find that it now reads 7i4 #cd1 #i ff473 ' 1 and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order frequently found in ,origen--viz41 ,matthew x4 #cc ,luke ix4 #bf ,mark viii4 #ch4 ,previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation1 as well as the words in the context1 4 ,but now everything is in order4 ,the words ' refer to ' in ,matt4 x4 #cc2 to in ,luke ix4 #bf2 and to 1 in ,mark viii4 #ch4 ,so that whereas1 on the ground of previous editions1 ,tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between ,origen's context and his peculiar quotation from ,luke1 the context of the new edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation1 and shows at the same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very passage1 as against a former passage 7p4 #bif #ca1 #g71 where the verse in ,luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words 4 ,that the editor should have put in the first passage within brackets1 or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down1 would have been too much to expect1 seeing that his manuscripts of ,origen gave no manner of ground for doing so2 it is the duty of those who investigate the ,scriptural quotations in ,origen to pay attention to such things4 ,but there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face of his manuscripts1 and wrongly altered the text of his ,scriptural quotations1 having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the printed text of the ,n4 ,t41 and paying too little respect to the manuscripts4 ,an attentive reader will have observed that the reading in ,luke ix4 #bf1 my followers1 which is now established for ,origen1 is at present supported by ,d alone of the ,greek manuscripts and by three ,old ,latin witnesses4 7,it is also found in the ,curetonian ,syriac1 but unfortunately the corresponding words in the ,sinai-,syriac could not be made out with certainty by ,mrs4 ,lewis2 see ,some ,pages1 p4 #gb p4 #afh in the first edition74 ,now1 look at the passage in ,origen's work1 i4 #be1 #bf ff4 7p4 #bic in ,de la ,rue's edition73 444 444 1 444 ,the passage is printed thus by ,koetschau1 agreeing exactly with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the ,n4 ,t4 in ,mark xiv4 #cf4 ,but in this he is far wrong4 ,because1 as his own apparatus shows us1 the ,venetian manuscript1 which he rightly follows elsewhere1 reads the words in the order 1 which is exactly the order of the words 7,mark xiv4 #cf7 in ,d1 but again in no other ,greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive #dgc4abc ,but there are even passages where ,koetschau follows the printed text of the ,n4 ,t4 in the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts4 ,in i4 #bi1 #ac 7i4 #bie ,de la ,rue71 where ,matt4 x4 #ag-bc is quoted1 he inserts after the clause from ,matt4 x4 #ai1 on the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the archetype of ,m ,p on account of the homoioteleuton4 ,but they are also omitted in ,cod4 ,d of the ,n4 ,t4 ,and this1 moreover1 is not the only point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in this quotation4 ,there is1 e4g41 the omission of in v4 #ag1 the reading in v4 #ai1 which ,koetschau has altered to the more grammatical 1 again without sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts1 and the omission of in v4 #bj1 of which there is no mention in ,tischendorf 7see the ,collation of ,d in my ,supplementum74 ,origen also agrees with ,d1 though not verbally1 in reading further down 7v4 #bc71 where again ,koetschau seems to me to have unnecessarily inserted 1 which is omitted in his principal manuscript and also in ,d4 ,compare1 also1 i4 #bb1 #ab1 where ,origen agrees with ,d in reading 7,luke xii4 #aa7 instead of 1 read by our critical editions on the authority of ,b ,l ,x1 or by the textus receptus with ,a ,q ,r1 etc4 ,both concur1 also1 in the omission of the first in the same verse4 ,what is here said as to the close affinity of ,origen's ,bible with ,codex ,d is corroborated by the testimony of the ,athos manuscript discovered by von der ,goltz 7see above1 p4 #ij74 ,this manuscript confirms what we knew before--viz4 that ,marcion's text had and not or in #a ,cor4 x4 #i4 ,but it also tells us what we did not know--viz4 that was the only reading known to ,origen1 and that in the ,synodical ,epistle addressed to ,paul of ,samosata1 published by ,turrianus 7in ,routh's ,reliqui ,sacr1 iii4#b #bii71 is not the original reading but a later substitute for 4 ,this is made out by ,zahn in the ,th,lbl41 #ahii1 col4 #ahj1 who concludes by saying that ,clement1 ,ecl4 ,proph41 #di1 should not be omitted in a proper apparatus1 and that ought never again to be printed in the text4 ,our most recent editors1 ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 ,weiss1 and ,baljon1 put in their text without so much as mentioning in the margin1 or among the ,noteworthy ,rejected ,readings1 or in the list of ,interchanged ,words 7,weiss1 p4 #g74 ,in the ,stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous editions1 and ,i was obliged to let stand in the text1 but ,i have put in the margin1 as ,tregelles also did4 ,in this instance the textus receptus is actually better than our critical editions4 ,the rejected reading is again the ,western1 and ,zahn1 in commenting on the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of #a ,john iv4 #c 7see below1 p4 #cbg71 pertinently remarks that 8here again it is perfectly evident1 as any discerning person might have known1 that many important readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as ,western1 were long prevalent in the ,east as well1 not only among the ,syrians but also among the ,alexandrians1 and were only discarded by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of ,origen40 ,these illustrations will serve to show that not only is the editing of the ,patristic texts no easy matter1 but also that the employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks4 ,see ,koetschau1 ,bibelcitate bei ,origenes1 ,zfw,th41 #aijj1 pp4 #cba-cgh4 7#c7 ,the ,rev4 ,prebendary ,ed4 ,miller is at present at work on a ,textual ,commentary upon the ,holy ,gospels1 on the ground of ,burgon's ,collection and his own researches4 ,a specimen of this work 7,matthew v4 #dd7 is given in his ,present ,state of the ,textual ,controversy respecting the ,holy ,gospels1 which was printed for private circulation1 and may be had of the author4#abd ,in this little pamphlet he takes up the question 7p4 #cj7 whether ,origen in the ,de ,oratione #a 7,de la ,rue1 i4 #aih2 ,koetschau1 ii4 #bii1 #bb7 quotes from ,luke 7vi4 #bh7 or ,matthew 7v4 #dd71 and decides for the latter4 ,koetschau is of the opposite opinion1 giving 8,luke vi4 #bh 7,matthew v4 #dd740 ,in the case of ,patristic quotations1 it will be seen that matters are frequently very complicated4 ,it must be borne in mind1 too1 that the various writers did not use the same copy of the ,scriptures all their life long4 ,at different times and in different localities they must necessarily have had different copies before them4 7#d7 ,it is further to be observed that in the case of controversial writings1 such as those of ,origen against ,celsus1 and ,augustine against the ,manichans1 the question must always be considered whether the ,scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made by ,origen and ,augustine themselves1 or taken by them from the writings they assail or refer to2 and also whether the quotations have been made directly from a manuscript of the ,bible1 or from the works of a previous writer4 ,borrowing from an author without acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in olden times than it is even at present4 ,in ,clement of ,rome 7c4 #ac71 in ,clement of ,alexandria 7,stromata1 ii4 p4 #dgf71 and partly also in the ,epistle of ,polycarp 7c4 #b71 we find the following quotation3--8,be ye merciful that ye may obtain mercy3 forgive that ye may be forgiven3 as ye do1 so shall it be done to you3 as ye give1 so shall it be given to you3 as ye judge1 so shall ye be judged3 as ye are kind1 so shall kindness be shown to you3 with what measure ye mete1 it shall be meted unto you40 ,we find also in ,clement of ,rome 7c4 #df71 and in ,clement of ,alexandria 7,stromata1 iii4 p4 #efa71 the quotation3 8,woe to that man3 it were good for him if he had never been born1 rather than that he should offend one of my elect3 it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea1 than that he should offend one of my little ones40 ,neither of these quotations is found literally in our canonical ,gospels4 ,accordingly1 ,rendel ,harris concludes from the testimony of these various witnesses that they must have been taken from an ,urevangelium1 now perished 7,contemporary ,review1 ,sept4 #ahig74 ,this view is combated1 it seems to me rightly1 by ,h4 ,t4 ,andrews in the ,expository ,times for ,november #ahig1 p4 #id f4 ,he thinks it probable that ,clement of ,alexandria and ,polycarp are both dependent on ,clement of ,rome4#abe 7#e7 ,in spite of all these difficulties1 a systematic examination of the ,patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for the textual criticism of the ,n4 ,t4 ,we have most useful collections1 both ancient and modern1 of passages from the ,fathers to illustrate the history of the ,canon1 and their use of the ,scriptures has been scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history1 but there are not yet1 so far as ,i know1 any collections of ,patristic quotations to elucidate the history of the text4 ,two things are specially wanted at present4 ,one is a collection1 arranged according to time and locality1 of all the passages in which the ,fathers appeal to 4 ,in the new volumes of ,origen1 e4g41 we find two such references-- 7i4 #aac71 and 7ii4 #eb74abf ,the other desideratum is a collection of all the passages in the biographies of the ,saints where mention is made of the writing of ,biblical manuscripts4 ,it is said of ,evagrius1 e4g41 in the ,historia ,lausiaca 7c4 #bh in ,preuschen1 ,palladius1 p4 #aaa71 1 and the preparation of ,biblical manuscripts is also referred to in the ,vita ,epiphanii 7ed4 ,petav4 ii471 and in ,cassiodorus1 ,de ,institutione ,divinarum ,literarum 7see above1 p4 #ej74 ,on the use hitherto made of ,patristic testimony see the section ,de ,scriptoribus ,ecclesiasticis in ,ti,gr41 #aabi-abcj4 ,an abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in ,baljon's ,new ,testament1 pp4 xv4-xxiii4 ,a catalogue of the names and dates of the ,patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the ,n4 ,t4 is given in ,scrivener1 ii4 pp4 #agb-agd4abg ,see also ,urt41 p4 #bb1 #ef f41 #id4 ,on the ,old ,latin ,didascalia1 see ,ed4 ,hauler in the ,w4,s4,b41 #ahie1 vol4 cxxxiv4 p4 #dj ff41 and the ,mitteilungen of ,b4 ,g4 ,teubner1 #ahig1 ii4 p4 #eb4abh ,on the ,biblical text of ,filastrius 7,c4,s4,e41 vol4 xxxviii41 #ahih71 see ,kroll in the notice of ,marx's edition in the ,berlin4 ,phil4 ,wochenschrift1 #ahih1 #bg4 ,on ,jovinian1 see ,,tu41 ,new ,series1 ii4 #a1 etc4 ,on the quotations from the ,gospels in ,novatian 7,pseudo-,cyprian7 see ,harnack in ,,tu41 xiii4 #d4 ,footnote #ah3 ,zahn1 ,geschichte des ,n4,t4 ,kanons1 i4 #feb2 ,einleitung1 i4 #aec4 ,footnote #ai3 ,from the ,cod4 ,monac4 #bee and #eea1 published by ,aug4 ,thenn in the ,zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche ,theologie #bi 7#ahhg71 #dec4 ,footnote #bj3 ,the most convenient survey of these is given in ,vollert's 8,tabellen zur neutestamentlichen ,zeitgeschichte3 mit einer ,uebersicht ber die ,codices in denen die ,n4,t4 ,schriften bezeugt sind40 ,leipzig1 #ahig4 ,given in ,sitterly 7see above1 p4 #cc74 ,footnote #ba3 ,see e4g4 ,plate ,i4 ,footnote #bb3 ,see e4g4 ,plate ,x4 ,footnote #bc3 ,see ,scrivener1 i4 p4 #afj2 ,rahlfs1 ,gttinger gelehrte ,nachrichten1 #ahih1 i4 #ih-aab4 ,footnote #bd3 ,ti,gr41 pp4 #abcc ff42 ,warfield1 ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4,t41 p4 #dg4 ,footnote #be3 ,to obviate confusion1 it would be well to use the ,latin name ,evangeliarium4 means a ,table of ,lections4 7,see ,brightman1 in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 #aijj1 p4 #ddh1 and now ,gregory1 ,textkritik1 i4 p4 #ccd f47 ,footnote #bf3 ,nat4 ,hist41 xiii4 #aa4 ,footnote #bg3 ,egitto1 #bnd ed41 p4 #abe4 ,footnote #bh3 ,vide ,th4 ,mommsen1 ,das ,diokletianische ,edikt ber die ,warenpreise 7,hermes1 xxv4 #ag-cf1 #ahij72 on the fragments recently discovered in ,megalopolis1 see ,w4 ,loring1 ,journal of ,hellenic ,studies1 #ahij1 #bii2 also1 ,revue ,archologique1 ,mars-,avril1 #ahia1 #bfh4 ,footnote #bi3 ,herodotus v4 #eh4 ,on the connection of litera and 1 see ,m4 ,bral1 ,rev4 des ,et4 grecques1 iii4 #aj1 #ahij1 #aba ff41 and ,rev4 ,crit41 #ahib1 #ac4 ,in ,cyprus the schoolmaster was called the 4 ,footnote #cj3 ,cf4 ,codex ,d1 ,mark i4 #f4 ,footnote #ca3 ,cf4 ,victor ,schultze1 ,rolle und ,codex1 in the ,greifswalder ,studien1 ,gtersloh1 #ahie1 p4 #adi ff4 ,footnote #cb3 ,vide ,c4 ,r4 ,gregory1 ,sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs1 ,acadmie des ,inscriptions1 ,aug4 #ahhe2 ,berliner ,phil4 ,wochenschrift1 #ahhf1 v4 #aei ff4 ,footnote #cc3 ,e4g4 in ,cod4 ,barocc4 #a in the ,bodleian1 and in several ,syriac manuscripts4 ,footnote #cd3 ,vide ,g4 ,ebers1 ,kaiser ,hadrian3 also ,the ,writing ,material of ,antiquity1 by ,ebers1 in the ,cosmopolitan ,magazine1 ,new ,york1 ,nov4 #ahic2 and especially ,dziatzko 7see above1 p4 #cc74 ,on the papyrus plant 7,cyperus papyrus ,l41 ,papyrus ,antiquorum ,willd471 see ,bernard de ,montfaucon1 ,dissertation sur la plante appele ,papyrus1 sur le papier d'gypte1 etc4 ,memoires de l',acadmie ,royale des ,inscriptions et ,belles ,lettres1 ,t4 vi4 ,paris1 #agbi1 #dto41 pp4 #eib-fjh2 ,franz ,woenig1 ,die ,pflanzen im alten ,aegypten1 ihre ,heimat1 ,geschichte1 ,kultur1 ,leipzig1 #ahhf1 pp4 #gd-abi4 ,j4 ,hoskyns-,abrahall pointed out that it is found in ,europe1 not only in the neighbourhood of ,syracuse in ,sicily1 but also on the shores of ,lake ,trasimene3 see ,the ,papyrus in ,europe1 in the ,academy1 #aith ,mar4 #ahhg4 ,lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus 7which has not yet been explained71 whether it might not be derived from ,bura on ,lake ,menzaleh1 where it was first manufactured1 pa being the article in ,egyptian2 see his ,mitteilungen1 ii4 #bfj4 ,if this is so1 there is the more reason for pronouncing the y long1 as ancient writers did1 and not short as the modern fashion is--paprus1 not ppyrus4 ,cf4 ,juvenal1 iv4 #bd2 vii4 #aja2 ,mart4 iii4 #b2 viii4 #dd2 x4 #ig4 ,catull4 xxxv4 #b4 ,ovid1 ,met4 xv4 #gec2 ,trist4 iii4 #aj1 #bg4 ,footnote #ce3 ,see ,u4 ,wilcken1 ,recto oder ,verso1 ,hermes1 #ahhg1 #dhg-dib4 ,footnote #cf3 ,apoc4 v4 #a can no longer be cited in support of this practice1 seeing we must take with 1 according to ,grotius and ,zahn4 ,on 1 cf4 ,lucian1 ,vitarum ,auctio1 #i2 ,pliny1 #c1 #e2 a tergo ,juvenal1 #a1 #f2 in aversa charta1 ,martial1 #h1 #bb4 ,footnote #cg3 ,pausanias1 ix4 #ca1 #d4 ,footnote #ch3 ,deissmann1 ,bibelstudien1 #bf-ed4 ,footnote #ci3 ,hiller von ,gaertringen1 ,berl4 ,sitz4-,ber41 #bast ,july #ahih4 ,footnote #dj3 ,see ,wilcken1 ,verein von ,alterstumsfreunden im ,rheinland4 ,heft lxxxvi4 p4 #bcd2 also the ,berl4 ,phil4 ,wochenschrift1 #ahhi1 #bf4 ,footnote #da3 ,cf4 ,livy1 ,b4 iv4 c4 #g2 ,pliny1 xiii4 #aa1 8postea publica monumenta plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt40 ,footnote #db3 ,jdisches ,literaturblatt1 #ahhi1 #aj4 ,footnote #dc3 ,cf4 the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in ,andros by ,ross in #ahdd3-- 444 ' 4444 ,footnote #dd3 ,see ,nestle1 ,bengel1 p4 #aje4 ,footnote #de3 ,zeitschrift fr das ,humanistische ,gymnasium1 #ahif1 p4 #bg4 ,footnote #df3 ,o4 ,hoffmann1 ,griechische ,dialekte1 i4 #ajg4 ,footnote #dg3 ,probably pens of the first quality--4 ,footnote #dh3 ,harris1 ,last ,words of ,baruch1 vi4 #ag1 p4 #ef4 ,footnote #di3 ,vide ,harnack1 ,t4 und ,u41 ii4 #e1 p4 #fh4 ,footnote #ej3 ,socin1 ,arabic ,grammar1 #bnd ed41 p4 #ee1 line #ad2 p4 #ef1 line #ab4 ,footnote #ea3 ,zdm,g41 xliii4 #edg4 ,footnote #eb3 ,konstantin ,oikonomos1 1 ,bk4 iv4 p4 #ige4 ,footnote #ec3 ,hody1 #afhd1 p4 #bed ff4 ,footnote #ed3 ,vide ,harnack in the ,th,lz41 #ahhe1 cols4 #cba1 #cbd1 n4 #e4 ,footnote #ee3 ,ed4 ,feige1 p4 #ec4 ,footnote #ef3 ,divin4 ,lect41 c4 xv4 ,footnote #eg3 ,schs4 ,sitz4-,ber4 7#ahhi71 xi4 #d1 #cfi4 ,footnote #eh3 ,balsamon1 the ,canonist 7c4 #abjj71 complains that ' 1 and he requests 4 ,footnote #ei3 ,on ,constantine's ,bibles1 see ,westcott1 ,canon1 c4 ii4 p4 #dbf2 ,bible in the ,church1 c4 vi4 p4 #aee ff42 ,zahn1 ,geschichte des ,n4 ,t4 ,kanons1 i4 #fd4 ,zahn combats the supposition that the entire ,bible was contained in each ,codex1 pointing out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been 1 and moreover that ,constantine speaks of 1 which does not mean codices but something much more indefinite4 ,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 written4 8,the fifty ,bibles might and would be distributed in #bjj to #djj volumes40 ,according to the view taken above there would be from #aej to #bjj of these4 ,cf4 ,scrivener1 i4 p4 #aah1 n4 #b4 ,footnote #fj3 ,for the order of the books in 1 see ,westcott1 ,bible in the ,church1 ,appendix ,b1 8,contents of the most ancient ,,mss4 of the ,bible 7,a1 ,b1 1 ,d1 ,amiat4702 ,hist4 of the ,canon1 ,appendix ,d1 8,catalogues of ,books of the ,bible during the first eight ,centuries40 ,footnote #fa3 ,six leaves are now wanting between ,barnabas and ,hermas4 ,what did these contain1 shall we suppose8 ,perhaps the ,didache4 ,schmiedel makes a different conjecture in the ,literarisches ,centralblatt1 #ahig1 n4 #di ,footnote #fb3 ,vide ,wordsworth and ,white1 ,epilogus1 p4 #gcg1 ,de ,sectionibus ,ammonianis in ,evangeliis4 ,footnote #fc3 4 ,footnote #fd3 ,this agrees with the last of the so-called ,apostolic ,canons 7#he71 which includes among the ,books of the ,new ,testament after the ,epistles of ,james and ,jude4 ,see ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,appendix ,d4 iii4 a4 ,footnote #fe3 ,on the ,alexandrian division of the ,gospels into #fh1 #dh1 #hc1 and #ah sections respectively1 see ,kenyon in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #adi4 ,footnote #ff3 ,for the ,festal ,letter1 see ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,app4 ,d4 xiv41 p4 #eed2 ,bible in the ,church1 p4 #aei ff42 ,preuschen's ,analecta1 pp4 #add ff42 ,burgess1 ,festal ,letters of ,athanasius translated from the ,syriac1 p4 #acg4 ,sahidic published by ,c4 ,schmidt in the ,nachrichten mentioned above1 #ahih1 p4 #afg ff4 ,he holds it to be the original form of the ,letter4 ,footnote #fg3 ,e4g4 1 #abb;b1 #d4 ,footnote #fh3 ,an ,indiction is a cycle of fifteen years1 computed by the ,greeks from #ast ,september #cab ,a4,d4 ,its introduction was ascribed to ,constantine the ,great4 ,see ,scrivener1 i41 ,app4 ,c1 p4 #chj4 ,footnote #fi3 ,see ,scrivener1 #a4 p4 #afj1 under 4 ,this minuscule seems to be omitted from ,scrivener's list4 ,see below1 p4 #ahe4 ,footnote #gj3 8,to ,rome to come1 to ,rome to come1 ,much of trouble1 little of profit1 ,the thing thou seekest here1 ,if thou bring not with thee1 thou findest not02 etc41 etc4 ,see ,scrivener1 i4 #ahj4 ,footnote #ga3 ,or ,evagrius4 ,the name is difficult to decipher4 ,see below1 pp4 #ahh ff4 ,footnote #gb3 444 4 ,footnote #gc3 ,perhaps in ,sardinia1 see below4 ,cf4 ,scrivener1 i4 p4 #fc n4 #a4 ,footnote #gd3 ,see ,scrivener 7,miller71 i4 p4 #cig4 ,footnote #ge3 ,compare the remarks of ,grenfell-,hunt on the papyrus 7and vellum7 books and their respective handwritings in ,part ,,ii4 of the ,oxyrhynchus ,papyri1 p4 #b f4 ,footnote #gf3 ,facsimiles of #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf are given in ,abbott's ,collation of ,four ,important ,manuscripts 7,dublin1 #ahgg72 see ,scrivener1 i4 #cdc1 ,plate ,,xiii1 #dj4 ,footnote #gg3 ,see ,blass's ,praefatio to his edition of ,luke1 pp4 lxix f4 7#ahig71 and compare ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 iii4 p4 #add2 ,hoskier1 above1 p4 #e2 below1 p4 #baa4 ,footnote #gh3 ,zahn asserts that traces of a system of ,lections are to be found as early as in ,irenaeus1 and likewise in ,codex ,d4 ,einleitung1 ii4 #cee1 on ,luke i4 #bf4 ,footnote #gi3 ,on ,luke viii4 #ae ,tischendorf observes that in #di;evl 7a ,lectionary of the tenth or eleventh century1 now in ,moscow1 presented to the ,monastery of the ,mother of ,god by ,nicephorus1 ,metropolitan of ,crete1 and ,antistes of ,lacedmon1 in #acab7 the lection ended with this verse 7#ae7 and the words attached to it1 8,and so saying ,he cried1 ,he that hath ears to hear1 let him hear10 and that the additional verses were not read 1 but vv4 #bj1 #ba-be followed immediately after the words 7v4 #ae74 ,footnote #hj3 ,on the 8,livre d'vangiles rput avoir appartenu ,s4 ,jean ,chrysostome10 cf4 ,ch4 ,graux1 in the ,revue de ,philologie1 ,avril #ahhg4 ,footnote #ha3 ,cf4 ,eusebius1 ,demons4 ,evan41 iii4 #g1 #ae1 4 ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #cc2 ,theoph41 v4 #fd2 ,laud4 ,const41 xvii4 #i4 ,footnote #hb3 ,the date of ,tatian's birth is uncertain4 ,zahn decides for the year #aaj4 ,he was in the prime of manhood by the year #afj4 ,see ,hastings1 ,bible ,dictionary1 ii4 p4 #fig4 ,footnote #hc3 ,see below1 p4 #bac1 n4 #c4 ,footnote #hd3 ,the ,peshitto1 so indicated from the principal edition by ,schaaf1 #agjh-i4 ,footnote #he3 ,the ,dialogues of ,athanasius and ,zacchaeus1 and of ,timothy and ,aquila4 ,edited with ,prolegomena and ,facsimiles by ,f4 ,c4 ,conybeare 7,oxford1 #ahih2 ,anecdota ,oxoniensia1 ,classical ,series1 ,part ,,viii474 ,see ,notice in the ,lit4 ,cbl41 #ahii1 ,no4 #e1 col4 #aed f4 ,footnote #hf3 ,dates are still reckoned in ,syria according to the ,greek era1 counting from the year #cab ,b4,c4 ,footnote #hg3 ,hierapolis1 now ,membidsch on the ,euphrates4 ,footnote #hh3 ,i4 ,h4 ,hall1 ,syriac ,manuscript ,gospels of a ,pre-,harklensian ,version1 #ahhc4 ,footnote #hi3 ,the ,gospels appeared in #aggh1 the ,acts and ,catholic ,epistles in #agii1 and the ,pauline ,epistles in #ahjc4 ,footnote #ij3 ,in ,tischendorf's critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as ,syrp7osterior7 or as ,syrwhit7e74 ,it would be better to use the symbol ,syrpo7lycarp7 for the first version of #ejh made by ,polycarp for ,philoxenus1 and ,syrtho7mas7 for ,thomas of ,harkel's recension of #faf4 ,gebhardt's notation is as follows3--,syra is the ,curetonian2 ,syrb is the ,peshitto2 ,syrc is the ,harklean1 of which again ,syrct is the text1 ,syrcm the margin1 ,syrc99 sub asterisco2 ,syrd is the ,jerusalem ,syriac2 while ,syrbodl is the text of #b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 and ,jude4 ,zahn proposes to indicate the ,philoxenian 7,tischendorf's ,syrbodl7 by ,syr#b1 and the ,harklean by ,syr#c2 for the ,gospels he would employ ,syrc1 ,syrs1 ,syrh2 ,syr#a1 therefore1 is the ,peshitto4 ,footnote #ia3 ,land1 in the ,anecdota ,syriaca1 iv41 #ahge2 ,harris1 ,biblical ,fragments from ,mount ,sinai1 #ahij2 ,gwilliam1 in the ,anecdota ,oxoniensia1 ,semitic ,series1 i4 #e1 #ahic2 ix4 #ahif2 ,lewis-,nestle-,gibson1 ,studia ,sinaitica1 vi4 ,footnote #ib3 ,see ,f4 ,buli1 ,wo lag ,stridon1 die ,heimat des h4 ,hieronymus8 in the ,festschrift fr ,otto ,benndorf4 ,vienna1 #ahih4 ,also ,la patrie de ,s4 ,jerome in ,analecta ,bollandiana1 xviii4 #c4 ,footnote #ic3 ,einleitung1 ii4 #aie4 ,footnote #id3 ,epilogus ad ,evangelia1 p4 #fef4 ,footnote #ie3 ,no4 #ga2 #afd in ,jerome's letters4 ,footnote #if3 ,no4 #ef 7,a4,d4 #cid71 #fg 7#cig71 #aja 7#djb74 ,footnote #ig3 ,burkitt's view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by ,c4 ,a4 ,breyther1 in a dissertation entitled1 ,de vi quam antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum ,,iv4 habent 7,merseburg1 #ahbd74 ,see v4 ,dobschtz1 ,th,lz41 #ahig1 #ace4 ,footnote #ih3 ,photolithographed by ,cldat from a ,,ms4 at ,lyons4 ,footnote #ii3 ,j4 ,heidenreich1 ,der neutestamentliche ,text bei ,cyprian verglichen mit dem ,vulgatatext4 ,eine textkritische ,untersuchung zu den h4 ,schriften des ,neuen ,testamentes4 ,bamberg1 #aijj4 ,footnote #ajj3 ,this is the view of ,zahn4 ,others1 however1 have no doubt that ,tertullian made use of a ,latin version4 ,hoppe1 in his treatise1 ,de sermone ,tertullianeo ,quaestiones ,selectae 7#ahig71 p4 #f 7de ,graecismis ,tertulliani7 says1 8,permultas enim 7constructiones7 ,t4 mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis1 quibus assidue studuit1 vel ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante1 qua utebatur40 ,and to this he adds1 8,quam multa vocabula graeca in ,tertullianeum sermonem ex ,itala quae vocatur translatione redundaverint1 discas ex ,roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto1 qui inscribitur1 ,itala und ,vulgata1 ed4 sec41 p4 #bch40 ,the ,itala is cited for sciant quia 7p4 #ah71 absque 7p4 #dd71 and for the use of the superlative for the positive 7p4 #di74 ,on this last the writer refers to ,rnsch1 p4 #dae1 and adds1 8ex ,itala ,t4 hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur1 quamquam in universum vitat40 ,cf4 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,part ,i41 c4 iii4 p4 #bea ff4 ,footnote #aja3 ,thus we have1 following the numbers given above1 in verse #d 7#a7 and 7or 71 7#b7 and 1 7#c7 and 1 7#d7 and 1 7#e7 and 1 7#g7 7or 7 and 7or 71 7#h7 7or 7 and 1 7#i7 and 772 in verse #aa1 7#aj7 and its omission2 in verse #ac1 7#ad7 and 1 7#ae7 and 1 7#af7 and 4 ,of these 7#h71 7#ae71 and 7#af7 are found only in ,d4 ,in the case of 7#ae7 the very same variation is found at ,tob4 vi4 #aj in the two recensions represented by ,codex ,vaticanus and ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,footnote #ajb3 #ahhi1 #ia1 #ic1 #ie1 #ih2 cited in the sequel as ,w4-,w4 ,footnote #ajc3 ,on the ,epilogus to the first volume of their ,oxford edition1 see especially ,s4 ,berger in the ,revue ,critique1 #ahhi1 pp4 #ada-add2 and on the whole1 ,burkitt1 ,the ,vulgate ,gospels and the ,codex ,brixianus1 in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,i4 i4 7,oct4 #ahii7 pp4 #abi-acd4 ,footnote #ajd3 ,compare ,e4 ,maugenot1 ,les manuscrits grecs des vangiles employs par ,saint ,jerme1 in the ,revue des sciences ecclsiastiques1 ,january #aijj4 ,footnote #aje3 ,the ,new ,testament is contained in vol4 iii4 ,the copy ,i use has the date #agdc on the title-pages of three volumes1 but there is a note at the end1 p4 #aaae1 which says1 8,e prelo exiit hic tomus anno #agdi40 ,rom1 #agac-ai1 in ,ti,gr41 p4 #acej1 is a misprint4 ,the imprimaturs of the first volume are dated #agcg4 ,the work was reprinted with new title-pages at ,paris by ,fr4 ,didot1 #agea4 ,copies now cost from #ae to #be4 ,footnote #ajf3 ,the word ,coptic is not derived from the town in ,upper ,egypt called ,coptos1 but is a modification of the ,greek word 4 ,footnote #ajg3 ,the spelling ,bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word4 ,footnote #ajh3 ,on the ,middle ,egyptian1 see ,w4 ,e4 ,crum in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,i4 #c 7,april #aijj71 pp4 #daf ff4 ,footnote #aji3 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,part ,,ii41 chapter ii41 #a sub finem4 ,footnote #aaj3 ,h4 ,hyvernat1 ,un fragment indit de la version sahidique du ,nouveau ,testament 7,ephes4 i4 #f-;ii4 #h;b74 ,revue ,biblique1 ,april #aijj1 pp4 #bdh-bec4 ,the fragment is of the eighth or ninth century4 ,footnote #aaa3 ,see also the ,greek and ,middle ,egyptian manuscript published by ,crum and ,kenyon1 referred to above1 p4 #gj4 ,footnote #aab3 ,the dates of ,ulfilas' birth and death are uncertain4 ,he certainly lived till autumn #cha or #chc4 ,the date of his life is variously given as #caj-chj or #cah-chh4 ,according to ,kauffmann1 the ,synod at which ,ulfilas was consecrated ,bishop was that of ,antioch1 ,de ,encaeniis1 #cda4 ,footnote #aac3 ,or #aaae according to the ,armenian reckoning4 ,footnote #aad3 ,celsus's polemic against ,christianity has perished1 but considerable fragments are embedded in ,origen's ,reply4 ,see ,ante-,nicene ,christian ,library1 vol4 xxiii41 7,clark1 ,edin474 ,footnote #aae3 ,clement of ,alexandria cites ,matt4 xviii4 #c in four different ways4 ,he quotes ,matt4 v4 #de six times1 and only once accurately4 ,footnote #aaf3 ,petropol4 gr4 #bed1 formerly cited as ,paris4 coisl4 #bab1 written in the year #aaaa1 the oldest manuscript that ,lagarde was able to use for his edition of the ,apostolic ,constitutions4 ,further examples of the untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section4 ,footnote #aag3 ,see extended note 7#b7 at the end of the chapter1 p4 #adi4 ,footnote #aah3 ,on the question whether ,clement of ,rome knew the second ,epistle of ,paul to the ,corinthians1 see ,j4 ,h4 ,kennedy1 ,the ,second and ,third ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul to the ,corinthians4 ,london1 #aijj1 p4 #adb ff4 ,footnote #aai3 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,part ,i41 c4 ii4 #g4 ,footnote #abj3 ,ibid41 ,part ,,ii41 c4 i4 #a42 c4 ii4 #d4 ,footnote #aba3 ,ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a ,commentary on the ,pauline ,epistles1 which till the time of ,erasmus was attributed to ,ambrose4 ,in recent times ,dom ,g4 ,morin has raised the question whether the writer may not be one ,isaac1 who is known to have lived in the papacy of ,damasus4 ,he was a ,jewish convert to ,christianity1 and afterwards returned to his former faith4 ,see ,dom ,g4 ,morin1 ,l',ambrosiaster et le juif converti ,isaac1 contemporain du pape ,damase1 in the ,revue d',histoire et de ,littrature religieuses1 iv4 #b 7#ahii71 #aab4 ,this writer informs us that a new edition of the whole of ,ambrosiaster will be brought out by ,a4 ,amelli on the basis of a very old manuscript from ,monte ,cassino4 ,morin believes that the text of this manuscript1 in spite of its age1 is 8fortement retouch1 dont on a limin la plupart des traits vraiment intressants0 7ibid41 p4 #aba74 ,footnote #abb3 ,this reminds us of how ,luther used to entreat the printers to let his writings stand as he wrote them4 ,footnote #abc3 ,called #bpe by ,tischendorf1 and numbered #ha in ,westcott and ,hort1 and #efe in ,ti,gr4 ,mark of this manuscript was edited by ,belsheim in #ahhe1 with a collation of the other three ,gospels4 ,it is a valuable cursive1 as appears from what is said of it in ,w-,h3 8,the most valuable cursive for the preservation of ,western readings in the ,gospels is #ha1 a ,st4 ,petersburg manuscript called #bpe by ,tischendorf1 as standing second in a list of documents collated by ,muralt4 ,it has a large ancient element1 in great measure ,western1 and in ,st4 ,mark its ancient readings are numerous enough to be of real importance40 ,see above1 under ,codex ,n1 p4 #fh4 ,footnote #abd3 ,the ,first ,part has been issued3 ,a ,textual ,commentary upon the ,holy ,gospels4 ,part ,i4 ,st4 ,matthew1 ,division ,i41 cc4 i4-xiv4 7,london1 ,bell1 #ahii74 ,see notice by ,gwilliam in ,the ,critical ,review1 ,may #aijj4 ,in this work ,origen is also cited for ,matt4 v4 #dd4 ,footnote #abe3 ,in the ,expository ,times for ,october #ahig1 p4 #ac ff41 ,i have called attention to another instance in which a ,scriptural quotation 7,isaiah lii4 #e7 is given with remarkable similarity in the ,apostolic ,constitutions1 with its original 7i4 #aj1 iii4 #e1 vii4 #bjd71 in ,ignatius 7,ad ,trallianos1 viii471 and in #bnd ,clement 7c4 xiii474 ,similar things are to be observed even in the ,n4,t41 as1 e4g41 in ,mark i4 #b1 where a quotation from ,malachi iii4 #a is inserted between the heading1 8,in the prophet ,isaiah10 and the words taken from that book4 ,but they are found also in the writings of ,paul1 which has led to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic anthology of the ,o4 ,t4 ,clement of ,alexandria has a good many quotations from ,philo4 ,on his quotations from the ,gospels1 see ,p4 ,m4 ,barnard1 ,the ,biblical ,text of ,clement of ,alexandria in the ,four ,gospels and the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,texts and ,studies1 v4 #e1 ,cambridge1 #ahii4 ,footnote #abf3 ,see below1 ,appendix ,,ii41 4 ,footnote #abg3 ,vide infra1 ,appendix ,i4 ,footnote #abh3 ,fasciculus i41 edited by ,hauler1 #aijj4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,theory ,,and ,,praxis ,,of ,,the ,,textual ,,criticism ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament4#abi ,there is no special theory of the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament4 ,the task and the method are the same for all literary productions4 ,the task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to communicate to his readers1 and the method is simply that of tracing the history of the document in question back to its beginning1 if1 and in so far as1 we have the means to do so at our command4 ,diversity of treatment can only arise when the fortunes of one written work have been more chequered and complicated than those of another1 or when we have more abundant means at our disposal to help us in the one case than in the other4 ,the task is very simple when we have only one completely independent document to deal with1 as in the case of several of the recently discovered papyri1 but this occurs very seldom with literary texts4 ,in this case all that we have to do is to see that we read the existing text correctly1 and then by means of the so-called internal criticism to determine whether the text so received can be correct4 ,sidenote3 ,internal ,criticism4 ,even when several witnesses are at our command1 we cannot altogether dispense with this internal criticism in the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony1 only it would be unfortunate were we left with such a subjective criterion alone4 ,for not only in such a case would different scholars come to very different conclusions1 but even one and the same scholar would not be able to avoid a certain amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases4 ,the principle laid down in the maxim1 lectio difficilior placet1 or1 as ,bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it1 proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua1 is perfectly sound2 that reading is correct1 is the original reading1 from which the origin of another or of several others can be most easily explained4 ,but how seldom can this be established with certainty6 ,take an illustration3-- ,sidenote3 ,conclusion of the ,apocalypse4 ,how does the ,apocalypse1 and the ,new ,testament with it1 conclude8 ,leaving out of account additions like 8,amen0 or 8,amen1 ,amen10 and variations like 8,the grace of the ,lord ,jesus10 and 8our ,lord ,jesus10 and 8the ,lord ,jesus ,christ10 and 8,christ0 simply1 we find that the following forms are given3-- 7#a7 7#b7 7#c7 7#d7 7#e7 ,how are we to decide without external evidence which is the correct form8 ,even supposing we know that the first two are out of the question1 and why they are so1 it is very difficult on internal grounds alone to decide between the other three4 ,lachmann1 who did not know of 7#e71 decided in favour of 7#d74 ,but so does ,tischendorf1 ,weizscker1 and ,weiss1 the latter giving as his reason for doing so that 7#e71 1 is explanatory of 7#d71 1 which is manifestly too general1 and that 7#c7 is the result of a combination of these two4 ,on the other hand1 ,tregelles and ,westcott and ,hort favour 7#e71 without so much as mentioning 7#d7 in their margin2 while ,bousset1 the latest expositor of the ,apocalypse1 regards 7#c7 as the correct reading1 and thinks that in all probability both 7#d7 and 7#e7 are due to a transcriptional error4 ,who is to decide when doctors disagree8 ,manifestly one might argue on quite as good if not better grounds than those of ,weiss to the very opposite conclusion--viz4 that a later writer who wished the ,apocalypse1 and with it the ,new ,testament1 to conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as possible1 substituted the words 8,grace be with all0 in place of the restricted and somewhat strange expression 8,grace be with the saints40 ,i did not observe that ,bousset still defends the third form when ,i said in the first edition of this work that this reading does not fall to be considered at all4 ,but my reason for saying so was not 8because this form proves to be a combination of the other two10 or 8because the authorities for it are later10 but because it could be shown that its supporters follow a corrected text in other places as well as this2 and ,i concluded with observing that the decision between 7#d7 and 7#e7 could not be made to depend solely on internal criteria either1 but depended on the decision come to regarding the general relationship between the witnesses that support each one1 in this instance between ,a1 as supporting 7#d71 and 1 as supporting 7#e74 7#a7 ,it may be stated here1 merely by way of comment1 that the first form of the benediction1 8with you all10 was clearly translated into ,greek by ,erasmus from his ,latin ,bible1 without the authority of a single ,greek manuscript4 ,but in spite of this1 it is still propagated in the textus receptus by the ,english ,bible ,society1 and even in the last revision of ,luther's ,german ,bible it was allowed to stand without demur4 ,the ,english ,authorised ,version had it in this form1 but the ,revised ,version adopts the fifth form 8with the saints10 and puts 7#d7 in the margin1 with a note to the effect that 8two ancient authorities read #8with all4'0 ,the second form1 8with us all10 which was adopted by ,melanchthon in his ,greek ,bible of #aede1 published by ,herwag1 is just as arbitrary an alteration4 ,the third form1 8with all the saints10 is read by the ,complutensian with ,q1 with more than forty minuscules1 and the ,syriac1 ,coptic1 and ,armenian versions4 ,the fourth1 8with all10 is found in ,a and ,codex ,amiatinus1 while the fifth1 8with the saints10 is given by and the ,old ,latin g4 ,in the ,syriac version of the ,apocalypse1 edited by ,gwynn in #ahig1 a sixth form seems to have been brought to light1 which ,baljon1 who himself decides for 7#e71 cites as 3 ,syrgwynn4 ,but the pronoun1 which in ,syriac is indicated by a suffix only1 is employed now and again merely to represent the ,greek definite article1 so that this new ,syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth form but only another witness to the third4 ,on the other hand1 ,gwynn mentions the omission of the entire verse in ,primasius1 a fact that neither ,tischendorf nor ,weiss takes the least notice of1 and he adduces lastly that a manuscript of the ,vulgate reads 8cum omnibus hominibus40 ,one sees from an illustration like this what an amount of pains is required seriously to apply1 even in a single point1 ,bengel's principle that the smallest particle of gold is gold1 but that nothing must be passed as gold that has not been proved to be such 7,introductio in ,crisin ,novi ,testamenti1 #a1 p4 #egb74 7#b7 ,,literature4--,see especially ,gebhardt 7,urt41 p4 #af74 ,ed4 ,reuss1 ,geschichte der h4 ,schriften des ,n4 ,t41 ,braunschweig1 #ahhg1 #cea ff4 ,s4 ,p4 ,tregelles1 ,an ,introduction to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4,t4 7 vol4 iv4 of ,horne's ,introduction1 #ahgg74 ,f4 ,h4 ,a4 ,scrivener 7see above1 p4 #f72 also ,adversaria ,critica ,sacra1 edited by ,miller1 ,cambr4 #ahic4 ,b4 ,f4 ,westcott1 ,the ,new ,testament in ,smith's ,dictionary of the ,bible1 vol4 ii41 ,london1 #ahfc4 ,c4 ,e4 ,hammond1 ,outlines of ,textual ,criticism1 ,oxford1 #ahij4 ,westcott-,hort1 vol4 ii4 7see p4 #ba74 ,b4 ,b4 ,warfield1 ,introduction to the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4 ,t41 ,new ,york1 #ahhg2 ,london1 #ahic4 ,j4 ,w4 ,burgon1 ,last ,twelve ,verses of the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,mark1 ,oxford and ,london1 #ahga2 also ,the ,traditional ,text of the ,holy ,gospels vindicated and established1 edited by ,miller1 ,london1 #ahif2 also1 ,the ,causes of the ,corruption of the ,traditional ,text of the ,holy ,gospels1 edited by ,miller1 ,london and ,cambridge1 #ahif4 ,the ,oxford ,debate on the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4 ,t4 held at ,new ,college on ,may #f1 #ahig2 with a preface 7by ,miller7 explanatory of the ,rival ,systems1 #ahig1 pp4 xvi4 #dc4 ,ed4 ,miller1 ,the ,present ,state of the ,textual ,controversy respecting the ,holy ,gospels 7see above1 p4 #aeb74 ,martin 7,abb ,j4 ,p471 ,introduction la ,critique textuelle du ,n4,t41 in five volumes1 with plates and facsimiles3 vol4 i4 pp4 xxxvi4 #cbg1 ,paris1 #ahhd1 #be fr42 vol4 ii4 pp4 ix4 #eed1 #ahhd1 #dj fr42 vol4 iii4 pp4 vi4 #eab1 #ahhe1 #dj fr42 vol4 iv4 pp4 vi4 #edi1 #ahhf1 #dj fr42 vol4 v4 pp4 xi4 #bdh and #ej pp4 of facsimiles1 #ahhf1 #bj fr4 ,also by the same author1 ,description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au ,n4,t4 conservs dans les ,bibliothques de ,paris4 ,supplement to the foregoing1 ,paris1 #ahhd1 pp4 xix4 #bje1 with facsimiles1 #bj fr42 ,quatre manuscrits importants du ,n4,t4 auxquels on peut en ajouter un cinquime1 ,paris1 #ahhf1 pp4 #fb1 #c fr42 ,les plus anciens mss4 grecs du ,n4,t41 leur origine1 leur vritable caractre1 in the ,revue des ,quest4 ,hist41 #ahhd1 ,no4 #ga1 pp4 #fb-aji2 ,origne et la ,critique textuelle du ,n4,t41 ,paris4 ,reprinted from the ,rev4 des ,quest4 ,hist4 for ,jan4 #ahhe1 ,no4 #gc1 pp4 #e-fb4 ,th4 ,zahn1 ,geschichte des ,n4,t4 ,kanons3 vol4 i41 ,das ,n4,t4 vor ,origenes1 ,part #a1 #ahhh2 ,part #b1 #ahhi4 ,vol4 ii41 ,urkunden und ,belege zum ersten und dritten ,band1 ,part #a1 #ahij2 ,part #b1 #ahib4 ,the third vol4 has not yet appeared4 ,the order of the books of the ,n4,t4 is discussed in vol4 ii4 p4 #cdc ff41 and the conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel in the same vol41 p4 #iaj ff4 ,salmon 7,geo471 ,some thoughts on the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4,t41 ,london1 #ahig1 pp4 xv4 #afb4 ,blass1 ,philology of the ,gospels1 ,london1 #ahih1 pp4 viii4 #bej4 ,ada ,bryson1 ,recent ,literature on the text of the ,n4,t4 in the ,expository ,times for ,april #ahii1 pp4 #bid-cjj4 ,m4 ,vincent1 ,history of the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4,t41 #aijj4 ,g4 ,l4 ,cary1 ,the ,synoptic ,gospels1 with a chapter on the ,textual ,criticism of the ,n4,t41 ,new ,york1 #aijj4 ,see also ,prof4 ,jannaris in the ,expositor1 vol4 viii4 of ,series ,v4 ,there is an article in the ,american ,journal of ,theology1 #ahig1 iv4 p4 #ibg ff41 entitled ,alexandria and the ,n4,t41 which ,i have not been able to consult4 ,in attempting to restore the text of the ,new ,testament as nearly as possible to its original form1 it is essential to remember that the ,new ,testament1 as we have it to-day1 is not all of one piece1 but consists of twenty-seven separate documents now arranged in five groups1 and that every several document and every several group has had its own peculiar history4 ,of these groups the most complicated1 perhaps1 is the one with which the ,new ,testament opens--viz4 the ,gospels4 ,sidenote3 ,gospels4 ,it is quite uncertain when our four ,gospels were first written together in one volume and arranged in the order that is now common4 ,the ,muratorian ,fragment on the ,canon#acj is defective at the beginning1 but seems to imply this arrangement4 ,it was supposed that the ,gospels were written in the following order--viz4 ,matthew first and ,john last4 ,the order1 ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 ,john1 which is found in nearly all the ,greek and ,syriac manuscripts1 was made popular by ,eusebius and ,jerome4 ,the former followed it in his ,canons1 which were afterwards adopted by ,jerome in his ,latin ,bible4 ,according to ,eusebius 7,eccl4 ,hist41 vi4 #be71aca ,origen knew this order1 though he very frequently cites the ,gospels in the order ,matthew1 ,luke1 ,mark4 ,the following arrangements are also found3-- ,transcriber's ,note3 ,the following list begins with 7#b74 7#b7 ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,john1 ,luke1 in the earlier 7,curetonian7 ,syriac and in the ,canon ,mommsenianus1 a catalogue of the ,books of the ,bible and of the works of ,cyprian1 originating in ,latin ,africa about the year #cfj1 and first published by ,mommsen4#acb 7#c7 ,matthew1 ,luke1 ,mark1 ,john1 in the so-called ,ambrosiaster and in a ,catalogue of the ,sixty ,canonical ,books4 7#d7 ,matthew1 ,john1 ,mark1 ,luke--i4e4 the two ,apostles put before the two pupils of ,apostles1 in the ,codex ,claromontanus4#acc ,this order occurs also in the ,arabic writer ,masudi's ,meadows of ,gold4#acd 7#e7 ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark1 in ,codd4 ,d and ,x1 in the ,apostolic ,constitutions1 in ,ulfilas1 and especially in the ,old ,latin ,manuscripts2 see ,corssen1 ,monarchianische ,prologe1 p4 #fe1 in ,,tu4 xv4 #a4ace 7#f7 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark1 ,matthew1 in ,codex k4 7#g7 ,john1 ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 in the ,vocabularies of the ,egyptian versions4 7#h7 ,john1 ,matthew1 ,luke1 ,mark1 in ,tertullian and cod4 #ai4 ,see ,arthur ,wright1 ,some ,new ,testament ,problems1 p4 #aif ff4#acf ,this very variety shows that for a long time1 perhaps till the third century1 at all events much longer than the ,pauline ,epistles1 the ,gospels were propagated singly1 perhaps on rolls1 and only afterwards incorporated in a codex4 ,and this makes it probable that the text of our manuscripts was not taken from a single copy of the first ,tetraevangelium4 ,more than probable we cannot call it1 seeing that a copyist may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging the order of the books given in his exemplar1 as may still be gathered luckily from the position occupied by ,hebrews in ,codex ,b4 ,the probability is heightened1 however1 by the fact that our manuscripts display a considerably greater amount of textual variation in the ,gospels than in the ,pauline ,epistles1 though not in all to the same extent as in ,d which contains an entirely peculiar recension1 especially in ,luke4 ,one of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by the discovery made by ,e4 ,lippelt1 a pupil of ,professor ,blass4 ,the order of the books in ,d is ,matthew1 ,john1 ,luke1 ,mark1 ,acts1 where it will be seen that the two portions of the book inscribed to ,theophilus are separated by ,mark4 ,now ,lippelt observed that while the name ,johannes is regularly spelt with two 's 77 in ,matthew1 ,john1 and ,mark1 it is just as regularly spelt with one 77 in ,luke and ,acts1 sundered though these two books are by ,mark1 where the other spelling prevails4#acg ,this shows an accuracy of tradition which is surprising1 but till now it has only been traced in this one manuscript4 ,the others write the name throughout with two 's and ,b as consistently with one4 ,in this connection the question naturally arises whether certain liberties were not taken with the books on the occasion of their collection and arrangement4 ,resch1 e4g41 thinks that it was then that the second ,gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in most of our manuscripts1 and ,rohrbach holds a similar opinion4#ach ,i have elsewhere expressed the idea that the peculiar opening of ,mark is to be accounted for in this way4#aci ,zahn1 however1 doubts whether the use of and for and 1 incipit and explicit1 can be established for early times4#adj ,i have found it in ,greek ,psalters1 though not very early1 ,i admit1 where occurs instead of as the superscription of the ,hymns at the end of the ,psalter4#ada ,however1 there is no need to dwell further on this point4 ,zahn 7p4 #agd7 is quite right in his contention that the usual titles 1 etc41#adb imply a collection of the ,gospels of which is the general title4 ,if1 then1 for the sake of simplicity1 we take as our goal the first manuscript of the ,tetraevangelium1 one would think it must be possible with the means at our command gradually to work back to it4 ,even the latest of our manuscripts is surely copied from an earlier one1 and that one from another1 and so on always further and further back1 so that all we have to do is to establish their genealogy1 pretty much as ,reuss has done for the printed editions of the ,new ,testament2 and seeing we have manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth century1 that means that the entire period of a thousand years prior to the invention of printing is bridged over at once1 so that the task would appear to be simply that of throwing a bridge over the first few centuries of the ,christian era4 ,and by going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating those that prove unreliable1 it must be possible1 one would suppose1 in this way to arrive at the original4 ,but a little experience will shortly moderate our expectations4 ,at the outset it is very much against us that we have no really serviceable text for comparison4 ,the text of our present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours1 more wonderful than the cloak of ,child ,roland of old4 ,in fact it is a text that never really existed at all4 ,in the preparation of my ,supplement1 which ,i undertook with the object of making the text of ,codex ,bezae easily accessible to every one1 ,i compared the text of that manuscript with that of ,tischendorf-,gebhardt's edition1 and ,i saw clearly that my work would necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed4 ,i also issued an interleaved edition of my ,stuttgart ,new ,testament with a similar object--viz4 to furnish a convenient means of comparing the text of manuscripts and of ,patristic quotations1 but that1 too1 labours under the same disadvantage4 ,whoever intends really to further the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament will have to issue a copy of a single manuscript printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient for the comparison of different texts1 something like ,tischendorf's edition of ,codex ,sinaiticus 7,novum ,testamentum ,sinaiticum1 #ahfc71 which1 however1 is of little use for other purposes1 or like ,schjtt's edition of the ,new ,testament 7see above1 p4 #bd74 ,but as these are in the hands of very few1 there is nothing for it at present but to take one of our most common texts1 always bearing in mind its composite character4 ,this feature of the text appears at the very outset in the title4 ,in ,b 7,d7 it is 4 ,codex ,d is defective at the beginning down to c4 i4 #bj1 but is found regularly as the title at the top of the pages1 a fact which ,tischendorf has overlooked4 ,most other manuscripts1 ,c ,e ,k ,m etc41 have 4 ,if this latter is held as incorrect1 then all these manuscripts should for the future be dropped out of account and ,b ,d alone be regarded as authoritative4 ,again1 in verse #b1 99 has twice1 while the others have 1 so that too would drop out1 leaving ,b standing alone4 ,but then in verse #c our editors forthwith reject ,b1 which reads 1 and decide in favour of the others which have 4 ,whether this may not be a little premature1 seeing that there are other places where is found for final 1#adc and that one manuscript1 #ef1 has deliberately corrected into in ,gen4 xxxviii4 #cj1 where a third has 1 we do not pause to determine4 ,the point is simply this1 that in these first three verses there is no manuscript that is always right in the judgment of our editors4 ,true1 the cases we have been considering are trifling1 the differences being of an orthographical nature merely1 and one must not be too particular in such matters1 though at the same time the oft-quoted maxim1 minima non curat praetor1 is nowhere less applicable than in textual criticism4 ,but the same state of things reappears immediately where we have differences involving important matters of fact4 ,what is the fact in verse #aa8 ,did ,josias beget ,jechoniah1 or did he beget ,joachim and ,joachim ,jechoniah8 ,verse #af has already been referred to3 in this case our oldest ,greek manuscripts would give no occasion to mention the verse4 ,but in verse #be we have again to ask which is correct1 or 8 ,sidenote3 ,dogmatic influence4 ,and when we hear ,jerome say--,ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse ,mariam1 dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres1 we learn already how dogmatic motives may have some influence upon the form of the text4 ,and1 moreover1 when we call to mind the words of ,luke ii4 #g1 we are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing influence in the ,gospels--viz4 the tendency to alter the text in conformity with the parallel passage4 ,sidenote3 ,parallel passages4 ,apart from the stylistic peculiarities of ,codex ,d1 we meet with no materially important variants in our ,greek manuscripts of ,matthew till we come to the ,sermon on the ,mount4 ,the only thing is in iii4 #ae1 where two ,latin witnesses have an addition which is evidently taken from a ,greek source3 et cum baptizaretur1 lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant 7congregati erant74 ,this interpolation1 however1 does not concern the criticism of the text of the ,new ,testament1 seeing that it is derived from some source outside the ,canon4 ,on the other hand1 there is a great question as to the order of the first three ,beatitudes in ,matthew v4 #c-e1 whether they are to be read in the order given in the common text1 444 444 4441 or as our recent editors prefer 444 444 4#add ,the latter arrangement is attested by only two ,greek manuscripts--,d and #cc4 ,now1 if their evidence is accepted here in spite of its apparent weakness1 how can we justify the refusal to acknowledge the authority of ,d in other similar cases8 ,verse #bb1 but a short way down1 is a case in point4 ,here ,d1 with most authorities1 exhibits the sorely-contested 4 ,but our modern critics will have nothing to do with it1 going by ,b1 ,origen1 ,jerome1 and ,athanasius4 ,merx 7,die vier kanonischen ,evangelien1 pp4 #bca-bcg7 has recently come forward as a strong supporter of it1 on the ground that ,syrsin also has it1#ade but how is its omission1 especially by ,jerome1 to be explained8 ,the ,vulgate itself shows that it was easier to insert it than to omit it1 because out of twenty-four manuscripts collated in ,w4-,w4 three have it1 though it certainly does not belong to the text of the ,vulgate4#adf ,in view of these illustrations1 which serve to show the somewhat haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto has been arrived at1 the question becomes very important how the original text is to be restored in disputed or doubtful cases4 ,sidenote3 ,conjectural emendation4 ,the first case1 or1 if we like to call it1 the last1 but at all events the one most easy of settlement1 is when the correct reading is no longer found in any of our witnesses1 neither in ,greek manuscript1 version1 nor patristic quotation4 ,here we must simply have recourse to conjecture4 ,not long ago philologists evinced such a fondness for conjectural emendation that the question might not unreasonably be asked why they did not rather themselves write the text that they took in hand to explain4 ,at the same time1 the aversion to this method of criticism which till recently prevailed and still to some extent prevails1 especially in the matter of the ,new ,testament text1 is just as unreasonable4 ,tischendorf1 e4g41 did not admit a single emendation of this nature into his text1 while ,westcott and ,hort consider it to be necessary in only a very few cases1 such as ,colossians ii4 #ah1 though they also decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text4 ,for in this passage1 which ,weizscker renders 8pluming himself upon his visions10 they would read 1 which is obtained by the omission of a single letter and a different division of the words4 ,in ,holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in1#adg the example of ,cobet and his school being followed by such critics as ,s4 ,a4 ,naber1 ,w4 ,c4 van ,manen1 ,w4 ,h4 van de ,sande-,bakhuyzen1 van de ,becke ,callenfels1 ,d4 ,harting1 ,s4 ,s4 de ,koe1 ,h4 ,franssen1 ,j4 ,m4 ,s4 ,baljon1 ,j4 ,h4 ,a4 ,michelsen1 and ,j4 ,cramer4#adh ,baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emendations in his edition of the text published in #ahih 7see above1 p4 #bd74 ,in place of 1 e4g41 in ,james iii4 #a1 ,lachmann would read 1 ,naber 1 while ,junius1 de ,hoop-,scheffer1 and ,bakhuyzen prefer on the ground that m#fd has nolite multiloqui esse4#adi ,so far1 therefore1 this last is not pure conjecture4 ,for in ,col4 ii4 #af ,lagarde wished to read 1 because the verb found in the ,peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to translate 7,matt4 xxiv4 #f71 7,john xiv4 #a1 #bg71 7,gal4 v4 #g71 and also 7,eccl4 vii4 #ah2 xii4 #c74 ,my proposal to read in ,apoc4 xviii4 #ag1 a reading adopted by ,baljon in his text1 instead of or as given in our manuscripts1 was a pure conjecture1 but it has the support of super mare in ,primasius4#aej ,there is therefore no objection on principle to the method of conjecture1 nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text1 though it is only to be resorted to as the ultima ratio regis and with due regard to all the considerations involved1 transcriptional1 linguistic1 and otherwise4#aea ,there is no essential difficulty in supposing1 e4g41 that in ,col4 ii4 #af was first corrupted into and then into 4 ,such a transposition of the liquid is quite common in all languages4#aeb ,but we must see if has the sense required in the passage4 ,there is no doubt a reference to drinking here1 and so far1 therefore1 the word seems to suit the context better4 ,it is also true that evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word proposed to be inserted4 ,passow1 e4g41 gives from ,polybius iv4 #ba1 #c1 and from ,aristophanes i4 #a4 ,in spite of this1 however1 ,i have considerable misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony with ,pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the passage4 ,if it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on transcriptional grounds1 then1 as has been observed 7p4 #hb71 a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing prevalent at the time when the corruption is supposed to have originated4 ,luke's handwriting must have been very bad indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of ,d or the parent manuscript mistook for the enigmatical in ,acts iii4 #ad1 though it is quite conceivable how he came to write instead of in v4 #ca1 or conversely wrote instead of in xiii4 #dh1 or that was made into or vice versa4#aec ,a slight experience in the reading of ancient manuscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this sort4 ,and if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actually do occur in ,codices ,vaticanus1 ,alexandrinus1 ,sinaiticus1 and ,ephraemi1 we have only to look into ,morrish's ,handy ,concordance of the ,septuagint1#aed though of course the examples there are all from the ,old ,testament4 ,we have1 e4g41 for 2 for 2 for 2 for 1 1 1 2 for 2 and its compounds for and its compounds2 for 1 etc4 ,sidenote3 ,eclectic method4 ,it is more difficult to answer the question how the text is to be restored in cases where there is no lack of external evidence4 ,we have already seen that critics have hitherto adopted an eclectic mode of procedure4 ,in general1 whenever ,vaticanus and ,sinaiticus agree1 editors1 ,tischendorf as well as ,westcott and ,hort1 give the preference to their testimony4 ,but if they do not agree1 what is to be done8 ,and what if a third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than either8 ,in his ,thoughts on the ,textual ,criticism of the ,new ,testament1 ,salmon very pungently1 but not altogether incorrectly1 describes ,westcott and ,hort's method on the lines of an anecdote told of ,cato by ,cicero3 8,to the question what authorities should be followed1 ,hort answers1 ,follow ,b 4 ,but if ,b is not supported by 8 ,still follow ,b1 if it has the support of any other manuscript4 ,but suppose ,b stands quite alone8 ,even then it is not safe to reject ,b unless it is clearly a clerical error4 ,but suppose ,b is defective8 ,then follow 4 ,and what about ,d8 ,what about killing a man60 ,lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of the stake4 ,codex ,d has not been gagged outright1 to be sure1 but it has been shoved aside1 and only now and then with remarkable inconsistency has its evidence been accepted as trustworthy4 ,for one must surely call it inconsistent to follow one side as a rule and then all at once to take sides with that which is diametrically opposed to the first4 ,in his ,introduction1 ,hort1 in the most brilliant manner one must admit1 has established the principle that the restoration of the text must be grounded on the study of its history1 and no one has studied that history as carefully as ,hort has done4 ,but the question remains whether he has not interpreted the history wrongly1 whether what he calls the ,neutral text is really the original1 and whether that which he rejects as a ,western ,corruption is really to be regarded as such4 ,sidenote3 ,history of transmission4 ,i cannot presume to judge2 but ,i have the feeling that the history of the transmission of our ,new ,testament text must be studied in quite another way from that in which it has been done hitherto1 and in a twofold direction3-- 7#a7 ,the manuscripts and their relation to each other must be subjected to a still more searching investigation1 and 7#b7 ,the works of the ecclesiastical writers1 especially the ,commentaries and the ,caten1 must be thoroughly explored for any information they may have to give regarding the history of the text of the ,new ,testament1 and these two results must then be set in relation with each other4 ,with regard to the former task1 it might not be essential to make such a minute collation of the manuscripts as ,ferrar1 ,hoskier1 and other investigators deemed necessary1 and as is certainly the right thing to do in the case of the oldest documents4 ,with such a mode of procedure1 the task could not be accomplished in any conceivable time4 ,but suppose the work was organised the way that ,reuss did with the printed editions1 by selecting say a thousand passages for comparison1 it would be possible1 and in a very short time we should be much better informed than we are at present as to the state of the text in our manuscripts1 and especially in the minuscules4 ,such a task1 moreover1 must be preceded by a fresh scientific statement of the way in which the text was propagated previous to the invention of printing1 on the lines laid down by ,hort in the first fourteen paragraphs of his ,introduction4#aee ,a necessary preliminary to this is the study of genealogy1 in which we have an excellent guide in ,ottokar ,lorenz's ,lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen ,genealogie 7,berlin1 #ahih74 ,see especially the first chapter of ,part ,i4 on the distinction between ,genealogical ,tree 7,table of genealogy7 and ,table of ,ancestors1 and the third chapter of ,part ,,ii4 on the problem of ,loss of ,ancestors4 ,all the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures1 such as crossing1 heredity1 and so forth1 fall to be considered also in the genealogy of manuscripts1 the only difference being that in the latter case new features make their appearance4 ,it has been asserted somewhere that if an ,englishman1 a ,dutchman1 a ,german1 a ,frenchman1 and an ,american meet in a company1 the nationality of each is at once recognisable1 but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical relationships1 and that the same impossibility exists in the case of the manuscripts of the ,new ,testament4 ,that is perhaps an exaggeration1 but it is certainly a surprising fact that so few even of our latest manuscripts can be proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts still in existence1 or at least to be derived from a common original4 ,sidenote3 ,analogous works4 ,it will be a very great help1 particularly to those beginning work in this field1 to compare the method and results of investigations pursued in similar and perhaps easier departments of study4 ,apart from the works of classical philologists1 or works like the new edition of ,luther's writings1 a great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of late years in the matter of textual criticism1 some of it very extensive1 some of it less so4 ,ed4 ,wlfflin1 e4g41 devoted his attention to the ,rule of ,st4 ,benedict of ,nursia1 who died some time after the year #edb4 ,sidenote3 ,rule of ,benedict4 ,his ,rule1 which extends only to eighty-five pages of the ,teubner size1 is extant in manuscripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries4 ,by a comparison of these1 ,wlfflin was convinced that we still possess the ,rule essentially in the identical wording of the original vulgar ,latin1 that ,benedict himself had afterwards made certain alterations and additions1 and that we have therefore to distinguish several 7fortasse tres7 editions4#aef ,wlfflin purported to give the text of that recension which he took to be the earliest4 ,but we had no more than time to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at by this experienced philologist1 when behold1 another totally different conclusion was announced by a younger worker in the same field4 ,wlfflin had done little more than compare the manuscripts1 but ,lud4 ,traube applied also the external evidence afforded by the history of the text1 and discovered that certain manuscripts that ,wlfflin had thrown aside possessed a greater claim to originality4#aeg ,sidenote3 ,de ,viris ,illustribus4 ,similarly1 ,e4 ,c4 ,richardson gave several years to an examination of all the accessible manuscripts of the ,de ,viris ,illustribus of ,jerome and ,gennadius1 a work not much larger than the ,rule of ,benedict4 ,these manuscripts1 about #abj in number1 he grouped1 and then framed his text in accordance with them4#aeh ,while his work was in the press1 an edition was published by ,c4 ,a4 ,bernoulli1 based on some of the manuscripts that ,richardson also had used4#aei ,but from the very first sentence onwards1 the two editors follow contradictory authorities1 so that while one gives parvam as the correct reading1 the other reads non parvam4 ,but more than that1 the same ,part of ,texte und ,untersuchungen that gave us ,richardson's laborious work contained a second piece of work on the same material--viz41 ,o4 v4 ,gebhardt's edition of the so-called ,greek ,sophronius1 which is an old version of ,jerome's book4 ,and the last chapter of this version1 which is autobiographical1 contains indications1 according to v4 ,gebhardt's ,introduction1 that ,jerome issued two editions of his book1 so that1 if this be so1 an entirely new grouping of the manuscripts becomes necessary4 ,sidenote3 ,julian's ,letters4 ,in the case of ,holl's researches on the ,sacra ,parallela of ,john ,damascene1 published in the same ,collection1#afj matters are too complicated for beginners in textual criticism1 but of non-biblical texts mention may be made of the ,recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des lettres de l',empereur ,julien by ,s4 ,bidez and ,fr4 ,cumont 7,brussels1 #ahih71 as showing how much can be attained by combining the internal and external history of the transmission of literary texts4#afa ,sidenote3 ,latin ,new ,testament4 ,in the field of ,biblical texts1 and particularly of the ,new ,testament1 the study of ,wordsworth and ,white's ,epilogus to the first volume of their ,novum ,testamentum ,latine is to be specially recommended1 particularly c4 iv4 ,de ,patria et ,indole ,codicum nostrorum1 c4 v4 ,de ,textus ,historia1 and c4 vi4 ,de ,regulis a nobis in ,textu constituendo adhibitis4 ,as was said before1 ,jerome undertook his revision of the ,gospels in the year #chc2 his work was of an entirely uniform texture1 apart from a few passages where a correction may have occurred even in the original manuscript2 and there is a sufficiency of manuscripts extant1 some of them going back to the sixth century4 ,one of these1 which formerly belonged to the ,church of ,st4 ,willibrord at ,echternach1 contains a note dated #eeh1 and copied into it from the parent manuscript1 to the effect3 proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca ,eugipi presbyteri1 quem ferunt fuisse sancti ,hieronymi4 7,see above1 p4 #abb47 ,in these circumstances it must surely be possible1 one would think1 to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion4 ,and yet1 in spite of all this1 and in spite of long years of labour1 many a problem remains to perplex the editor of the ,vulgate4 ,to begin with1 there is one striking circumstance4 ,jerome executed his work at ,rome1 in obedience to the commission of ,pope ,damasus4 ,one would therefore expect to find the best manuscripts in ,rome1 or at least originating from ,rome4 ,but that is by no means the case3 8praeter expectationem accidit ut pauci vel nulli ex codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem ,romanam clare ostendant40 ,the manuscript that editors consider the best--viz4 ,codex ,amiatinus1 now at ,florence--was certainly at ,rome for a long time1 but it was sent there as a present from beyond the ,alps2 indeed1 it came from ,england4 ,and on the other hand it was not from ,rome that the ,latin ,bible came to ,england1 or to ,canterbury in particular1 although ,augustine was sent thither by ,pope ,gregory the ,great1 but from the ,south of ,italy2 in fact1 it was from ,naples4 ,codex ,fuldensis1 which may have been brought to ,fulda by ,boniface1 formerly belonged to ,bishop ,victor of ,capua2 the ,echternach manuscript referred to above came from the ,lucullan ,monastery at ,naples1 while the manuscript from which ,codex ,amiatinus was copied was written by ,cassiodorus of ,vivarium1 and therefore came from ,calabria4 ,the history of the transmission of the ,latin ,bible reveals many other facts as strange as these in connection with the locality to which manuscripts belong4 ,we must be prepared1 therefore1 for similar surprises in the case of ,greek manuscripts also1 and need not be astonished to hear that the ,greek-,latin ,codex ,bezae1 so much decried as 8,western10 takes us back to ,smyrna or ,ephesus by way of ,lyons and by means of ,irenus4#afb ,it is also very instructive to observe that after long years of the most thorough study of their manuscripts1 ,wordsworth and ,white refrain from constructing stemmata or genealogies of these4 ,all they venture to do is to distinguish certain large classes or families1 and within these again to bring certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship with each other4 ,they distinguish two main classes4 ,in the first they reckon five1 or it may be four1 ,italian-,northumbrian manuscripts1 ,a ,h99 ,s ,y1 two ,canterbury ,o ,x1 three ,italian ,j ,m ,p1 the two mentioned already from ,capua-,fulda ,f and ,lucullan-,echternach ,,ep1 and the ,harleian ,z1 so called from a former possessor and now in the ,british ,museum4 ,to the second class belong five ,celtic ,d ,e ,l ,q ,r1 three ,french ,b ,,bf ,g1 and two ,spanish ,c ,t4 ,after these come the witnesses to the history of the text in the stricter sense of the term1 the recensions made by ,theodulf 7,hc 7 and ,alcuin 7,,kv ,m71 and1 for the form which the text assumed in the later manuscripts and in the printed editions1 the ,salisbury ,codex ,w4 ,we should have great reason to congratulate ourselves1 could we arrive at like certain results in the region of the far older and more diversified history of the transmission of the ,greek text1 but there too we shall encounter the same general features--viz41 a form of the text in the printed editions1 in the later manuscripts1 in the ,recensions1 the dates of which are still to be determined 7,lucian1 ,hesychius81 ,pamphilus71 and in the families1 which are only to be classified in a general way4 ,it is also instructive to find that in the case of several manuscripts1 ,wordsworth and ,white are obliged to observe that they seem to have been corrected from the ,greek1 ,h99 7p4 #gji71 ,m 7p4 #gaa71 ,,ep99 7p4 #gab71 ,d ,r ,l 7pp4 #gad1 #gaf71 which suggests the possibility of ,greek manuscripts also having been influenced by one of the versions1 be it ,latin or ,syriac4 ,finally1 when we enquire as to the relationship between ,jerome and the ,greek manuscript or manuscripts used by him1 we find that that manuscript must have been most nearly related to the ,sinaiticus1 while it had no sort of connection with ,codex ,d4 ,whether this result tells in favour of or the reverse1 we will not pronounce at present3 ,jerome certainly avers that he made use of a ,graecorum codicum emendata conlatione 444 sed veterum 7p4 #ajh71 only veterum is a comparative term1 and it might quite well happen that to ,jerome that form of text appeared to be the best which was most recent or most widely circulated in his neighbourhood1 and that he would have nothing to do with such a singular form of text as ,d exhibits1 even supposing he was acquainted with it1 a point we cannot decide4 ,the intimate connection in various passages between his text and that of the cursive #dgc 7#bpe7 is remarkable1 and especially the many points of resemblance between the ,irish manuscripts 7,d ,l ,r7 and the members of the ,ferrar ,group4 ,and this brings us back from our survey of the history of the ,latin text to that of the ,greek1 where we seem to have got at least one fixed point to begin with in this perplexing chaos1 for that is the first impression we gain on glancing at the mass of ,greek manuscripts before us4 ,but here again our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed1 and we shall learn only too soon that even this is no ,archimedean point from which we are able to regulate this world of disorder4 ,sidenote3 ,ferrar ,group4 ,if we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the passage usually indicated as ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa occurs in ,luke1 and in exactly the same place in each one--viz4 after ,luke xxi4 #ch--we must needs conclude that the manuscripts exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately connected with each other4 ,this is the case with the cursives #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf1 #fbd1 #fbf4 ,whether the others that are reckoned in this group have this same peculiarity1 ,i am not perfectly sure4 ,now one would naturally expect that these manuscripts would also coincide in the other peculiarities characteristic of this group4 ,sidenote3 ,variation4 ,but on the contrary1 they part company over the very first and most conspicuous of these--viz4 ,matthew i4 #af4 ,here1 unfortunately1 #ac and #fi are defective1 but we can compare #abd and #cdf4 ,and we find that whereas the former has the usual text1 the latter1 with the support of #eef1 #fbd1 #fbf1 exhibits in place of 444 1 the reading already mentioned1 4 ,which of these readings is right1 or whether both of them may not be wrong1 we need not enquire at present4 ,it is sufficient to point out that one and the same mother may give birth to very different children4 ,the specific difference will be inherited from the other of the two parents1 in this case represented by the copyist1 and will depend on whether he is painstaking1 careless1 violent1 arbitrary1 well-informed1 or the reverse4 ,but the mother herself has a great number of hereditary or acquired peculiarities which1 the latter no less than the former1 may be transmitted to the children in a variety of ways4 ,there is perhaps no manuscript in existence which is entirely free from corrections1 while1 on the other hand1 there are many so overlaid with corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognisable4 ,codex ,b1 on the whole1 is in a very good state of preservation1 but it was supposed lately 7see ,th,lz41 #ahii1 col4 #agf7 that its first hand wrote in ,john viii4 #eg1 8and ,abraham saw thee0 instead of 8and hast thou seen ,abraham10 as all our editors read in that passage4#afc ,the supposition proved to be incorrect1 but if that could possibly happen with ,b1 what must have happened in the case of manuscripts that are so full of corrections as and ,d1 if they came to be copied in later times8 ,suppose that one scribe took the trouble to copy the text of the first hand1 while another thought it his duty to follow the corrections1 the result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would be scarcely recognisable4 ,and in the course of centuries how often may not this process have been repeated4 ,no wonder1 therefore1 that so few manuscripts have as yet been clearly made out to be the descendants of our oldest codices1 so as to permit of their being removed from the board with one sweep1 as having no independent testimony to contribute1 as is the case with ,e#c which is merely a bad copy of ,d#b 7p4 #gg71 or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship existing between two manuscripts like ,f#b and ,g#c 7p4 #gg74afd ,nor need we be surprised to find that some of our most peculiar witnesses seem to have remained absolutely childless1 while a less valuable race is perpetuated in many copies4 ,the words of ,homer-- 1 --may be applied conversely to the leaves to which we entrust our immortality3 habent sua fata libelli4 ,the only unfortunate thing is that we are so little able to follow the course of these fates by means of external testimony4 ,sidenote3 ,external testimony4 ,when the ,emperor ,constantine e4g4 asks ,eusebius to supply him with fifty copies of the ,scriptures at once1 we cannot but suppose that these became authoritative over a large area4 ,but in which of the classes into which our manuscripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for these now8#afe ,and conversely if1 in another locality1 heathen persecution was directed specially against the ,bibles of the ,christians1 this cannot have been without some effect4 ,according to ,c4 ,hlsen 7,bilder aus der ,geschichte des ,kapitols1 ,rome1 #ahii71 even the ,roman ,bishop ,marcellinus1 with his deacons ,strabo and ,cassianus1 in the year #cjd1 burned1 in front of the temple of ,juno ,moneta1 those ,gospels which ten years later were made the law of ,christian ,rome by the ,emperor ,constantine4 ,these scattered notices must be much more carefully collected and considered than hitherto1 and combined with the results obtained from the collation of the manuscripts4 ,sidenote3 ,recensions4 ,most of our information with respect to the recensions of the ,bible comes from the ,syrian ,church1 and is concerned rather with the ,old ,testament than with the ,new2 but the recensions of the former may throw some light on those of the latter4 ,sidenote3 ,lucian4 7a7 ,as the result of their researches1 ,westcott and ,hort have made it very probable1 on internal grounds1 that a recension of an official nature was undertaken in ,syria1 perhaps at ,antioch1 about the fourth century1 and that to this recension are due the origin and propagation of that form of the text of the ,new ,testament which was widely disseminated in the ,byzantine ,empire1 now represented in our later minuscules1 and made the textus receptus by means of the first printed editions4 ,lucian1 the celebrated founder of the ,antiochean school of exegesis1 suffered martyrdom in the year #caa or #cab1 most probably the latter4 ,of all the names that we know1 none has a better claim than his to be associated with such a recension1 and the conjecture derives some support from the passage of ,jerome cited above 7p4 #he74aff ,it is1 perhaps1 even better supported by what we know of ,lucian's recension of the ,old ,testament4 ,in his preface to the ,chronicles1 ,jerome wrote3 8,alexandria et ,aegyptus in ,septuaginta suis ,hesychium laudat auctorem1 ,constantinopolis usque ,antiochiam ,luciani martyris exemplaria probat1 mediae inter has provinciae ,palaestinae 7v4l4 ,palaestinos7 codices legunt1 quos ab ,origene elaboratos ,eusebius et ,pamphilus vulgaverunt2 totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat40 ,now it is true that the words of a man like ,jerome must not be pressed too far1 and what may have been true in his day might be quite different in a comparatively short time--think e4g4 of the fifty copies of the ,bible that ,eusebius ,pamphili had sent to ,constantine1 or the ,bible or ,bibles sent by ,athanasius to ,constans#afg--;at the same time it has been established beyond all doubt by ,field and ,lagarde1 that it is to ,lucian we must refer a peculiar recension of the ,greek ,old ,testament preserved in a good many manuscripts1 the one found in the unfortunately small remnant of the ,gothic ,old ,testament and especially in the numerous ,biblical quotations of the famous theologian ,john of ,antioch1 better known as ,chrysostom of ,constantinople1 who was a pupil of ,lucian4 ,the probability1 therefore1 is very great that the same thing will hold good of the ,new ,testament portion of the ,bible of ,ulfilas and ,chrysostom4 ,as regards the former1 ,kauffmann has expressed a decided opinion to this effect in his work on the ,gothic ,bible cited above 7p4 #aci74 ,the supposition would be converted into something like certainty if it could be proved on palographic grounds that this or that ,new ,testament manuscript belongs to this or that ,old ,testament manuscript of ,lucianic derivation as part of what was originally one and the same complete ,bible4 ,this is a point which ,i am not in a position personally to investigate1 and ,i must therefore content myself with throwing out this suggestion1 and with adding in support of it that we have the express testimony of the ,menologies for saying that ,lucian bequeathed to his pupils a copy of the ,old and ,new ,testaments written in three columns with his own hand4 ,there is a statement in the ,pseudo-,athanasian ,synopsis1#afh which seems1 however1 to refer only to the ,old ,testament portion1 to the effect that it was discovered in a concealed cupboard 77 in the house of a ,jew at ,nicomedia in the time of ,constantine4 ,long ago ,hug and ,eichhorn attributed the 8,asiatic0 or 8,byzantine0 recension to ,lucian1 and no decided objection can be established to the view of ,hort1 which ,gregory also is inclined to accept 7,ti,gr41 p4 #had74afi ,sidenote3 ,hesychius4 7b7 ,it is1 on the other hand1 somewhat difficult to make out how matters stand with regard to the recension of ,hesychius4 ,jerome commends it with that of ,lucian for the ,old ,testament1 but contemptuously rejects it for the ,new2 and accordingly1 in the decree of ,pope ,gelasius1 we hear of ,gospels 8quae falsavit ,lucianus1 apocrypha1 evangelia quae falsavit ,hesychius1 apocrypha0 7c4 vi4 #ad1 #ae74 ,considering the important position of ,alexandria and ,egypt1 and the vast number of manuscripts referred with more or less certainty to that locality1 it is the more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet been discovered of the recension of which 8,alexandria et ,aegyptus 444 ,hesychium laudat auctorem10 and that till the present moment the most divergent views have been held with regard to it4 ,and this is true of the ,old ,testament no less than of the ,new4 ,one view1 for which a good deal can be said1 has already been referred to 7p4 #fa f47--viz4 that we have the recension of ,hesychius in ,codex ,b4 ,sidenote3 ,codex ,b4 ,rahlfs1 who was the first to connect ,b with the ,canon of ,athanasius1 says 7lib4 cit41 p4 #gh1 note #g72 8,if we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis1 we might hazard the conjecture that our superb ,codex1 manifestly written for one of the principal churches of ,egypt1 was prepared at the instigation of ,st4 ,athanasius himself4 ,the locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this conjecture1 while the time is not inconsistent with it40 ,i am not aware if ,rahlfs knew that ,athanasius had executed for ,constans1 and ,i am not sufficiently acquainted with the minuti of the ecclesiastical history of that time1 and with the life of ,athanasius in particular1 to hazard the assertion that ,codex ,b was prepared by ,athanasius for the ,emperor ,constans4 ,it is certainly the case1 as every ,church ,history records1 that ,constans was ,prefect of ,illyricum and ,italy1 and that ,athanasius fled to ,rome to ,julius ,,ii41 which would help to explain how ,codex ,b comes to be in that city4#agj ,i cannot ascertain however from the books at my command1 whether any particular resemblance has been observed between the text of this manuscript and the ,biblical quotations found in those writings of ,athanasius that belong to this period of his life1 that is1 prior to the year #cej4 ,and1 besides1 one has always to take into consideration how very little reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the ,biblical quotations in our editions of the ,fathers4 ,in the ,book of ,judges ,b certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text which is not used by the earlier ,egyptian teachers1 ,clement and ,origen1 nor even by ,didymus 7d4 #cid or #cii71 but was employed first by ,cyril of ,alexandria1 and which is the basis of the ,sahidic version4 ,this fact may have an important bearing on the question as to the text of the ,new ,testament as well4#aga ,as early as #agje ,grabe expressed the opinion that the ,sahidic version was the work of ,hesychius1 but we have very little information indeed regarding that ,church ,father1 and in particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that name4 ,here also1 the evidence afforded by palography would need to be examined with a view to ascertaining whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with ,b in the ,book of ,judges--viz4 ,g 7,brit4 ,mus41 #bj1jjb71 #af1 #cj1 #eb1 #ec1 #eh1 #fc1 #gg1 #he1 #aca1 #add1 #bji1 #bcf1 #bcg1 ,catena ,nicephori--has a counterpart in some manuscript of the ,new ,testament4 ,on ,codex ,g see ,rahlfs 7p4 #ce1 n4 #b71 and compare v4 ,dobschtz 7,th,lz41 #ahii1 #c1 #gd7 on the two ,new ,testament manuscripts and #eff;evv4 7,greg74#agb ,according to the latter1 the difference in size precludes the supposition that and #eff are the ,new ,testament portion of the manuscript described by ,rahlfs 7loc4 cit474 ,but if they are not written by the same scribe1 they both undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists4 ,at most1 however1 -#eff would only possess importance for the recension of ,hesychius if the text they1 or rather it1 follows were different from that with which it was collated4 ,its subscription shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated with the ,codex of ,pamphilus4 ,this fact has an important bearing on the ,gospel of the ,hebrews4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 ii4 #fdh4 ,sidenote3 ,eusebius-,pamphilus4 7c7 ,we have nearly as little certain information regarding the third1 and perhaps most important1 of the recensions mentioned by ,jerome in connection with the ,old ,testament1 that of ,eusebius and ,pamphilus1 which goes back to ,origen4#agc ,sidenote3 ,origen4 ,so far as ,i know1 the references which ,origen makes in his extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual criticism1 relate only to the ,old ,testament4 ,at the same time his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of his day refers to the ,new ,testament1 and to the ,gospels in particular4 1 he says1 in his ,commentary on ,matthew1 ,bk4 xv4 #ad1 1 1 1 4#agd ,he tells us in the same place how1 1 he found ways and means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical symbols of ,homeric commentators1 the obelus and asterisk1 1 1 4 ,according to his own express declaration1 supposing it to have been correctly preserved1 for it is only extant in ,latin1 his work in textual criticism at that time at least was confined to the ,old ,testament3 in exemplaribus autem ,novi ,testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi4 ,von ,gebhardt consequently says 7,urt41 #be7 that this statement from ,origen's own mouth should have kept anyone from ascribing a formal recension of the ,new ,testament text to him1 alluding to ,hug's system of recensions2 but at the same time he will not deny that the works of ,origen1 who was a man of conspicuous critical accuracy1 are of the highest importance for the criticism of the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,as a matter of fact1 later church teachers appeal chiefly to ,origen's manuscripts of the ,old ,testament1 but several references are also found to his ,new ,testament manuscripts4 ,on ,gal4 iii4 #a1 ,jerome remarks 7ii4 #dah73 legitur in quibusdam codicibus1 ,quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati8 ,sed hoc 7meaning1 of course1 the last three words only7 quia in exemplaribus ,adamantii non habetur1 omisimus4 ,the words are a gloss interpolated from ch4 v4 #g1 but they are also found in ,origen1 though only in the ,latin translation of ,rufinus1 and they appear1 among our ,greek manuscripts1 in ,c ,dc ,e ,k ,l ,p1 and likewise in most codices of the ,vulgate 7see ,wordsworth and ,white1 p4 #fei74 ,the same writer says on ,matthew xxiv4 #cf 7ii4 #aii73 in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est 8neque filius10 quum in ,graecis et maxime ,adamantii et ,pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur additum2 sed quia in nonnullis legitur1 disserendum videtur 7,w4 and ,w41 p4 #feh74 ,pierius is no doubt the ,presbyter of ,alexandria who lived at ,rome after the ,diocletian persecution4 ,he was styled 8the younger ,origen0 on account of his learning1 and was perhaps the teacher of ,pamphilus 7,jerome1 ,viri ,ill41 #gf2 ,eusebius1 ,eccl4 ,hist41 vii4 #cb74 ,adamantius1 like ,chalkenteros1 is a surname of honour given to ,origen4 ,here again1 it is a strange fact that the words which ,jerome says were omitted in ,origen's exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also extant only in ,latin1 and there expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his text1 and1 moreover1 had no conception of their omission in other copies4 ,what explanation1 if any1 can be given of this fact we need not pause to enquire4 ,nor need we take up the question where ,jerome obtained access to the exemplars of ,pierius4 ,i suppose it would be in ,caesarea1 where he also saw the 7,bible87 volumes of ,origen transcribed by ,pamphilus with his own hand1 and actually obtained possession of his copy of the commentary on the ,minor ,prophets4#age ,even supposing that what is meant by exemplaria ,adamantii is not really a recension of the text of the ,bible but simply the copy that ,origen used most or used last1 that copy might have been authoritative for ,pamphilus if not for ,eusebius1 and so far1 therefore1 it becomes necessary for us to try and discover the ,origenic text in the ,new ,testament as well as in the ,old4 ,at all events a good many of our manuscripts go back to ,pamphilus1 and particularly ,h of the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,in addition to a very practical suggestion as to the lending of books1#agf and a notice of its preparation and of the original writer1 this manuscript has also the following note3 774 ,from this subscription ,field 7,hexapla1 i4 p4 xcix7 has concluded that the library of ,pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century1 but it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been found in the original of ,h and copied into it along with the text1 as is the case with a similar note copied into the minuscules #ae1 #hc1 #agc4 ,sidenote3 ,euthalius4 ,in any case this manuscript is our principal witness for the recension of ,pamphilus1 or1 as it used to be called1 the recension of ,euthalius4#agg ,i have no intention of discussing the question whether it should be ,euthalius or ,evagrius3 ,von ,dobschtz 7,euthaliusstudien1 p4 #aeb n4 #a7 has promised to give us further particulars as to the ,syriac texts relating to the subject4 ,i would merely call attention to two facts1 viz4-- ,sidenote3 ,harklean4 7#a7 ,that the subscription testifying to a collation with the exemplar of ,pamphilus is found also at the end of the ,harklean ,syriac published by ,bensly 7see above1 pp4 #gi1 #ajf74 ,sidenote3 ,evagrius4 7#b7 ,that the name ,evagrius1 which ,ehrhard proposes to read in place of ,euthalius in ,codex ,h1 is actually found associated with the library of ,pamphilus in another manuscript of the ,old ,testament4 ,in his ,notitia editionis codicis ,bibliorum ,sinaitici 7,lipsi1 #ahfj71 pp4 #gc-abb1 ,tischendorf published 8,ex ,codicibus ,insulae ,patmi1 ,ineditum ,diodori ,siculi2 ,origenis ,scholia in ,proverbia ,salomonis40 ,the latter he took from a manuscript which1 according to ,h4 ,o4 ,coxe's ,report 444 on the ,greek ,,mss4 yet remaining in the ,levant 7#aheh1 p4 #fa71 professed to contain 8,origenis ,hexapla cum ,scholiis0 after the ,philocalia4 ,in reality they are ,origen's ,scholia on the ,proverbs which ,angelo ,mai had published in a different form from the ,vatican ,catena #ahjb1 in the ,nova ,patrum ,bibliotheca1 #ahed4 ,in the ,patmos manuscript the scholia proper are prefaced by two 7or three7 explanatory notes on the use of the obelus and the asterisk1 and on the different arrangement of the chapters in the ,hebrew and ,greek texts1 followed by another explanation of the same sort under the title 4#agh ,who they are that are referred to in the scholion as having collated the book 7 7 we learn from the subscription1 which says3 ' 7leg4 7 4 ,this subscription1 which ,oikonomos published fully fifty years ago from that ,patmos manuscript1#agi should be added to those usually cited--viz4 those appended to ,ezra and ,esther in 1 to ,isaiah and ,ezekiel in ,codex ,marchalianus1 to #c and #d ,kings in the ,syriac ,hexapla1 and to ,ezekiel in ,codex ,chisianus #hh4 ,with what has been said the student should compare what ,von der ,goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text of the ,new ,testament belonging partly to the tenth and partly to the sixth century4#ahj ,this1 too1 goes back to ,origen1 and in a scholion on ,james ii4 #c1 the greater part of which is unfortunately erased1 the work mentions 8a manuscript written by the hand of ,st4 ,eusebius40 ,as ,zahn elsewhere shows1 the writer of the ,athos manuscript did not base his own work on this ,codex of ,eusebius1 and in one passage he expressly contrasts it with the text of ,origen which he follows4 ,in spite of this1 however1 this ,athos manuscript must be taken into account in dealing with the recension of ,pamphilus4 ,still more so must the ,armenian and ,syriac texts1 according to ,conybeare and von ,dobschtz4#aha ,even the ,latin manuscripts may contain traces of this recension4 ,e4 ,riggenbach has shown that the table of chapters in ,hebrews given in ,codex ,fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as ,cod4 ,vat4 ,reg4 #i1 is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of 8,euthalius40#ahb ,unfortunately the relics of the literary activity of ,pamphilus1 that devoted student of the ,scriptures1#ahc are exceedingly scanty1 and what little is left is extant only in a ,latin translation4 ,in these circumstances the attempt to specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the ,bible by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless4 ,sidenote3 ,later revisers4 7d7 ,as we are now dealing with the question how to arrive at the oldest form of the ,greek text1 it is unnecessary to take account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation of the ,greek ,new ,testament4 ,among these were ,emperors and ,empresses like ,constantine and ,constans1 who exerted themselves in the dissemination of the ,scriptures1 and perhaps even made copies of them with their own hands1 but these we may disregard4#ahd ,the work of ,andreas and ,arethas on the ,apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of that book4 ,one naturally turns here to ,krumbacher's ,history of ,byzantine ,literature1 but the index to the first edition of that work contains only two references to the ,new ,testament1 neither of them bearing on our present subject4 ,the matter is one which may be commended to those who have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to investigate it1 and considering the ardour with which the study of ,byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present1 it may suffice merely to throw out this hint4 ,sidenote3 ,pre-,origenic texts4 7e7 ,so far as we have gone1 therefore1 it appears that much uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have already considered--those of ,lucian1 ,hesychius1 ,pamphilus1 and the ,ferrar ,group4 ,considering the amount of evidence at our command--how the external testimony points in the same direction as the manuscripts themselves1 and1 indeed1 how probable is the whole nature of the operation in question--one would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of all4 ,indeed1 even so cautious an enquirer as ,zahn speaks without any hesitation of 8the official recensions originating subsequent to the time of ,origen0 7,th,lbl41 #ahii1 #ahj74 ,the vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these recensions does not look very promising for the result of our investigation of the text prior to the time of ,origen1 when activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to run wild and unrestrained4 ,and there is this further difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered in this period came in later times more or less justly under the imputation of heresy1 with the consequence that the results of their labours were less widely disseminated1 if not deliberately suppressed4 ,in circumstances like these any attempted revision of the text must have been equally mischievous1 whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or from the opposite4 ,that there were who were supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy we have already learned from ,epiphanius4 ,indeed1 from our point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must be thought the more regrettable of the two1 since the books without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid1 strange1 and even fantastic traits of language4 ,even in the matter of style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands that the ,gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which we would not now willingly part with1 and which can be compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of ,christ that we see painted on a golden background in ,byzantine churches4 ,for myself1 at least1 ,i have not the slightest doubt that the ,gospel1 and the ,gospel particularly1 was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style4 ,just consider this1 for example4 ,in all our present authorities--,greek manuscripts1 ancient versions1 ,syriac1 ,egyptian1 and so forth1 and in all the ,church ,fathers without exception1 so far as ,i am aware--we read the beautiful words3 8your ,father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask ,him10 7,matt4 vi4 #h74 ,compare with this what we find singly and solely in ,codex ,d and the ,old ,latin h1 1 antequam os aperiatis1 8before ever you open your mouth40 ,to me it is a striking indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality is wanting1 that a reading like this is not inserted by ,westcott and ,hort among their ,noteworthy ,rejected ,readings1 nor even cited by ,baljon in his critical apparatus1 and that our commentators have not a single syllable about it1 so that our students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form of the words of ,jesus4 ,if my edition of the ,new ,testament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who previously were unacquainted with them1 ,i should consider it had done no small service4 ,but take another illustration from the parable of the ,barren ,fig ,tree4 8,cut it down1 why cumbereth it the ground10--that is how our ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant husbandman in ,luke xiii4 #g3 4 ,here again1 the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning1 except that a good many 7,a ,l ,t etc47 insert a very prosy after the imperative1 while ,b #hj read for 4 ,and in the answer of the vine-dresser 7verse #h71 8till ,i shall dig about it and dung it10 there is again no various reading in our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of 77 1 1 and 4 ,what a difference do we find here also in the text of ,d3 8bring the axe10 1 adfers securem2 and1 8,i will throw in a basket of dung10 1 mittam qualum 7 squalum7 stercoris d1 or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff#b i l q1 from which it was taken into the ,codex of ,marmoutier1 a copy of the ,alcuinian recension of the ,vulgate written in gold4#ahe ,here again1 our editors and commentators for the most part take no notice4 8,bring the axe0 is omitted by ,weiss1 father and son1 ,westcott-,hort1 ,tregelles1 and also by ,baljon1 while ,holtzmann ignores both variants4 ,it stands to reason1 of course1 that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof of greater originality4 ,but the whole question is raised as to the principles by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative value of the witnesses4 ,one might be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom ,d or its parent manuscript was written4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and most recent editors with them1 do so regard them1 seeing they cite the reading of ,d neither in ,matt4 vi4 #h nor in ,luke xiii4 #g4 ,in the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case1 because as yet we have no other testimony to than ,d d4 ,but it is not so likely in the case of ,matt4 vi4 #h1 seeing that here the testimony of ,d is supported by that of h4 ,to justify our neglect of these witnesses1 we should require to prove either that h is derived from ,d or ,d from h4#ahf ,so far as my knowledge goes1 no one has yet maintained the latter view4 ,the derivation of h from ,d is an impossibility1 for this reason alone that h belongs either to the fourth1 or1 what is perhaps more likely1 to the fifth century 7see p4 #aac74ahg ,the truth is1 rather1 that we have in h a second and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of ,matt4 vi4 #h read1 8before you open your mouth40 ,but it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of ,d in ,luke xiii4 #h 7 74 ,here too1 of course1 one might take exception and say that as ,d is bilingual1 its ,greek text might be derived from the ,latin4 ,fortunately1 however1 it happens that the ,latin of ,d1 that is1 d1 differs from all the other eight ,latin witnesses in reading not cophinus but qualus1 and it is cophinus that is a loan word from the ,greek#ahh2 so that this objection1 actually raised against ,d in the case of other readings1 does not apply to this one4 ,there is this to be observed1 moreover--a point not given in ,tischendorf1 but noticed in ,westcott and ,hort--viz41 that ,origen also seems to have read 8basket40 ,the passage is again one that is extant only in the ,latin translation of ,rufinus1 and ,tischendorf cites ,or4 #c1 #deb among the witnesses supporting 2 but ,westcott and ,hort expressly mention that ,origen's context appears to support the reading 78,lev4 lat4 ,ruf41 #aij1 apparently with context074 ,here1 then1 we have these three stages3-- 7#a7 ,d d alone1 --i4e4 one solitary ,greek manuscript4 7#b7 ,d supported by h1 --i4e4 the same solitary ,greek manuscript with the addition of one representative of a version4 7#c7 ,d supported by eight ,latin manuscripts and ,origen1 --i4e4 the same solitary ,greek manuscript with the addition of eight representatives of one version and one not absolutely certain quotation4 ,what then8 ,can it be allowable to judge a reading's claim to be mentioned and considered from the number of the witnesses supporting it1 and like ,westcott and ,hort and ,baljon to mention the third only1 and take no notice of the other two8 ,i think not4 ,for just as in certain circumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any manuscript1 but must be determined by conjecture1 so in another case the truth may have only one solitary representative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries 7,heb4 xii4 #c71 and this solitary witness either a manuscript1 a version1 or a quotation4 ,on the other hand1 it may have a whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it4 ,in matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with the case whatever4 ,to speak of majorities is nonsense4 ,the true man is willing and able to stand alone1 and to many a witness of this sort we must apply the words of ,socrates3 4 ,if we have been able to verify the word of a witness once1 several times1 frequently1 then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases where we cannot check his evidence4 ,of course we must make allowance for human fallibility--quandoque bonus dormitat ,homerus2 least of all in matters of this kind must we look for inerrancy4 ,a manuscript whose testimony was decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than a book printed without a single error at the time of the ,incunabula1 which the printers of that age would have regarded as an eighth wonder of the world4 ,but how to estimate the character of such a witness1 seeing that the subjective feeling1 the instinctive perception of what is original1 is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses--that is the difficulty4 ,and what is the point that our discussion has brought us to8 ,from the 8official recensions of the text0 made in the later centuries1 we sought to get back to similar works of earlier times1 and we found that the original text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox revisers and correctors1 who toned down and obscured the fresh colouring of the ancient records1 as at the hands of heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements4#ahi ,unfortunately very little definite information has come down to us from those early times1 and as that relates more to the history of the canon than of the text1 reference must be made here to the monumental work of ,zahn4#aij ,two figures1 however1 emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the history of the text as well1 ,tatian and ,marcion1 the former chiefly in connection with the ,gospels1 the latter with the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,both have been already referred to more than once in the chapter on the 8,materials0 7,tatian1 p4 #ig f42 ,marcion1 pp4 #gf1 #hg71 and both will require careful consideration here in our treatment of the principles involved in the reconstruction of the text4 ,how much would be achieved could we but restore the original work of ,tatian upon the ,gospels1 or the ,gospel and the ,apostle of ,marcion6 ,sidenote3 ,heretics4 7f7 ,before speaking of their work1 however1 there are still a few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and the preceding time4 ,nearly all the heretics were in turn accused of falsifying the ,scriptures4 ,in this sense1 also1 the ,dutch proverb is true1 8jedere ketter heeft zijn letter0 7every heretic has his letter1 his text of the ,scriptures74 ,in early times ,justin charged the ,jews with such falsification in the ,old ,testament1 and ,lagarde was sometimes inclined to suspect that the ,massoretic numbers in ,genesis had been manipulated by the opponents of ,christianity4 ,such complaints were most frequently made against the ,gnostics1 particularly the ,valentinians1 and when we glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings1#aia it is abundantly evident that at various times there was a good deal of falsification--i4e41 a good deal written under false names4 ,at the same time it cannot be denied that alterations were also made on early ,christian works and the books of ,scripture in the interests of dogma4 ,these alterations are of all sorts1 ranging from quite harmless changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections1 and1 it may be1 even wilful corruptions4#aib ,but most assuredly the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this offence3 ,iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra4 ,as ,jlicher 7,einl41 #cgh7 points out1 the orthodox ,church teachers were very fond of making this charge against the heretics3 1 1 1 1 1 1 7ironically71 1 1 1 1 1 interpolare1 adulterare1 violare1 corrodere1 dissecare1 auferre1 delere1 emendare 7ironically71 eradere1 subvertere1 extinguere1 these are some of the expressions we hear in this connection4 ,marcion gave occasion to the reproach by his edition of the ,gospel of ,luke and the ,epistles of ,paul1 but against the rest of the ,gnostics1 especially the ,valentinians1 against the ,artemonites1 ,novatians1 ,arians1 and ,donatists1 and against the ,nestorians1 the same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the ,jews4 ,even within the pale of the ,church one party attributed such practices to the other4 ,ambrosiaster1 e4g41 believed that in the case of important discrepancies between the ,greek and ,latin manuscripts1 the variations were due to the presumption of the ,greek writers who had interpolated spurious matter4 ,jerome was afraid this would be said of him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration3 quis doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem1 me falsarium1 me1 clamans1 esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere1 mutare1 corrigere6 ,the curse in ,apoc4 xxii4 #ah f4 was also referred to the 8falsifiers10 who thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar expressions in the ,scriptures4 ,at a meeting of ,cyprian bishops1 about the year #cej1 when one of them1 in quoting the verse ,john v4 #h1 substituted for the better ,greek word 1 another shouted to him in the hearing of all the multitude1 8,art thou better than he who said that thou art ashamed to use his words80#aic ,and it is a well-known fact that in the time of ,augustine there was very nearly an uproar in an ,african congregation over ,jonah's 8gourd0 7cucurbita7 or ,jonah's 8ivy0 7hedera74 ,a few references at least may be collected here3-- 7#a7 ,on a certain ,sunday#aid in the year #agj or thereabouts1 ,dionysius1 ,bishop of ,corinth1 wrote a letter to the ,church at ,rome through their ,bishop ,soter1 of which ,eusebius has preserved the following among other passages 7,eccl4 ,hist41 iv4 #bc73-- 4 #aie 1 1 4 4#aif 1#aig 1 4 ,the are in all likelihood the ,gospels 7the ,syriac renders 8the writings of our ,lord071 but may also include the ,pauline ,epistles and the ,o4,t4 ,if we are to take the words of ,dionysius in their strict sense1 it would appear that these writings1 like his own letters1 had been corrupted by means of 8additions0 and 8omissions40 ,the last sentence1 if it is put correctly1 and if it has been faithfully transmitted1 leads us to infer that in his letter to ,corinth ,soter had expressed his surprise that the writings of the ,lord should have been falsified4 ,to which ,dionysius replies that certain letters of his own had been falsified also1 and that it was therefore no wonder if they did the same to the writings of the ,lord1 seeing they tampered also 7or1 even7 with those that were inferior to them4 ,the simplest explanation of the words is1 undoubtedly1 that ,dionysius sought to console himself over the fate that had befallen his letters1 by reflecting that it was not surprising that they had falsified his letters of less importance1 seeing they had presumed to do the same even to the writings of the ,lord4 ,on the first interpretation1 one would certainly expect ,dionysius to use a stronger expression to describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred writings than the mere 4 ,who are meant by 8 ,one most naturally thinks of ,marcion4 ,according to a later account1 ,soter1 whom ,jerome does not mention among the writers1 composed a book against the ,montanists4 ,sidenote3 ,artemonites4 7#b7 ,in the last chapter of the ,fifth ,book of his ,ecclesiastical ,history 7c4 xxviii471 entitled 1 ,eusebius quotes the following complaint from an earlier source1 entitled the ,little ,labyrinth 7 #bce73-- 1 1 1 1 but occupying themselves with ,logic1 ,geometry1 ,euclid1 ,aristotle1 ,theophrastus1 and ,galen1 1 444 1 4 1 4 1 4 ' 1 4 4 4 ' #aih 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 ' 1 1 4 1 ' 1 4 ,the passage is very instructive4 ,we learn that copies of the writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance1 because their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts1 8each one's emendations1 as they style them1 but in reality they are corruptions10 as the ,syriac has it4 ,at the same time1 it is not quite certain that really means corrected manuscripts of the ,bible1 and not the heretics' own works--i4e41 whether we should understand after 1 1 1 and not rather or 4 ,in the former case we shall have to search for a recension of ,asclepiades1 of ,theodotus1 of ,hermophilus1 and in the case of ,apollonides for a double recension1 an earlier and a later4 ,this interpretation of the words does certainly receive support from the positive way in which the historian argues from the conduct of these heretics1 that they either did not believe in any inspiration of the holy ,scriptures1 or thought they could write better themselves1 and also from his remark that they did not receive in that form 77 from their 7,christian7 instructors1 and were not able to show any older copies from which their own were transcribed4 ,from the mention of the ,law and the ,prophets1 we may conclude that the reference is mainly to the ,o4 ,t4 ,epiphanius mentions the ,theodotians as appealing to ,deut4 xviii4 #ae1 ,jer4 xvii4 #i1 ,isa4 liii4 #c1 ,matt4 xii4 #ca1 ,luke i4 #ce1 ,john viii4 #dj1 ,acts ii4 #bb1 #a ,tim4 ii4 #e2 while ,hippolytus argues against them on the ground that in ,john i4 #ad1 it is not but 4 ,no sure traces1 however1 can be discovered in any of these ,n4 ,t4 passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text4 ,the most probable instance is ,luke i4 #ce4 8,if we may trust the statement of ,epiphanius10 says ,harnack 7,monarchianismus1 ,,pre#c1 x4 #ahh71 8,theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from the first 7 1 71#aii as if the words were wanting1 which makes the sentence imply that the divine ,sonship of ,christ rests on his approving himself4 ,but perhaps ,theodotus omitted altogether1 just as he seems to have read instead of 1 in order to obviate all ambiguity40 ,the latter reading is not mentioned in ,tischendorf1 and the remark of ,epiphanius in my opinion amounts to this1 that whereas he understood to be the subject of the sentence1 ,theodotus made it the predicate and separated it from 4#bjj ,sidenote3 ,marcosians4 7#c7 ,speaking of the ,marcosians1#bja ,irenus says 7#ib73-- 444 1 4 ,this seems to contain a reference to ,matt4 xiii4 #ag1 but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words of ,scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text itself4#bjb ,the still earlier passage1 ,polycarp vii4 #a1 is also to be taken as referring to this practice1 1 4 ,for the exposition of the passage see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #hdb4 ,sidenote3 ,basilides4 7#d7 ,that ,basilides#bjc altered the text of the ,gospels as received by the ,church in accordance with his own religious and ethical views1 and incorporated them in their altered form in his ,evangelium1 is shown by ,zahn on ,matt4 xix4 #aj-ab 7,,gk4 i4 #gga74 ,he shows also that the form into which ,basilides cast the ,synoptic narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that ,simon the ,cyrenian was crucified instead of ,jesus1 if this was really his doctrine4 ,sidenote3 ,notus4 7#e7 ,hippolytus says of ,notus 7,lagarde's edition1 #de1 #ai73 1 4 ,he means by this1 according to ,zahn1 that the ,noetians garbled their quotations1 and made selections of ,scriptural sayings without paying regard to the context4 ,but compare ibid41 line #g ff41 1 1 4 ,sidenote3 ,valentinians4 7#f7 ,heracleon1#bjd the ,valentinian1 is said to have read instead of in ,john ii4 #bj1 but whether he made the alteration himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly made out4 ,there is no notice of the variant in ,tischendorf1 ,baljon1 or in our commentaries4 ,it is mentioned by ,scrivener1 ,introd41 ii4 #bfj1 n4 #c1 where reference is made to ,lightfoot's ,colossians1 p4 #ccf1 n4 #a4 ,origen1 commenting on ,john i4 #bh1 cites ,heracleon in support of the reading 8,bethany10 which1 he says1 8is found in almost all the manuscripts40 ,in contrast to the ,marcionites and their practice of mutilating the ,scriptures1 ,irenus says of the ,valentinians 7iii4 #ab1 #ab73 scripturas quidem confitentur1 interpretationes vero convertunt1 quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro4 ,there we read 7i4 #c1 #f73 1 4 ,but in i4 #aa1 #i he says of them3 ,illi vero qui sunt a ,valentino 444 suas conscriptiones proferentes1 plura habere gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia1 siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae1 uti quod ab his non olim scriptum est1 8veritatis evangelium0 titulent1 in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis1 ut nec evangelium sit apud eos sine blasphemia4 ,for the continuation and discussion of the passage1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 ii4 #gdh4 ,see also ,westcott1 ,canon1 p4 #bih ff4 ,zahn 7,,gk4 ii4 #gee7 endeavours to show that they corrected the text of the manuscripts1 by the omission of 1 e4g41 in #a ,cor4 xv4 #bi1 and the insertion of in ,col4 i4 #af4 ,in i4 #h1 #a1 ,irenus accuses them of 4 ,the proverb is from ,ahikar4 ,the well-known charge made by ,celsus 7,orig4 con4 ,cels41 #b1 #bg2 ,koetschau1 i4 #aef7 and the answer of ,origen refer partly to the re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration3 7,celsus7 1 ' 4 4 4 ' 1 4 ,sidenote3 ,gnostics4 7#g7 ,clement 7,strom41 iii4 #ci7 complains that the ,gnostics corrupted the sense of the ,scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing the emphasis 7in oral delivery7 and by altering the punctuation 7in copying manuscripts872 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #dbd4 ,on ,tertullian's complaint as to the way in which ,marcion construed ,luke xx4 #ce1 see below1 p4 #bgf4 7#h7 ,clement 7,strom41 iv4 #da7 quotes ,matt4 v4 #aj;a1 to which he annexes the reason found in verse #i;b1 and then goes on to say1 1 1 1 1 4 ,zahn 7,,gk4 i4 p4 #daa7 makes the surmise that when ,clement spoke of certain persons who 8transposed0 or altered the ,gospels--i4e41 took liberties with the text1 he may have been thinking of ,tatian1 whose personal intercourse he may have enjoyed for a length of time1 and with whose ,greek writings he shows himself to be familiar4 ,sidenote3 ,simon ,magus and the ,marcionites4 7#i7 ,in an ,arabic ,introduction to a collection of alleged ,nicene ,canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the ,scriptures by heretics4 ,the ,emperor ,constantine is represented as addressing the ,fathers at ,nica1 and enjoining them1 in dealing with heretics1 to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the holy ,scriptures and those who merely interpret them falsely4 ,the arch-heretic ,simon ,magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious ,scripture4 ,his sect possessed an ,evangelium in four books1 to which they gave the title 8,liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi40 ,the ,phocalites 7,kukiani7 retained the ,old ,testament1 but in place of the ,church's ,new ,testament they had one manufactured by themselves1 in which the twelve ,apostles bore barbaric names4 ,it is said of the ,marcionites3 ,sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt addideruntque ,evangelio et ,epistolis ,pauli apostoli quibusdam in locis1 quaedam vero loca mutilarunt4 ,apostolorum ,actus e medio omnino sustulerunt1 alium substituentes ,actorum librum1 qui faveret opinionibus ac dogmatibus1 illumque nuncuparunt 8,librum propositi finis40 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 ii4 #ddh1 where reference is made to ,mansi1 ,conc4 ,coll41 ii4 7,flor41 #agei71 #idg-ajhb2 ,hefele1 ,conciliengeschichte1 #bnd4 ed41 i4 #cfa-cfh1 #bhb f42 ,harnack1 ,der ,ketzer-,katalog des ,bischofs ,maruta von ,maipherkat1 ,,tu4 7,new ,series71 iv41 #ahii2 ,th,lz41 #ahii1 #b4 ,sidenote3 ,arians4 7#aj7 ,ambrose says on ,john iii4 #f 7,de ,spiritu1 iii4 #aj73 ,quem locum ita expresse1 ,ariani1 testificamini esse de ,spiritu1 ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis4 ,atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de ,ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis4 ,eo enim tempore quo impiae infidelitatis ,auxentius ,mediolanensem ,ecclesiam armis exercituque occupaverat1 vel a ,valente atque ,ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus suis incursabatur ,ecclesia ,sirmiensis1 falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrum in ,ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est4 ,et fortasse hoc etiam in oriente fecistis4 ,sidenote3 ,greeks4 7#aa7 ,ambrosiaster has the following note on ,rom4 v4 #ad 7,migne1 xvii4 #ajj f473 ,et tamen sic 7i4e4 7 praescribitur nobis de graecis codicibus1 quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent1 quod facit studium contentionis4 ,quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam1 verba legis adulterat1 ut sensum suis quasi verba legis asserat1 ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur4 ,constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos 7esse7 codicibus1 quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et probat3 postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt1 multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum1 ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur1 unde etiam ipsi ,graeci diversos codices habent4 ,hoc autem verum arbitror1 quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur3 nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus1 sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita1 ,tertulliano1 ,victorino1 et ,cypriano4 ,the correction 8hodie quae0 for 8hodieque0 in the last sentence is due to ,haussleiter1 ,forschungen1 iv4 #cb4 ,the passage is also interesting as being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of ratio and auctoritas as the two arbiters in theological disputes4 ,compare the frequent combination of the two by ,luther in his earlier polemics--e4g4 against ,prierias1 and also later in his protest at ,worms4 ,again1 ,ambrosiaster says on ,gal4 ii4 #a1 with reference to ,acts xv4 #bj1 #bi3 ,quae sophistae ,graecorum non intelligentes1 scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum adulterant scripturam1 quartum mandatum addentes 8et a suffocatis observandum10 quod puto nec ne ,dei nutu intellecturi sunt1 quia iam supra dictum est1 quod addiderunt4 ,sidenote3 ,marcion4 7g7 ,marcion4--,we have more exact information in regard to ,marcion's great undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism4 ,here there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the ,greek and ,latin ,fathers4 ,it must be confessed1 however1 that hitherto attention has been directed more to his position in the matter of the ,canon generally than to his work on the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,here again1 the works of ,zahn throw most light upon the subject2 in other works1 like the ,,pre e4g41 this side of ,marcion's activity is very superficially treated4 ,several points have already been referred to here and there in the previous part of this work1 but the question must now be treated as a whole4#bje ,in the opening sentence of his examination of ,marcion's ,new ,testament1 ,zahn avers that no church teacher of the second century occupies such an important position in the history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer4 ,if this is really so1 it becomes all the more important for us to inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discoverable also in our witnesses to the text of the ,new ,testament4 ,sidenote3 ,his ,new ,testament4 ,marcion's ,new ,testament1 which was at the same time his entire ,bible1 consisted of two books of moderate compass--viz4 a ,gospel-,book1 which he seems to have called simply1 and a collection of ten ,pauline ,epistles called1 probably by himself1 7sc4 74 ,the ,epistles were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to correspond to that of their composition--viz41 ,gal41 #a and #b ,cor41 ,rom41 #a and #b ,thess41 ,laodicenos 7 ,ephes471 ,col41 ,phil41 ,phm4 ,he was unanimously accused by the ,church teachers of having mutilated the ecclesiastical ,bible in the manufacture of his own1 and also of having corrupted the text here and there by means of interpolations1 particularly in the case of ,luke1 which was the only ,gospel he admitted4 ,they complained that he used not the pen but the knife 7only he used it for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are employed nowadays71 and the sponge1 and also that he deleted not words merely but whole pages4 ,they compared his work upon the manuscripts to that of a mouse4#bjf ,and as for his disciples6 ,every day they were improving their ,gospel4 ,seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the writings of ,paul altogether1 his disciples continued his work1 and removed whatever did not concur with their views4#bjg ,but according to testimony extending over a long stretch of time1 their text of the ,scriptures seems to have undergone fewer alterations during that period than that of the ,catholic ,church 7,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fac74 ,in comparing the text of these two collections 8it should be clearly understood that the ,church's text1 whose treatment by ,marcion is in question1 is not to be identified with that of our ,bible ,societies1 or of ,tischendorf1 or of ,epiphanius1 but was such a text as ,marcion found in the ,catholic ,church or in the ,roman community about the year #aej4 ,the text of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which ,marcion based his labours can no longer be restored in every word1 but sufficient means are at our command to give us a general idea of the form which the text of the ,pauline ,epistles presented in the second century1 and at the same time to ascertain in many separate instances what text ,marcion had before him4 ,it turns out in many cases that what seems strange in ,marcion's text to one who compares it with the textus receptus1 or with one of our modern critical editions1 without knowing much about the history of the text1 is by no means peculiar to ,marcion1 but was pretty common in the ,west in early times4 ,now it is quite inconceivable1 in view of the implacable hostility of the ,church to ,marcion1 that his text1 condemned as it was unceasingly as being heretical and spurious1 should have exerted any positive influence on that of the ,church4#bjh ,it follows1 accordingly1 that all those things in ,marcion's ,bible that seem to the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone1 but which are attested by ,catholic manuscripts1 versions1 and ,patristic writers1 were not invented by ,marcion1 but taken by him from the ,church's ,bible of that time1 or from one such ,bible at all events1 and were only gradually ousted from the text used by the ,church40#bji ,all this1 which is taken word for word1 with the exception of a slight change in the last sentence1 from ,zahn's dissertation of the year #ahhi 7p4 #fcf71 should even at that time have been self-evident1 but1 like ,zahn's further statements in the same place1 has not yet been sufficiently attended to1 especially in our commentaries on ,luke and the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,he points out1 e4g41 that ,tertullian1 in speaking of the change of the address 8ad ,ephesios0 to 8,laodicenos10 credits ,marcion with the intention of being 8et in isto diligentissimus explorator10 so that it is possible that he compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original wording4#baj ,in such cases1 therefore1 the question may be asked whether ,marcion may not really have preserved the original text1 and whether his text1 so far as it is corroborated by any independent tradition1 should not be estimated much higher than it is by the textual critics of the present4#baa ,zahn deserves all the more credit for giving such careful attention to questions relating to the text1 seeing that the subject of his investigation was merely the history of the canon4 ,he has dealt chiefly with those passages in which ,marcion's intentional alterations have been preserved4 ,sidenote3 ,his 8,emendations40 ,reference may be made1 e4g41 to the pages in the first volume of his ,history1 entitled ,minor ,emendations1 wherein it is shown how ,marcion1 in his hostility to the ,old ,testament with its ,god of ,righteousness1 omitted the quotations from the ,old ,testament altogether1 or dropped the introductory formula of quotation in ,rom4 i4 #ag1 xii4 #ai1 #b ,cor4 iv4 #ac2 excluded all the references to ,abraham in ,galatians except in iv4 #bb2 altered in ,rom4 x4 #c to 2 removed the words 1 from ,gal4 iv4 #d2 changed the active construction into the passive in #a ,cor4 iii4 #ag2 and elsewhere strove after greater condensation1 lucidity1 and brevity of expression4 ,marcion1 says ,zahn1 had good grounds for believing that the text of the ,scriptures had not remained unchanged during the century that had elapsed since their composition1 though that might be said with more truth of the ,gospels and the ,acts than of the ,epistles2 but to attempt to rid the ,apostle's text of all supposed corruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material whatever1 but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely ,christian and apostolic1 was the undertaking of a giant1 as ,irenus calls ,marcion4 ,and his disciples1 in a blind veneration of his authority1 seem to have exceeded the intention of the master and editor1 8just as many ,lutherans at the present day look upon ,luther's translation1 with all its faults1 as the very word of ,god1 and hardly capable of improvement40 ,in the ,appendices to his second volume ,zahn has gone still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text4#bab ,his main conclusions will hardly be contested4 ,among these are the following3-- ,sidenote3 ,marcion and the ,western ,text4 #a4 ,that ,marcion based his ,gospel on that of ,luke1 although his text displays various elements belonging to ,matthew and ,mark2 #b4 ,that this mixture is found in those passages wherein the ecclesiastical texts1 and especially the ,western1 exhibit the same or similar features2 #c4 ,that ,marcion's text shows#bac none of those small 8apocryphal additions0 which we find combined with the contents of our ,gospels in ,justin and ,tatian4 ,zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manuscripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited to ,marcion1 and which are precisely the ,western witnesses1 the ,old ,latin manuscripts1 and ,d of the ,greek4#bad ,compare1 e4g41 on ,luke v4 #ad1 #cd1 #ci2 vi4 #be f41 #ca1 #cg2 viii4 #de2 ix4 #f1 #af1 #bb2 x4 #bb1 #be2 xi4 #bj1 #da2 xii4 #ad1 #ca1 #eh f42 xviii4 #ce2 xx4 #cf2 xxi4 #bg1 #cj2 xxiv4 #f1 #bf1 #cg4 ,but there are also passages where ,marcion parts company with ,d and its associates--e4g41 vi4 #bb1 #bf1 #bi2 xi4 #d4 ,in ,paul1 too1 the number of passages displaying agreement between ,marcion and ,d#b ,g#b preponderates3 ,gal4 ii4 #e2 iii4 #ad;b2 v4 #a1 #ad1 #bd2 #a ,cor4 i4 #ah2 #b ,cor4 v4 #d2 #a ,thess4 iv4 #af2 ,eph4 i4 #i1 #ac2 iii4 #aj2 iv4 #f2 v4 #bh ff4 ,the agreement between ,marcion's text and that of the minuscule #aeg was previously emphasised by ,zahn--e4g41 in ,luke xvi4 #ab1 where the reading instead of 7 ,b ,l7 is supported as yet by this ,greek manuscript alone and three old ,latin 7e i l71 and in xxi4 #cj1 where only one other of the minuscules collated by ,scrivener supports ,d #aeg in reading 4#bae ,in ,luke xxiv4 #bf1 ,d and ,marcion are our only witnesses for the reading instead of 4 ,how is this to be explained8 ,zahn1 e4g41 holds that it is a mere coincidence that ,marcion's reading1 8prophetas suos10#baf in #a ,thess4 ii4 #ae agrees with read by ,d#b ,e#b ,k#b ,l#b1 i4e41 the representatives of the ,antiochean recension1 with which ,marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees1 seeing he founds throughout upon a ,western text4 ,in the great majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough4 ,marcion began his career at ,rome1 so that we may naturally expect him to give us a ,western text4 ,so far1 therefore1 one might be tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto1 although a text attested by ,marcion and the ,church in common is surely entitled1 even in respect of its antiquity1 to much more consideration than has been paid to it heretofore4 ,the importance1 and at the same time the difficulty1 of the problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as his1 or at all events one of a similar sort1 represented in a totally different quarter--viz4 in ,tatian4#bag ,sidenote3 ,tatian4 7h7 ,tatian#bah has already been referred to in a general way above 7p4 #ig ff473 we shall now give the testimony of the early church regarding him verbatim4 ,if we leave out of account the somewhat doubtful reference in ,hegesippus 7p4 #if71 and an equally uncertain allusion to the title of his ,harmony in ,origen1#bai the testimony from purely ,greek sources is confined to a few sentences in ,eusebius1#bbj a notice in ,epiphanius1#bba and a scholion in a manuscript of the ,gospels4#bbb ,for more exact information we are indebted solely to the ,syrian church4 ,the ,greek writer ,theodoret gives us most details4#bbc ,the notices contained in ,syriac and ,arabic sources are more numerous than the ,greek1 but they are shorter and must be omitted here4#bbd ,it becomes necessary1 therefore1 to consider very carefully whether any vestiges of ,tatian's work are preserved in our witnesses for the text1 and how these may1 and indeed must1 be used in its criticism4 ,i assume as having been demonstrated by ,zahn1 that ,tatian's ,diatessaron was a ,syriac work1 and ,i take it as very probable that the ,curetonian ,syriac and the ,lewis ,syriac present us with two works based on1 or at least influenced by1 that of ,tatian4 ,to what extent the same is true of the ,peshitto as well need not be considered here1 the main problem being to elucidate the connection between ,tatian and the ,western witnesses4 ,and here we are at once confronted with a matter of great uncertainty--viz41 whether there might not also have been a ,greek ,harmony of the ,gospels either antecedent to the ,diatessaron or contemporary with it1 which ,tatian himself made or employed4 ,zahn thinks not1 mainly because from the side of the ,greek ,church we have almost no notice whatever of the existence of anything of this sort1 nor of ,tatian's own work either4 ,harnack seems not to be convinced of the correctness of ,zahn's position4#bbe ,he even declares that ,harris's ,preliminary ,study#bbf has only confirmed his 8conviction that ,tatian composed a ,greek ,harmony of the ,gospels40#bbg ,that treatise is accompanied by a facsimile of the fragment of ,mark in ,codex ,wd1 8the contents of which display an affinity with the text of the ,diatessaron 7with the original text8740#bbh ,at all events ,harnack is of opinion that ,harris's conclusions with regard to a ,pre-,tatian and a very early ,harmony of the narrative of the ,passion are very premature1 and in his judgment should either not have been put forward at all in a ,preliminary ,study or suggested with more deliberation4 ,g4 ,krger also puts 8this ,combined ,gospel written in ,syriac 7,greek870 in his ,history of ,early ,christian ,literature1 #cg4 ,on the other hand1 ,hogg in #ab of his ,introduction1#bbi ,non-,syriac ,texts of the ,diatessaron1 says nothing of a ,greek text1 and in #ai1 where he raises the question1 8,in what language was it written801 he speaks only of the 8view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars1 that it was written in ,syriac10 and then asks1 on this view1 8was it a translation or simply a compilation80 and lastly1 which is the main question1 8what precisely is its relation to 444 the ,western text generally80 ,in his first work1 written prior to the publication of the ,arabic text1 ,zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that the so-called ,western witnesses--i4e41 ,codex ,d and the ,old ,latin manuscripts1 agree so often with ,tatian4#bcj ,his explanation of this phenomenon is very simple--viz41 that ,tatian returned from ,rome to his old home in ,syria about the year #agb1 and took with him from the ,west his text1 which was just the ,western text4 ,sidenote3 ,tatian and the ,western ,text4 ,this view would present no difficulty if it were only the case that the ,diatessaron shared the peculiarities of the ,western text1 but is the fact not rather the converse of this--viz41 that ,d1 the leading representative of that text1 shares the peculiarities of a ,harmony of the ,gospels1 might we say1 in short1 of the ,diatessaron8 ,not only are certain readings the same in both texts1 but the ,western text seems actually to exhibit features which can scarcely be regarded otherwise than as the outcome of a ,harmony4 ,i have given expression to this opinion ere now2 it struck me forcibly when ,i was collating the ,codex ,bezae for my ,supplementum ,novi ,testamenti ,graeci4 ,in order to afford a more convenient survey of the vast number of variants1 ,i followed the paragraphing of ,westcott and ,hort's edition4 ,now look at the variants there4 ,whereas the majority consist of quite separate and disconnected readings1 ,i was obliged at the beginning of the pericop regularly to copy half a line or even a whole line from ,d1 its text differed so much from that of our present editions at the beginnings of the pericop1 and there only to the same extent4 ,see1 e4g41 ,luke v4 #ag1 #bg2 vii4 #a1 #ah2 ix4 #cg2 x4 #a1 #be2 xi4 #ad2 xii4 #a to the end2 xxiv4 #ac4 ,it is true this phenomenon is most frequently observed in ,luke1 where ,i had previously explained its appearance in another way by supposing like ,blass that it was due to the author having issued two editions of that ,gospel4 ,but neither is it altogether absent from the other ,gospels4 ,it occurs most seldom1 as might be expected1 in ,matthew1 but examples may be seen in xvii4 #bb1 #bd2 xx4 #bi4 ,in ,mark see iii4 #ai2 iv4 #a2 vi4 #g4 ,there are other features besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other grounds4 ,for these ,i may briefly refer to the second of the works relating to this part of the subject1 ,the ,syro-,latin ,text of the ,gospels1 by ,f4 ,h4 ,chase1#bca in which a special chapter is devoted to the question of 8,harmonistic ,influence0 7pp4 #gf-ajj74 ,the writer calls attention there to three points1 viz43-- #a4 8,the text of ,codex ,bezae shows constant indications of harmonistic influence40 ,this1 however1 is nothing new4 ,jerome1 e4g41 complains of amalgamations of this sort4 ,but then1 #b4 8,in such harmonized passages readings occur which we are justified by other evidence in considering as ,tatianic readings40 #c4 8,there are other signs of the influence of ,syriac phraseology in1 or in the neighbourhood of1 such readings due to harmonistic influence40 ,i waive consideration of this last point1 but as regards the second it is noteworthy1 and bears out what ,i have said above1 that ,chase in this connection goes almost entirely by passages from ,luke with the exception of ,matt4 xxi4 #ah2 xxiv4 #ca f42 xxvi4 #ei ff42 and ,mark viii4 #aj2 xiii4 #b2 x4 #be ff4 ,from ,luke he instances iii4 #bc-ch2 iv4 #ca2 v4 #aj f41 #ad f42 vi4 #db2 viii4 #ce2 xi4 #b2 xx4 #bj2 xxi4 #g2 xxiii4 #de ff42 xxiv4 #a4 ,i should like1 however1 to call attention here to one passage to which ,chase refers in another connection--viz41 the extensive interpolation after ,matt4 xx4 #bh 7,chase1 pp4 #i-ad74 ,it is true1 as ,zahn expressly points out1#bcb that neither ,ephraem nor ,aphraates1 who were our only sources for the ,diatessaron prior to #ahha1 8shows any traces of this long and in part apocryphal interpolation1 nor yet of ,luke xiv4 #g-aj1 from which the most of it is taken40 ,but in the ,arabic ,tatian1#bcc ,luke xiv4 #a-f and xiv4 #g-aa1 #ab-ae are found after ,matt4 xx4 #a-af at the end of #bi and the beginning of #cj respectively4 ,the verse ,matt4 xx4 #bh1 regarding which ,zahn was uncertain whether it was in ,tatian or not1 seeing that neither ,ephraem nor ,aphraates mentions it1 is found in #ca1 #e between ,mark x4 #dd and ,luke xiii4 #bb1 while ,matt4 xx1 #bi;a 7 ,mark x4 #df;a7 follows a little further down in #ca1 #be4 ,so far1 indeed1 this result is not favourable to our theory4 ,but ,i ask myself in vain how else this interpolation is to be explained except as an attempt at harmonising4 ,now1 seeing that its text is found in one ,syriac1 two ,greek1 and half a dozen ,latin witnesses 7the particulars are given in the critical note1 p4 #bee71 the further question arises1 ,whence comes it8 ,the most ready answer will be1 8it comes from the ,greek1 whence it passed to the ,latin on the one side and to the ,syriac on the other40 ,as for the ,latin1 it is certain that the majority1 perhaps even all1 of the ,latin forms are derived from the ,greek4 ,but are the ,syriac as well8 ,or is not rather the converse true1 however strange it may seem at the first glance1 that the ,greek is a translation of the ,syriac8 ,there is the word 1 e4g41 which strikes me as it did ,chase1 as being particularly strange4 ,i admit that ,i should not care to build a hypothesis of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage alone4 ,i would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept in view in further investigations4 ,and ,i would supplement it by another question whether1 in the case of the first being negatived1 it may not be true after all1 pace ,zahn1 that there was a ,greek ,harmony alongside the ,syriac and probably going back to the same author4 ,may not the close resemblances traceable between ,tatian and the ,western text be also accounted for on the supposition that instead of ,tatian being influenced by the latter1 it really goes back to ,tatian8 ,i would ask this question specially in regard to the ,western text of the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,what is meant by the statement of ,eusebius cited above as to ,tatian's treatment of these ,epistles8 may certainly mean to translate1 but then one translates an entire text and not merely1 and1 moreover1 one does not translate 8with a view to improving the phraseology and syntax40 ,do not our ,western witnesses present us with a work of this description8 ,i am well aware that such hypotheses are like that regarding the author of the ,nibelungenlied where there was a great poem without a name and one or two great names without poems1 and so various combinations were made1 for each of which something could be said1 while none of them could be said to be proved4 ,that may be the case here too4 ,but at present ,i feel disposed to attribute a considerable share in this peculiar 8,western0 text to ,tatian4 ,sidenote3 ,syro-,latin4 ,and as this name 8,western10 the inappropriateness of which has long been recognised1 becomes on this supposition more inappropriate still1 ,i am inclined to recommend the freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by the work of ,chase1 ,i mean that of 8,syro-,latin40 ,in his preface ,chase puts in a plea for its use1 citing a sentence from the ,dublin ,review of ,july #ahid1 p4 #eb1 in which ,h4 ,lucas says3 8,the time is1 we hope1 not far distant1 when the term ,western will give place to the term ,syro-,latin1 the only one which truly represents1 in our opinion1 the facts of the case40 ,just as when we wish to indicate those languages and tribes that extend from the ,indian to the ,german and ,keltic we say ,indo-,germanic1 or ,indo-,keltic1 if we wish to be more exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the ,french1 so the term ,syro-,latin would be the best designation for a form of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among the ,syrians in the ,east as among the ,greeks in the centre and the ,latins in the ,west4 ,but be that as it may1 one thing is clear1 that many problems here await solution4 ,but they will not for ever defy methodical investigation4 ,the foregoing was all written before ,i saw the analysis given by ,zahn in his ,geschichte des ,kanons1 i4 #chc ff4 ,reading it1 ,i am surprised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a thorough investigation of the subject long ere now4 ,personally1 ,i am precluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this direction4 ,zahn says3 8,the quotations of ,aphraates frequently presuppose a different ,greek text 7of the ,pauline ,epistles7 than that lying at the foundation of the ,peshitto4 ,the repeated resemblances to ,western texts1 ,claromontanus1 ,boernerianus 7,d ,g71 ,tertullian1 and other ,latin witnesses are particularly striking4 ,in the earliest ,syriac ,gospel the same phenomenon appears even more conspicuously4 ,how is it to be explained8 ,shall we suppose that this type of text was dispersed equally throughout all parts of the ,church during the second century8 ,in that case we should have to regard it as the earliest form at which we can arrive1 on the principle laid down by ,tertullian3 quod apud multos unum invenitur1 non est erratum sed traditum4 ,but10 says ,zahn1 8even those who venerate the ,western tradition of the text--i4e4 those who1 like myself1 are of opinion that it does not get nearly its due share of attention from present-day critics--will decline to assent to this proposition4 ,because the result of this view would be to establish the rule that the so-called ,western tradition invariably deserves the preference over those others1 even over our oldest ,greek manuscripts themselves4 ,even if we limited it to those elements of the text in which the furthest ,east agrees with the furthest ,west1 the result would still be a text to which no cautious critic would pin his faith4 ,a more natural explanation of this striking condition of things is required40 ,zahn finds this in the supposition that there was formerly a close intimacy between the ,syrian ,church and ,rome4 8,just as the ,princes of ,edessa had much direct intercourse with ,rome1 so to all appearance had the ,church there40 ,in proof of this1 he points to the early intrusion of ,marcion's doctrines and ,bible into ,mesopotamia1 to the participation of the ,church of ,edessa in the ,easter controversy and its agreement in that matter with ,victor of ,rome1 and to the ,abgar ,legend which connects ,edessa with ,zephyrinus of ,rome 7#aii-baf7 by way of ,antioch1 and represents ,peter as sending the ,epistles of ,paul from ,rome to ,edessa4 8,considering the anachronisms that legends usually exhibit1 may we not take this to be the expression of an historical fact1 viz4 that a text written in the ,west formed the basis of the earliest ,syriac version of the ,pauline ,epistles8 ,this supposition is confirmed by the earliest history of the ,gospel among the ,syrians--viz4 by the ,diatessaron40#bcd ,after a most thorough discussion of all the questions relating to that book 7pp4 #chg-dbb71 ,zahn discovers in this part also 7the ,gospels7 an intimate connection between the text on which it is based1 and the form assumed by the text of the ,gospels in the ,west during the second century4 ,and he believes that it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of the remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very matter of their textual corruption and licence than this1 that this text came from ,rome to ,syria4 ,and so the final question arises1 8whether a connection does not exist between the first ,gospel and the first text of ,paul and the ,acts in the ,syriac1 and whether the entire ,n4 ,t41 as the ,doctrine of ,addai says1 was not a present which ,tatian brought with him from ,rome to his countrymen1 and adapted for their use by means of a free translation and revision80 ,zahn thinks that a positive answer cannot be given1 but he refers pointedly to what ,eusebius says regarding ,tatian's treatment of the ,pauline ,epistles1 and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced on the occasion and in the form of a translation from the ,greek into ,syriac1 and that the reason why ,eusebius had such hazy notions regarding it as well as the ,diatessaron1 is most likely that both the books were in ,syriac1 and used only in the ,syrian ,church4 ,a closer investigation of the ,pauline ,epistles in the ,syriac is needed to decide these questions4 ,to these propositions of ,zahn ,i have but the one objection stated above1 that the expressions used by ,eusebius point far too plainly to a revision of the phraseology of the ,pauline ,epistles1 which could have been done only on the original ,greek4#bce ,zahn himself points out that the words of ,eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere said of the ,theodotians 7,eccl4 ,hist41 v4 #bh1 #ae4 #ah2 see above1 p4 #bjj74bcf ,sidenote3 ,western ,text4 7i7 ,the ,western ,text4--,we thus find ourselves face to face with what has been called the only burning question of the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament--the question1 namely1 of the place to be assigned to the so-called ,western text4 ,our treatment of the external testimony has led us back through ,lucian1 ,pamphilus1 ,hesychius1 and ,origen1 to ,marcion and ,tatian1 that is1 into the middle of the second century4 ,but the question is now whether we must stop here1 or whether it is not possible to ascend with certainty even somewhat higher by means of an investigation of the material afforded by the manuscripts themselves4 ,the 8,higher ,criticism10 e4g41 seeks to get behind the ,synoptic ,gospels to the documents which the authors or editors used in their composition2 is it not possible for the 8,lower ,criticism0 to recover with certainty at least the primitive text of the ,new ,testament books8 ,and is that not most readily found in the so-called ,western text8 ,we have been obliged to make frequent reference to it already2 the question for us now is1 8,what is the value of ,codex ,bezae and its associates80 ,it was observed by ,theodore ,beza himself1 the scholar whose name the ,codex justly bears1 that the text of this manuscript differed in so many respects from that of others1 especially in ,luke and ,acts1 that he could give no explanation of it satisfactory to himself4 ,he was not led to suppose that the alterations were due to heretics2 nevertheless1 like a cautious man1 he thought it more advisable to preserve the ,codex than to publish it4 ,eight hundred years before1 ,bede was similarly impressed by the ,codex which we now know by the name of ,laudianus1 ,e#b4 ,he indicated 8quaedam quae in ,graeco sive aliter seu plus aut minus posita vidimus40 ,he was uncertain 8utrum negligentia interpretis omissa vel aliter dicta1 an incuria librariorum sint depravata sive relicta 444 namque graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo40 ,when the manuscripts began to be more systematically collated1 ,bengel declared that the criticism of the text would be much simplified if one were not bound to trouble himself with these codices1 which1 as being written in ,greek and ,latin1 he called vere bilingues4 ,old students of the ,maulbronn ,college have told me that ,ephorus ,bumlein the most distinguished philologist of our ,institute in this century1 and editor of ,disquisitions on the ,greek ,particles and similar works1 was always referring to the ,codex ,cantabrigiensis1 though they themselves never rightly understood about this ,codex1 or indeed about such things at all4 ,i do not know who it was from whom ,i myself first heard of it2 certainly there was no particular importance attributed to it in my student days or at the college where ,i was4 ,on the other hand1 ,tischendorf admitted its claims in opposition to all the other ,greek manuscripts in several passages1 such as ,mark ii4 #bb2 xi4 #f2 ,luke xxiv4 #eb1 #ec1 etc4 ,in other places he did so at first1 but changed his opinion afterwards--e4g41 in ,acts xi4 #ab1 while in others again1 like ,acts xiii4 #de1 he was inclined to accept its testimony1 asserting expressly3 ,ceterum ,d quantopere passim inter omnes testes excellat constat4 ,one of the things for which ,westcott and ,hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to ,codex ,bezae and its associates4 ,some of their remarks upon it will be found in the note below4#bcg ,sidenote3 ,lagarde4 ,that peerless scholar1 ,p4 de ,lagarde1 has even greater claims to honourable mention in this connection1 though but little regard was paid to his representations during his lifetime4 ,as early as #aheg1 he said of ,codex ,cantabrigiensis3 facile patet1 quum similibus libris careamus et ultra ,evangelia et ,actus nondum cogitem1 totius editionis meae quasi fundamentum futurum esse hunc codicem ,cantabrigiensem1 sed eum eis librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint 7,gesam4 ,abh41 p4 #ih74 ,his chief merit1 however1 lies not in his having estimated ,cantabrigiensis so highly1 but in having assigned a lower value to the other manuscripts4 ,by comparing ,d with the earlier versions1 and particularly by relying on the testimony of ,epiphanius1 he recognised in it a representative of an 8editio emendatorum orthodoxorum temeritate corrupta0 7ibid41 p4 #if74 ,compare also his bersicht ber die ,bildung der ,nomina1 p4 #bac1 where he instances of the 8emendati0 for of ,d4#bch ,sidenote3 ,blass4 ,general attention was first directed to the question of the ,western text1 when ,blass came forward with his view that it was quite wrong to present the problem in the shape of an alternative between ,d and ,a ,b1 because both groups were right1 ,d and its associates representing a first edition of the ,acts and a second of ,luke1 and the other group conversely4 ,i hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a veritable ,columbus ,egg1 and to this day ,i am firmly persuaded that ,blass's theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate of the ,western text4 ,sidenote3 ,zahn4 ,readers may1 perhaps1 be struck by the fact1 which ,zahn has since made public 7,einl41 ii4 #cdh71 that in his practical class at ,erlangen1 in the winter of #ahhe-f1 he set as the subject of the prize essay an 8,investigation of the materially important peculiarities of ,codex ,d in the ,acts10 and made a note at the time of the result which he hoped to see the investigation arrive at--viz41 8either the author's first draft before publication or his hand copy with his own marginal notes inserted afterwards40 ,zahn himself got no further1 but he was not surprised when ,blass came forward with his clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypothesis4 ,in one point1 certainly1 ,zahn does not agree with ,blass1 and that is in the application of the hypothesis to ,luke4 ,he holds that the text which ,blass restored as the ,roman form or second edition of ,luke is essentially nothing but a bold attempt to restore what is called the ,western text2 that the question to which such different answers have been made as to the value of this type of text--for it is not to be spoken of as a recension in the proper sense of that term--is by no means confined to the ,third ,gospel1 but touches the others as well and the ,pauline ,epistles also2 that the reason why the divergence of the ,western text from that exhibited in the oldest manuscripts and the great majority of ,greek witnesses is more conspicuous in ,luke1 is simply that we have the additional testimony of ,marcion for that ,gospel1 but the question is essentially the same in all the cases2 that whereas in ,acts we have two parallel texts both possessing equal authority1 in ,luke the case is different1 where in determining what the evangelist actually wrote1 we have to choose one or the other of two mutually exclusive propositions2 that this verdict on the text of ,luke1 however1 in no way invalidates the conclusion come to as regards the text of the ,acts4 ,but further1 ,zahn1 who even before this had avowed himself an 8admirer of the ,western text10 stands up determinedly for the view that this same ,western text1 which ,i shall1 like ,zahn and ,blass1 indicate henceforward as 1 contains much that is original4 ,he says that just as we must beware of a superstitious idolatry of what are styled the best manuscripts1#bci which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much older tradition 7,marcion1 ,irenus71 so we have equally to be on our guard against a morbid preference for every interesting and fanciful excrescence of the riotous tradition of the second and third centuries4 ,such a preference would logically imply that the scholars who took in hand to revise the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply corrupted it1 somewhat after the fashion of those who set themselves to 8improve0 our ,church hymns in the age of ,rationalism4 ,more than twenty years ago1 when ,i was a ,tutor at ,tbingen1 ,i had the impression to which ,i frequently enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues1 that modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong tack4 ,the textual study of the ,new ,testament was out of my province at that time1 and is really so still1 were it not that1 as ,augustine says1 it is necessary for everyone who devotes himself to the holy ,scriptures to take up such studies4 ,nor am ,i inclined thus far to fall foul of the system to which ,westcott and ,hort devoted the labours of a lifetime1 and in the building up of which they had at their command such an apparatus as is far beyond the reach of a ,german1 especially of one who is not attached to any ,university4 ,and as for the results of ,zahn's researches1 ,i prefer to look upon myself here as a mere learner and admirer4 ,in the presence of such doughty warriors ,i feel like a spectator upon the battlefield of ,new ,testament textual criticism1 and ,i would beg that what follows1 as well as what has been already said1 be regarded as but suggestions1 the acceptance or rejection of which by others may perchance serve to bring a younger generation nearer to the goal4 ,in this spirit ,i have in my ,philologica ,sacra 7#a-aeth ,march #ahif7 taken as a starting-point the reading in ,luke xxii4 #eb1 1 which is not mentioned at all by ,tischendorf1 and have sought by means of one or two analogous cases to show 8how frequently ,d preserves the correct reading40 ,i have instanced 1 ,luke xviii4 #cj2 1 xxiv4 #cg2 1 ,mark i4 #f 2 1 i4 #aj1 which might1 however1 be inserted from ,matt4 iii4 #af1 ,luke iii4 #ba 2 1 ,mark i4 #dj2 1 ,matt4 xxvi4 #gc4 ,in the first sketch of this ,introduction1 written in the year #ahie1 ,i referred to the addition found in ,matt4 xxvii4 #di1 which is manifestly taken from ,john xix4 #cd1 and is read by many authorities1 among these being ,b ,c4#bdj ,i said then3 8,only two possibilities are conceivable4 ,either the passage stood here originally1 and was removed at an early date on account of its variance with ,john xix4 #cd1 or it is an interpolation4 ,in the latter case1 it must have been inserted at a very early date1 and all the witnesses containing it1 which elsewhere are so frequently and so widely divergent1 must then go back to one and the same exemplar4 ,because the third possibility--viz4 that the same sentence was inserted in different copies in the same place quite independently of each other1 no one will consider to be at all likely4 ,but if the second supposition is to be held as correct1 then we see just what amount of importance is to be attached to the concurrence of our oldest witnesses1 particularly our chief manuscripts ,b ,c ,l4 ,they are not streams flowing independently from the same fountain of ,paradise3 they flowed together for a good part of their course1 and were considerably polluted before they parted company40 ,sidenote3 ,salmon4 ,two years later1 when the first edition was issued1 ,i added3 8,this too must now be asserted with far greater emphasis1 that the concurrence of ,b 1 on which so much stress has been laid hitherto by almost all textual critics1 proves nothing at all4 ,in ,sirach the common archetype of ,b was younger than the origin of the ,latin version1 manifestly a good deal younger1 because it already contained errors that had not yet made their appearance in our other manuscripts 7or in their sources74 ,salmon 7p4 #eb7 is of opinion that the text which ,westcott and ,hort have restored is one that was most in favour in ,alexandria in the third century1 and that came there1 perhaps1 in the century previous4 ,this is not far from ,bousset's view that ,b perhaps contains the recension of ,hesychius4 ,salmon calls the results of ,westcott and ,hort #8an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen4' ,burgon's paradox1 that the reason why ,b and have survived is that they were the worst1 seemed to ,salmon at first to be a joke1 but he now thinks it not improbable that they were set aside on account of their divergence from the form of text that acquired ascendancy at a later time4 ,if that be so1 then they met the same fate that they themselves prepared for the primitive form they supplanted2 and just as they1 with the help of ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort1 dislodged the ,textus ,receptus of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians1 and made themselves the ,textus ,receptus of the end of the nineteenth century1 so perchance will ,codex ,d1 which the builders despised1 become the foundation-stone of a new structure4 ,in ,urtext1 p4 #ed1 ,oscar v4 ,gebhardt alludes to the objections raised partly against the entire method of ,westcott and ,hort1 partly against their particular estimate of ,codex ,vaticanus1 and partly also against the position they have assigned to what they call the ,western text1 and he too says3 #8,if these objections are valid1 then the sure foundation which they seemed at last to have secured for the text of the ,new ,testament begins once more to totter4'0 ,since this was written1 my impressions have been greatly confirmed1 particularly by ,zahn's ,einleitung2 only ,i must admit that ,i am now less in a position than ever to make any definite proposals as to the way in which the goal of the textual criticism of the ,new ,testament is to be reached4 ,to follow one witness or one group of witnesses through thick and thin1 which would really be the only consistent course1 will seemingly not do4#bda ,and the 8eclectic method0 to which ,bousset was led in his work on the ,apocalypse as the only possible one1 is surely the opposite of the genealogical1 which we must acknowledge to be in theory the only correct method4 ,but first of all1 a fresh application of it would require to be made4 ,and as the task is too great for any single worker1 might it not be well if1 in the exegetical classes of our ,theological ,faculties1 the separate witnesses were either examined anew1 or1 conversely1 selected passages of the text1 quite small passages--a single chapter1 or a single epistle like #b or #c ,john or ,philemon--were given out to different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses for each passage1 and the results then compared with one another8 ,furthermore1 the critical apparatus would require at once to be lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakably recognised to be the representatives of a definite recension1 and the ,lucianic recension printed separately with or without an apparatus1 just as was done by ,lagarde himself for half of the ,old ,testament4 ,finally1 the ,western text would require to be much more thoroughly examined than has hitherto been the case4 ,it is true that ,weiss has given a special part of ,texte und ,untersuchungen to an examination of ,codex ,d in ,acts1 but without prejudice one may be quite sure that a solution of the problem is not to be found in the way in which ,weiss seeks it4 ,no doubt he establishes among other things the fact1 that in the ,speeches of ,peter displays almost no variation1 but then he makes no attempt to explain this fact or make any use of it4 ,it is an indication of considerable progress to find ,zahn going so carefully into matters of the text in an ,introduction to the ,new ,testament1 and his appreciation of the ,western text is most gratifying4 ,sidenote3 ,luke and ,acts in ,d4 ,at the same time the reader will naturally ask whether ,zahn's verdict on the text in ,luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with regard to ,acts4 ,is it not true in this connection that 8he who says ,a must also say ,b08 ,if you admit that there were two editions of ,acts1 you must make the same admission in the case of ,luke4 ,and conversely1 if there was no second edition of the ,gospel1 must you not then look for some other explanation of the variations in ,acts8 ,for it seems quite certain that the variants in ,luke xxiv4 are most closely related to the text of ,acts i4 ,or how else are the readings in ,luke xxiv4 #ea-ec to be explained8 ,westcott and ,hort have one way of explaining them4 ,they say that 8was evidently inserted from an assumption that a separation from the disciples at the close of a ,gospel must be the ,ascension4 ,the ,ascension apparently did not lie within the proper scope of the ,gospels1 as seen in their genuine texts2 its true place was at the head of the ,acts of the ,apostles as the preparation for the ,day of ,pentecost1 and thus the beginning of the history of the ,church40 ,that is all very well1 and it may also be the case that in v4 #eb is the natural result of the insertion of 4 ,but how then are we to account for the interchange of and in the next verse1 which is found in precisely the same groups of witnesses8#bdb ,if this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse #ec1 it may be confidently asserted that the omission of the ,ascension and the ,worship of the ,exalted ,lord by any later scribe is all but inconceivable from the moment that ,luke was separated from ,acts and placed among the ,gospels4 ,if such a thing were possible at all1 it would be in the case of 1 as there is no express mention in ,acts i4 of the disciples worshipping4 ,on the other hand1 the omission becomes quite conceivable as soon as the author added a to the 4 ,so far these variants appear to me to fit in very well with ,blass's theory and with no other4 ,zahn1 as far as ,i can see1 has nowhere expressed any opinion regarding them1 certainly he says nothing of the variation between and 1 which is the one of most importance critically1 though it is of least consequence materially4 ,graefe1 following on the lines of ,birt and ,regg1 supposes that the shorter form was due to want of space1 that ,luke was glad to get the shorter form all into his roll at the foot the first time he wrote it out1 and sent off the book to ,theophilus in that form1 hoping to deal with the ,ascension in the second of his books4 ,in the second edition he had sufficient space to admit of the insertion of 1 then of 1 and finally of 4#bdc ,these additions he made1 feeling1 rightly enough1 that there could be no more fitting conclusion to his ,life of ,jesus than a brief allusion to the ,ascension1 which he had already described more particularly in the ,acts4 ,at the same time he substituted for 4 ,graefe thinks that all these changes are connected with the alterations made also in the introduction to the ,acts1 though he omits to say what the connection is4 ,weiss1 father and son1 omit the words as 8a gloss derived from ,acts i410 and 8likewise0 the words in verse #eb 7is this also a gloss from ,acts i4874 ,which text they hold to be correct in verse #ec they do not say4#bdd #bde is the specifically ,lucan word for 8to praise10 while in this sense does not occur in ,acts at all1 and only in the first two chapters of ,luke4 ,further1 as any concordance will show1 is the regular equivalent of and of 1 while is rarely used for or for 4 ,this confirms the supposition that 1 which is preferred by ,tischendorf but rejected by ,westcott and ,hort1 is the original reading4 ,in order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the problem1 we shall take along with this passage from the end of the ,gospel a single instance from the ,acts4 ,how does the ,apostolic ,decree read in ch4 xv48 8,to judge any matter before knowing the facts of the case is inadmissible40 ,so ,hilgenfeld says in his magazine1 adding that the matter of the ,apostolic ,council1 as it is called1 and the ,decree have been so judged4 ,he himself restores the whole text in this passage to the form that ,blass has adopted as the ,forma ,romana--i4e41 to confine ourselves to this point of main importance1 he omits 8things strangled40#bdf ,on the other hand1 ,harnack1 in the article to which reference will be made below1 comes to the conclusion that the ,eastern1 i4e4 the common1 text is the original1 and the ,western a later correction made subsequent to the ,didache1 and not earlier than the first decade of the second century4#bdg ,the same conclusion is reached by ,zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question 7,einl41 ii4 #cdd ff473 8,the two texts are here mutually exclusive1 and therefore cannot both be derived from the same author 7xv4 #bj1 #bi1 xxi4 #be740 ,but he immediately adds3 8,the fact that ,blass1 in this important point1 as in many another of less consequence1 declares a certain thing to be an original element of the text which turns out to be simply an early corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his hypothesis40 ,that is quite true and must be borne in mind in connection with the objection raised by ,wendt1 that 8manifest clerical errors are found in the actual text40 ,the passages are also used by ,corssen as an argument against ,blass4 ,the remarks of the latter in reply to the strictures of ,corssen 7,evang4 sec4 ,lucam1 p4 xxvi7 seem to me to be not without reason1 but in any case it is strange that alterations should have been made in an official document like the ,decree in ,acts xv41 no matter whether these were due to the writer himself or a later intermediary4 ,that there was some method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence in three places4 ,but again ,i must emphasise the superiority of ,codex ,d4 ,whereas in ch4 xv4 #bj1 #bi the shorter text is represented by other witnesses as well1 in ch4 xxi4 #be it is supported by ,d with the sole addition of ,gigas ,holmiensis4#bdh ,i have not to decide the question here2 ,i simply commend it to a searching investigation1 in which attention must be paid to the apparently meaningless differences in the use of particles and synonyms1 of simple and compound words1 and such-like seeming minuti4 ,i can only repeat how frequently the thought occurred to me when ,i was comparing ,scrivener's edition with that of v4 ,gebhardt for my ,supplement1 that here was no alteration of a later scribe1 and what then8 ,the simplest explanation was that both readings were due to the author himself1 who on the one occasion purposely set down the one reading and on the other the other4 ,there is another question in connection with the ,western text which has been even more neglected than the former--viz4 the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case of the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,what about ,eusebius's reference to ,tatian's work on these ,epistles8 ,i frankly confess that not till the printing of this work was begun did ,i become aware1 mainly from ,zahn's ,einleitung1 how many problems are here waiting to be solved1 and for this reason as well as others ,i must for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction4 ,here ,i can only indicate a few of the most general rules of textual criticism1 and thereafter adduce a number of ,new ,testament passages which are of interest from a critical point of view4 ,sidenote3 ,rules of criticism4 7k7 ,general ,rules of ,textual ,criticism4--,in its essence the task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician1 who must first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before attempting its cure4 ,manifestly the first thing to do is to observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text transmitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed4 ,a correct treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis4 ,the injuries which a text receives will vary according as it is multiplied by ,dictation or by ,copying4 ,the fifty ,bibles which ,eusebius prepared at once for ,constantine would be written to dictation4 ,in the early times of the ,church1 copying1 as has been already mentioned1 would doubtless be the more usual method of multiplication4 ,here1 however1 we must make a single exception in the case of ,paul1 who for the most part did not write his ,epistles with his own hand4 ,he evidently dictated them4 ,he certainly did not have them simply written out from his own rough draft4 ,sidenote3 ,illegibility4 7#a7 ,in the case of copying1 errors originate first of all1 though not most frequently1 in a word or group of letters being illegible1 or in their being read for some psychological reason otherwise than as they were intended4 ,however attentive the copyist may be1 he may still be in doubt as to the way in which a word or passage should be read1 and may decide wrongly4 ,proper names1 e4g41 are often very doubtful4#bdi ,more frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention4 ,the context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word2 he sees one like it1 and inserts the former in its place4 ,sidenote3 ,homoioteleuton4 7#b7 ,it frequently happens1 particularly in copying the old scriptio continua1 that the eye of the scribe jumps from one word or group of letters to another the same or similar to it1 either before or after it4 ,in the former case the intervening words will be repeated1 in the latter they will be omitted4 ,scholars designate these errors as dittography and elision respectively2 printers know them under the name of a marriage and a funeral4 ,the former mistake is not so serious1 because it is at once detected on reading over the copy4 ,a peep into any manuscript will show how frequently this error occurs1 the repeated words being enclosed in brackets or surmounted with dots4#bej ,in ,codex ,b such passages give us an opportunity of observing the beauty of the original writing1 because the painstaking man who retraced the old writing with fresh ink in the eighth1 or tenth1 or eleventh century1 or whenever it was1 adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks1 left these untouched4 ,this kind of mistake very often happens in passages where a group of characters catches the eye for any reason1 such as the occurrence of the abbreviation mark1 1 1 1 etc41 and at the transition to a new page or leaf4 ,the omission of a piece of the text of various length by homoioteleuton is as common1 and is more serious4#bea ,any critical apparatus will show the frequency of its occurrence4 ,we often find there the note 8a voce alterutra 444 ad alterutram desunt0 or 8a voce #ao ad vocem #bo 7#co7 transilit10 or 8vox 444 alterutra et intermedia desunt40 ,compare1 e4g41 ,codex ,d1 ,matt4 xviii4 #ah from to 2 x4 #bc2 xxiii4 #ad-af4 ,the result is worst when the mistake is not discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are patched together in some way with more or less success4 ,lacun that have not been doctored are very helpful in determining the relationship between different texts4#beb ,sidenote3 ,confusion4 7#c7 ,as errors of the tongue and the memory#bec rather than of the eye may be reckoned the ,transposition and ,confusion of particular combinations of letters or entire words4 ,the former occurs so frequently in connection with a liquid1 that in some cases it ceases to be a mistake4 ,thus we have on the one hand the confusion of with 1 with ,carthago1 and on the other1 with 1 with 1 ,john i4 #bh2 with 1 with 1 1 talent1 ,matt4 xxv4 #ad-cj1 with 1 cities1 ,luke xix4 #ag1 #ai4 ,akin to this is the confusion of vowels with a similar sound1 to which are to be ascribed all cases of itacism1 as it is called-- and 1 -- and --1 and 1 and 1 #b ,cor4 xii4 #a2 and 1 and 1 ,rom4 v4 #a2 and 4 ,manifestly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dictation than in copying4 ,a third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious description is due to the substitution of words or forms of similar meaning4 ,thus1 for we may have or or 1 or the simple form may be replaced by the compound or vice versa1 or one preposition may be substituted for another4#bed ,separate words are very frequently transposed without seriously affecting the sense4 ,thus1 in ,acts iv4 #ab1 we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three words actually represented--viz41 in addition to this 7#b7 2 7#c7 2 7#d7 2 7#e7 4#bee ,on ,luke xvii4 #aj1 ,merx says 7,die vier kanonischen ,evangelien1 p4 #bdf73 8,let it be observed that the position of fluctuates between 7#a7 2 7#b7 ,d1 and 7#c7 4 ,such fluctuations are due to the different arrangement of a word that did not originally belong to the text1 but was appended as a note and afterwards incorporated with the text4 ,such fluctuations point to the interpolation of the fluctuating word40 ,this judgment has to be accepted with caution4 ,for one thing1 it is not at all clear which word it is that fluctuates4 ,in this particular case1 one might say that fluctuates as much as 1 and the copula still more4 ,moreover such an interpolation becomes at once an integral part of the text1 and its insertion is no longer visible4 ,only if several copies were made of that exemplar in which the interpolation was first introduced could fluctuation of this sort originate4 ,such transpositions are much more frequently of a harmless order1 as each one may perceive for himself4 ,the writer's thoughts fly faster than his pen and anticipate a word that should not come in till later4 ,one of the most frequent cases of transposition is that of and in the ,pauline ,epistles4 ,sidenote3 ,additions4 7#d7 ,akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in the border region between the unconscious and the conscious or intentional--viz4 that of ,additions4 ,one can readily understand how easy it was to insert a or 1 a after on the lips of ,jesus1 the subject at the beginning of a sentence1 especially of the first sentence of a pericope1 or the object in the form of a pronoun4 ,bengel proposed to omit the name of ,jesus in some twenty-five places1 for which he was ridiculed by ,wettstein1 as may be learned from my work on ,bengel1 p4 #gd4 ,now1 everyone admits that ,bengel was right4 ,under the head of 8,interpolationes breviores10 ,wordsworth and ,white first give examples 8de nomine ,jesus10 then of 8,christus1 ,dominus1 ,deus10 and then of 8,pronomina40 ,it is evident that in this way the wrong word may be supplied now and again4 ,perhaps one of the most interesting cases is ,luke i4 #df4 ,all our present ,greek witnesses make ,mary the composer of the ,magnificat1 but ,elisabeth's name is attached to it in three ,old ,latin manuscripts1 in the ,latin version of ,irenus1 according to the best manuscripts1 and in some manuscripts known to ,origen 7or to his translator1 ,jerome3 the passage1 unfortunately1 is found as yet only in the ,latin74#bef ,sidenote3 ,corrections4 7#e7 ,to the category of conscious alterations belong first of all grammatical corrections1 then assimilations to parallel passages1 liturgical changes introduced from the ,evangeliaria1 as1 e4g41 the addition at the close of a pericope of the words which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in the most diverse passages1 or indications of time1 such as at the beginning of a pericope1#beg and lastly1 alterations made for dogmatic reasons1 if any such can be established4 ,it is impossible to deny that dogmatic conceptions had some influence on the propagation of certain readings if not on their origin--as1 e4g41 on the form assumed by the words in ,matt4 xix4 #ag1 1 or on the omission of the words in ,mark xiii4 #bb2 compare also above1 p4 #ajf4 ,on the whole1 however1 there is no real ground for the scepticism that was for a time entertained with respect to our texts in this connection4 ,a sober criticism will be able in most cases to restore the correct form4 ,its conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the foregoing4 ,sidenote3 ,canons of ,criticism4 ,gerhard von ,maestricht laid down forty-three ,critical ,canons1 and ,wettstein set forth in his ,new ,testament his ,animadversiones et ,cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum ,novi ,testamenti necessariae 7vol4 ii4 #hea-hgd74 ,in #agee ,j4 ,d4 ,michaelis added to his ,curae in versionem ,syriacam ,act4 ,apost4 his ,consectaria critica de 444 usu versionis ,syriacae tabularum ,novi ,foederis4#beh ,bengel reduced all the rules to a single one4 ,quite recently ,wordsworth and ,white comprehended the rules they followed in the preparation of the text of their ,latin ,new ,testament in four sentences4 ,of these the first two apply to a version only1 and therefore do not concern us here2#bei while the fourth 7brevior lectio probabilior7 is but another form of ,bengel's canon4 ,the third alone may be regarded as new and deserving of attention--viz41 vera lectio ad finem victoriam reportat4 ,that is to say1 if a phrase is repeated in several passages in the same or similar terms1 and displays variants in the earlier passages1 the reading of the later passage will1 as a rule1 be the correct one1 the reason being that copyists are apt to consider a certain reading to be an error the first time it occurs1 and therefore to alter it1 but come in the end to admit it as correct4 ,i would once more briefly emphasize the following propositions3-- 7#a7 ,the text of our manuscripts must not be regarded as homogeneous1 but must be examined separately for each part of the ,new ,testament4 ,a manuscript that exhibits a very good text in one book does not necessarily do the same in the others4 ,the same thing holds good of versions and quotations4 7#b7 ,the text is preserved with less alteration in the versions than in the manuscripts4#bfj 7#c7 ,in the ,gospels that reading is the more probable which differs from that of the parallel passages4 7#d7 ,the influence of the ecclesiastical use of the ,scriptures on the text must be more carefully attended to than heretofore4 7#e7 ,one of the most valuable aids in estimating the importance of the witnesses is the proper names1 particularly those of less frequent occurrence4 7#f7 8,proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua40 ,sidenote3 ,proper names4 ,of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated further1 particularly the second last4 ,for it is really remarkable to what extent this consideration has been neglected hitherto4 ,to the best of my knowledge there is as yet no monograph in which the proper names are treated from a critical point of view4 ,and yet these are for the critic frequently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness4 ,they are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the fossil to the geologist4 ,this makes their neglect all the more strange4 ,had there been a systematic examination of the proper names of the ,new ,testament1 ,lippelt's important discovery with regard to the spellings and might have been made long ere now 7see above1 p4 #afb f474 ,weiss's critical studies in ,acts deserve honourable mention in this connection4 ,but ,westcott and ,hort1 who have paid attention to these things with their usual exactitude1 were simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked whether the various persons who bore this name might not have spelt it differently1 as in the case of ,smith1 ,smyth1 ,smythe1 etc4 ,similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto4 ,see above1 p4 #afe1 for the reading exhibited by ,b in ,matt4 i4 #c2 and compare ,sela1 given by ,syrsin in verses #d and #e1 with in ,luke iii4 #cb4 ,tischendorf omits the testimony in ,matt4 i4 #e1 while ,baljon passes over both the variants1 though they are certainly of more importance than the variation in the spelling of 1 1 4 ,in ,luke iii4 #bg the word is converted into a proper name 4 ,from this fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with regard to the sources of ,luke's ,gospel1 but this is a matter lying outside the scope of this chapter4 ,on the other hand1 the fact that in the fourth ,gospel the traitor is called not 1 or anything like it1 but by in ch4 vi4 #ga1 where his name first occurs1 and by ,d in every other place in that ,gospel 7xii4 #d2 xiii4 #b1 #bf2 xiv4 #bb71 raises a very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts and indeed of the fourth ,gospel4 ,on this see my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #ad1 and my notes1 with ,chase's unconvincing replies1 in the ,expository ,times for ,december #ahig1 and ,january1 ,february1 and ,march #ahih4 ,i am very glad to see that ,zahn now inclines to the same view 7,einl41 ii4 #efa74 ,considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the correct reading in the case of other names as well4 ,what is ,apollos called in ,acts8 ,he is mentioned by ,d only in ch4 xviii4 #bd1 where he is called 4 99 calls him in xviii4 #bd and xix4 #a4 ,this reading is supported in the former passage by the minuscules #ae and #ahj1 and in the latter by #ahj alone4 ,wendt now agrees with ,blass in thinking it probable that the original form in ,acts was 1 which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity with #a ,corinthians1 just as in ,john was accommodated to given by the ,synoptics4 ,but what about ,d8 ,i must ask with ,salmon4 ,even ,weiss says in this connection 7,codex ,d1 p4 #ah73 8,the most that can be said for is that this form1 differing as it does from that prevailing in the ,pauline ,epistles1 has the presumption of originality1 seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter40#bfa ,in his earlier work on the text 7p4 #i7 he seems not to have considered this point4 ,i cannot understand how ,weiss could at first explain 1 which is found in ,d 7,acts iv4 #f7 in place of 77 read by the other witnesses1 as a 8clerical error10 whereas now 7,cod4 ,d1 p4 #ajh7 he deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of the son of ,annas and the successor of ,caiaphas mentioned by ,josephus 7,antiq4 xviii4 #d1 #c7 in place of that of the entirely unknown ,john1 than that the name of ,jonathan1 even supposing it was unknown to the copyist1 which applies equally to that of ,alexander mentioned along with him1 was replaced by ,john1 which was a very common name1 the name of the ,apostle so frequently mentioned before4 ,it could1 therefore1 be only a purely accidental clerical error4 ,headlam1 in his article on ,john 7,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 ii4 #fgf7 seems to know nothing of all this4 ,but perhaps ,weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book that the mistake of ,johanan and ,jonathan occurred elsewhere also1 and remembering ,bengel's principle1 considers that is the scriptio ardua1 and1 therefore1 the praestantior4#bfb ,in #b ,peter ii4 #ae the father of ,balaam is called 1 which is quite peculiar4 ,westcott and ,hort and ,weiss1 in their fondness for ,b1 write 4 ,but this is most certainly a correction which is combined with the original to form in 4 ,the only thorough discussion of the passage that ,i know is in ,zahn's ,einleitung1 ii4 #aji4 ,the only thing that might be added to his data in the ,,lxx4 is that1 according to ,holmes-,parsons1 the ,georgian version has in ,jos4 xiii4 #bb4 1 as the name of ,beor1 has crept into various manuscripts in several places from ,jos4 xxiv4 #i--;e4g4 into the ,armenian in ,gen4 xxxvi4 #cb1 ,codex #ah in ,num4 xxii4 #e1 ,codex #ec in ,num4 xxiv4 #ae1 where ,cod4 #ge has 1 and into ,lucian in #a ,chr4 i4 #dc4 ,there seems to me to be a confusion between ,gen4 xxxvi4 #cb 7 #a ,chr4 i4 #dc7 and the following verse1 in which ,bosra occurs4 ,in ,gen4 xxxvi4 #cc one manuscript observes1 4 ,jerome also renders 8ex ,bosor40#bfc also occurs as the name of a place in ,deut4 iv4 #dc2 #a ,sam4 xxx4 #i2 #a ,macc4 v4 #bf4 ,on this last passage see ,zd,p,v41 #ab1 #ea2 #ac1 #da4 ,for other interpretations 7,hebrew pronunciation of the ,aramaic 7#bfd see ,pole's ,synopsis on #b ,peter ii4 #ae4 ,it is worth observing that minuscule #ha displays a close agreement with ,b in other places as well as this4 ,on the names in the catalogue of the ,apostles1 see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #bfc2 on and 1 ii4 #caj2 on ,jesus ,barabbas1 ii4 #bid2 on ,barachias in ,matt4 xxiii4 #ce1 i4 #ded1 ii4 #cjh4 ,on the confusion between ,isaiah and ,asaph in ,matt4 xiii4 #ce1 and between ,jeremiah1 ,zechariah1 and ,isaiah in other passages1 compare ,ambrosiaster's note on #a ,cor4 ii4 #i cited above1 p4 #adh4 8,he who seeks in the wild fir wood1 will still find many a cudgel good40 ,sidenote3 ,textus brevior4 ,the rule that the shorter text is the more original is a subdivision of ,bengel's canon4 ,it is specially the case when two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually exclusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter4 ,as examples of this ,zahn adduces1 in addition to the double conclusion of ,mark's ,gospel1 the following3-- ,john vi4 #dg3 1 ,b ,l ,t1 8in ,god10 ,syrcu4 sin1 ,a ,c ,d 4444 ,john vii4 #ci3 1 ,k ,t 1 ,l ,x 1 it vgcle1 ' 1 ,d f goth1 1 ,b #bed ,syrsin4 hark4444 ,james v4 #g3 1 ,b #ca1 pr4 ,a ,k ,l ,p1 pr4 #i ff etc4 ,it is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves to be a mixture of two others 7conflate readings74 ,the respective claims of these others must be adjudged on other considerations4 ,thus we have-- ,luke xxiv4 #ec3 1 ,d a b e4 1 ,b ,c99 ,l4 1 ,a ,c#b ,x 4 1 ,ethiop4 ,acts vi4 #h3 1 ,a ,b ,d4 1 ,h ,p4 1 ,e4 ,in general that reading will have the best claim to originality which stands first in the combination4 ,further illustrations are unnecessary4 ,in order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter1 the foregoing exposition of the ,theory of ,new ,testament criticism should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its ,praxis4 ,such a part would contain particular illustrations of the way in which the criticism of the text has been handled by our authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated in accordance with the foregoing principles4 ,the following notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of this great task1 more especially as in the preceding part we were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism4 ,i have therefore contented myself with bringing together a series of passages of interest from a critical point of view4 ,in doing so ,i have freely drawn upon ,zahn's ,introduction4 ,for this ,i feel sure the reader will thank me1 while at the same time ,i trust that the author will pardon the liberty ,i have taken4 ,i have made use1 as far as possible1 of the additional material afforded by editions later than those of ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort1 particularly of the ,sinai-,syriac4 ,this collection may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our commentaries1 which1 though their merits in other directions are to be freely conceded1 still leave much to be desired in the matter of textual criticism4 ,a purely critical commentary on the ,new ,testament is a great desideratum4 ,the following notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of such a work1 but simply as a stimulus thereto4 ,i myself felt it to be a defect in the small ,stuttgart edition of the ,new ,testament that want of space obliged me to omit all references to the origin and significance of the various readings selected from manuscripts4 ,for many of these an ,annotatio ,critica in an ,appendix like that in the larger edition of v4 ,gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient4 ,what information1 e4g41 would it have imparted to a reader to have given the numbers of the two minuscules #cdf1 #eef after the reading in ,matt4 i4 #af8 ,what he needs is an ,apparatus ,criticus or a ,commentarius ,criticus such as ,bengel appended to his edition1 or like that which ,burk published separately in his second issue4 ,ed4 ,miller has promised to give us one for the ,gospels1 only it will proceed on principles which very few of us will be able to accept4 ,footnote #abi3 ,i could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of ,augustine3 ,codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant1 ut emendatis non emendati cedant 7,de ,doctrina ,christiana1 ii4 #ad1 #ba1 where the saying about the interpretum numerositas1 cited on page #ajh1 is also found74 ,or if not these words1 then those of our ,lord himself1 1 which ,origen applied to the verification of the canon1 but which1 taken in the sense of #a ,thess4 v4 #ba1 are equally applicable to the work of the 8lower0 criticism4 ,apollos1 the pupil of ,marcion1 also vindicated the right of ,biblical criticism with these same words4 ,epiphanius1 ,haeres41 xliv4 #b 7,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #age74 ,footnote #acj3 ,the fragment was edited by ,tregelles with a facsimile in #ahfg4 ,it is given in ,westcott's ,canon of the ,n4 ,t41 ,appendix ,c1 where also see the section on the ,muratorian ,canon1 ,part i4 c4 ii4 ,it will be found also in ,preuschen's ,analecta1 ,krzere ,texte 444 pp4 #abi-acg 7the eighth number of ,g4 ,krger's ,sammlung ausgewhlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher ,quellenschriften1 ,freib4 and ,leipzig1 #ahic74 ,footnote #aca3 ,quoted in ,westcott1 ,canon1 part ii4 c4 ii4 #a1 and in ,zahn's ,einleitung1 ii4 #agi4 ,footnote #acb3 ,given in ,preuschen4 ,in the manuscripts it is entitled 8,indiculum ,veteris et ,novi ,testamenti et ,caecili ,cipriani40 ,it was first made known from a ,,ms4 at ,cheltenham in #ahhf4 ,as it is mostly assigned to the year #cfe 7see also ,jlicher1 ,einleitung1 p4 #ccf7 the words of ,w4-,w4 may be repeated here3 8,s4 ,berger tamen aliter sentit1 rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur4 ,concordant enim numeri in ,veteri ,testamento cum codicibus ,hieronymianis1 e4g4 in libris ,regum quattuor1 ,esaiae1 ,jeremiae1 et duodecim ,prophetarum1 ,tobiae1 et ,macchabeorum secundo4 ,indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus est0 7p4 #gcf74 ,footnote #acc3 ,catalogus ,claramontanus given in ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,appendix ,d1 p4 #efc4 ,footnote #acd3 ,translated into ,french1 ,prairies d'or1 i4 #abc3 one volume into ,english by ,sprenger1 #ahda2 ,sayous1 ,jsus ,christ d'aprs ,mohammed1 p4 #cd4 ,footnote #ace3 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #agf2 ,,gk41 ii4 #cfd-cge1 #ajad4 ,footnote #acf3 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xvi4 ,footnote #acg3 ,the numbers are as follows3-- -- -- ,matthew1 #b #bd ,john1 #g #ag ,luke1 #bg #a ,mark1 #b #bd ,acts1 #ba #b ,see ,blass1 ,lucae ad ,theophilum liber prior1 p4 vi4 f41 ,philology of the ,gospels1 p4 #ge f41 where three of ,lippelt's numbers are corrected with the help of ,harris4 ,see also ,expository ,times1 ,nov4 #ahig1 p4 #ib f4 ,i cannot understand why ,wendt1 in the new edition of his ,commentary on the ,acts1 should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching discovery4 ,on the spelling in the ,latin manuscripts1 see ,w4-,w41 ,epilogus1 #ggf4 ,footnote #ach3 ,der ,schluss des ,markus-,evangeliums1 der ,vier-,evangelien-,kanon1 und die kleinasiastischen ,presbyter 7,berlin1 #ahid74 ,footnote #aci3 ,expositor1 ,dec4 #ahid4 ,footnote #adj3 ,einleitung1 ii4 #bba4 ,footnote #ada3 ,see ,coxe's ,catalogue of ,greek ,,mss4 in the ,bodleian ,library1 #ahed4 ,footnote #adb3 ,on cata or kata in the subscriptions1 titles1 prefaces1 etc41 of ,latin manuscripts1 see the index in ,w4-,w41 to which add the remarkable phrase cata tempus1 which codex e gives in ,john v4 #d1 in place of secundum tempus in the other manuscripts4 ,footnote #adc3 ,see ,field1 ,hexapla1 i4 p4 lxxii4 ,footnote #add3 ,the order1 444 444 1 in ,baljon is due to a strange oversight which is not corrected in the ,addenda et ,corrigenda4 ,footnote #ade3 ,to the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading1 add ,clement1 ,hom4 #cb 7,lagarde1 #ib1 #ce71 #cb 7#aah1 #ca74 ,footnote #adf3 ,codex ,d and ,syrsin also agree in omitting v4 #cj1 but this is probably no more than a remarkable coincidence4 ,footnote #adg3 ,see ,urt41 #ee ff41 where works on this subject are cited4 ,footnote #adh3 ,see also ,linwood1 ,remarks on ,conjectural ,emendations as applied to the ,new ,testament1 #ahgc4 ,footnote #adi3 ,on the symbol m1 see above1 p4 #aad4 ,footnote #aej3 ,the converse occurs in ,eusebius1 ,eccl4 ,hist41 iv4 #ae1 in the address of ,polycarp's ,martyrium4 ,there the reading 1 which is also found in the ,syriac1 should1 according to ,harnack's ,chronologie der altchristl4 ,lit41 i4 #cda1 be replaced by 1 or rather by which is found in #a ,macc4 xii4 #d2 #b ,macc4 xii4 #b4 ,compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in #b ,cor4 x4 #ae between 1 1 and 1 and between and in ,judith vi4 #ba4 ,see also ,eusebius1 ,eccl4 ,hist41 v4 #ae1 #bc4 ,footnote #aea3 ,the opposite view is expressed in ,scrivener1 ii4 #bdd3 8,it is now agreed among competent judges that ,conjectural ,emendation must never be resorted to1 even in passages of acknowledged difficulty02 and he quotes from ,roberts 7,words of the ,new ,testament73 8conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field 444 simply because there is no need for it40 ,with this1 however1 he does not quite agree4 ,he admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us4 ,he notes as passages for which we should be glad of more light1 ,acts vii4 #df1 xiii4 #cb1 xix4 #dj1 xxvi4 #bh2 ,rom4 viii4 #b2 #a ,cor4 xii4 #b1 where ,ephes4 ii4 #aa might suggest 2 #a ,tim4 vi4 #g2 #b ,pet4 iii4 #aj1 #ab2 ,jude #e1 #bb1 #bc4 ,g4 ,krger expresses himself to the same effect4 ,he would have no conjecture1 however well founded1 received into the text4 ,see his notice of ,koetschau's ,origen in the ,l4 ,cbl41 ,no4 #ci1 #ahii4 ,i find that ,swete has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of the ,cambridge ,septuagint 7,enoch xiv4 #c74 ,if such a thing is permissible in the case of ,enoch1 why should it not be allowable in the ,new ,testament8 ,as clever suggestions maybe noted for the hapax legomenon 1 ,mark xii4 #d 7,linwood1 ,van de ,sande-,bakhuyzen7 and for 1 #a ,tim4 v4 #ac 7,hitzig74 ,lagrange 7,revue ,biblique1 #aijj1 p4 #bjf7 cautions us against 8prter de l'esprit l',esprit ,saint40 ,footnote #aeb3 ,compare my conjecture of for 1 ,ps4 lxviii4 #ca1 and see below1 p4 #bcf4 ,footnote #aec3 ,meyer-,wendt#h1 p4 #ea4 ,for an example of repeated by mistake1 cf4 in ,b1 ,mark xiii4 #ac4 ,its erroneous omission is quite common4 ,footnote #aed3 ,bagster1 ,london1 #ahhg4 ,footnote #aee3 ,see ,isaac ,taylor's ,history of the ,transmission of ,ancient ,books to ,modern ,times 7#ahbg72 and compare also the text-books on ,hermeneutics1 e4g4 in ,i4 v4 ,mller's ,handbuch der klassischen ,altertumswissenschaft4 ,footnote #aef3 ,benedicti regula monachorum4 ,recensuit ,ed4 ,wlfflin1 ,lipsiae1 ,teubner1 #ahie1 pp4 xv4 #he1 #hvo4 ,see also his article on the ,latinity of ,benedict in the ,arch4 f4 ,lat4 ,lexikogr4 ix4 #d1 #ahif1 pp4 #dic-eba4 ,footnote #aeg3 ,textgeschichte der ,regula ,s4 ,benedicti 7,abh4 d4 #c ,cl4 d4 k4 ,ak4 d4 ,wiss41 vol4 xxi41 ,munich1 #ahih74 ,compare also ,the ,text of ,st4 ,benedict's ,rule by ,dom ,c4 ,butler1 ,o4,s4,b4 ,reprinted from the ,downside ,review1 ,december #ahii1 #ab pp4 ,footnote #aeh3 ,,tu4 xiv4 #a1 #ahif4 ,footnote #aei3 ,krger's ,sammlung1 ,heft xi41 ,freiburg and ,leipzig1 #ahie4 ,footnote #afj3 ,,tu41 ,new ,series1 i4 #a1 #ahig4 ,footnote #afa3 ,compare also the differences between the editions of ,josephus1 published by ,niese and ,naber4 ,footnote #afb3 ,see1 however1 the two articles by ,lake and ,brightman1 ,on the ,italian ,origin of ,codex ,bezae in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 #dda ff4 ,footnote #afc3 ,see below on ,john viii4 #eg1 p4 #bhi4 ,footnote #afd3 ,an instructive discussion of the relationship between ,d#b and ,e#c is given in ,hort's ,introduction1 #cce-ccg4 ,it is possible that one copyist in ,rom4 xv4 #ca-cc took 444 1 and the other 444 --i4e4 two entirely different recensions4 ,footnote #afe3 ,zahn very properly remarks 7,th4 ,lbl41 #ahii1 #af1 #agi73 8,one must not1 at least as regards the ,n4 ,t41 confound ,eusebius with ,pamphilus1 or1 if ,i might say so1 with the firm of ,pamphilus and ,eusebius4 ,if the fifty ,bibles that ,eusebius provided at the bidding of the ,emperor for the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the ,n4 ,t4 prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of ,origen1 the entire subsequent history of the text of the ,n4 ,t4 in the region of ,constantinople1 revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the ,antiochean text1 would be perfectly incomprehensible4 ,as in the matter of the canon so also of the text of the ,n4 ,t41 ,eusebius emancipated himself from the school of ,origen1 and attached himself to that of ,antioch1 at least in this particular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the ,bible40 ,footnote #aff3 ,see ,hort1 ,introduction1 #ahh1 #ahi4 ,footnote #afg3 ,athanasius1 writing to ,constans1 says in his first ,apology3 444 1 4 ,footnote #afh3 ,it is given in ,syriac in ,abb ,martin's ,introduction la critique textuelle du ,n4 ,t41 ,plate ,,xx4 ,no4 #ce 7#ahhc71 from the ,,ms4 de ,paris1 #bg1 f #hh b1 and also in ,lagarde's ,bibliotheca ,syriaca1 #bei1 #bb-bg4 ,from the ,greek 1 which becomes in the ,semitic1 the ,syriac forms another diminutive 1 which is still omitted in the ,thesaurus ,syriacus1 #cbdj2 cf4 ,bar ,bahlul1 #afjf1 #i 7,app4 p4 #fd74 ,in place of 1 ,oikonomos would read the genitive 7 1 iv4 #ejj74 ,footnote #afi3 ,not only does the ,old ,testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure problem in the ,new1 but the converse may also be true--viz4 that the history of the text of the ,new ,testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the ,old4 ,it was long observed that many peculiarities of the ,lucianic revision of the ,septuagint occur also in the witnesses to the ,old ,latin version 7see especially ,driver1 ,notes on ,samuel1 p4 li2 ,urt41 #gh74 ,no proper explanation of this phenomenon could be given so long as the ,old ,latin version of the ,old ,testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity4 ,but the ,new ,testament1 for which we have far more ,old ,latin manuscripts than for the ,old1 shows that the ,old ,latin pre-,jeromic version had a chequered history1 and in particular that at a certain time a revision was undertaken1 the result of which is found especially in ,codex ,brixianus 7f1 see p4 #aab71 and which 8non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat1 sed etiam lectiones novas protulit4 ,notatu certe dignum est1 in ista emendatione ,itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum ,graecorum apparent1 quas ,recensioni ,syrae vel ,antiochenae adiudicant ,westcott et ,hort40 ,so say ,wordsworth and ,white1 p4 #fed4 ,if the same thing holds good of the ,old ,testament1 then the relationship between the ,old ,latin and ,lucian at once becomes evident1 and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of ,codex ,legionensis 7called ,codex ,gothicus in ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 iii4 p4 #ej;b47 which are particularly striking on this view of the case1 may have been translated into ,latin from ,lucian4 ,these considerations1 moreover1 may possibly throw fresh light on the question that ,i have raised elsewhere 7,urt41 p4 #gh71 whether ,lucian may not also have used the ,peshitto in his recension of the ,old ,testament4 ,i see that it has been taken up by ,j4 ,mritan1 in his little book1 entitled1 ,la ,version grecque des ,livres de ,samuel1 prcde d'une ,introduction sur la critique textuelle 7,paris1 #ahih74 ,on pp4 #if-aac he discusses the same question--whether ,lucian knew and used the ,peshitto4 ,he answers the question in the affirmative3 8,it is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the ,books of ,samuel1 in his work of revision1 or rather of correction1 ,lucian did not follow the ,hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide1 but availed himself of others also1 and that one of those principal authorities was the ,syriac version40 ,we often enough find cited as an authority in the ,greek ,commentaries on the ,old ,testament4 ,whether it is also mentioned for the ,new ,testament is a point that seems not yet to be looked into4 ,i may add that ,bickel concludes his short article in the ,zeitschrift fr kath4 ,theol41 iii4 #dfg-dfi1 entitled1 8,die ,lucianische ,septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen10 by saying3 8,in establishing the recensions of ,lucian and ,hesychius for the ,septuagint1 we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found in the ,new ,testament40 ,in his ,einleitung1 ii4 #bdj1 ,zahn says3 8,without a doubt many readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries1 some of them being of no small importance and extent1 were gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century onwards1 and some of them dropped out of the later tradition altogether4 ,and it is equally true that many interpolations were current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second4 ,but whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases1 we are still always in a position to support it with extant documents40 ,footnote #agj3 ,rahlfs cannot1 of course1 assent to this supposition1 seeing that he regards ,codex ,b as depending on the ,festal ,letter containing the ,canon of ,athanasius1 which was not written till the year #cfg4 ,footnote #aga3 ,see especially ,lagarde1 ,sept4-,studien1 #ahib1 and ,moore's ,commentary on ,judges1 #ahie1 p4 xlvi4 ,footnote #agb3 ,see above under 1 p4 #gb4 ,footnote #agc3 ,there is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by ,jerome in his letter of the year #djc to the ,gothic priests ,sunnia and ,fretela1 seeing that these relate only to the ,old ,testament4 ,but the words themselves may be quoted3 8,breviter admoneo ut sciatis1 aliam esse editionem1 quam ,origenes et ,caesariensis ,eusebius omnesque ,graeciae tractatores 1 id est communem appellant1 atque vulgatam1 et a plerisque nunc dicitur1 aliam septuaginta interpretum quae in codicibus reperitur1 et a nobis in latinum sermonem fideliter versa est1 et ,jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae 7so ,lagarde1 ,librorum ,v4 ,t4 can4 pars prior1 p4 xiii4 from ,vallarsi1 i4 #fce87 decantatur 444 autem ista1 hoc est communis1 editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta1 sed hoc interest inter utramque quod pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est1 ea autem quae habetur in et quam nos vertimus1 ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur0 7ibid41 #fcg74 ,for ,oikonomos 7iv4 #dii7 would read 4 ,footnote #agd3 ,a4 ,d4 ,loman would emend this passage by reading 7,leiden4 ,theol4 ,tijdschr41 vii41 #ahgc1 #bcc74 ,footnote #age3 ,what he says is 7,viri ,illust41 c4 #ge73 ,pamphilus presbyter1 ,eusebii ,caesariensis episcopi necessarius1 tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit1 ut maximam partem ,origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit1 quae usque hodie in ,caesariensi bibliotheca habetur4 ,sed et in duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque ,origenis volumina manu eius 7i4e4 ,pamphili7 exarata repperi1 quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio1 ut ,croesi opes habere me credam4 ,si enim laetitia est unam epistulam habere martyris1 quanto magis tot milia versuum1 quae mihi videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis4 ,the above is ,richardson's text4 ,bernoulli 7,krger's ,sammlung1 ,heft xi4 #ahie7 reads habentur1 ,sed in1 and videtur1 and also omits volumina4 ,footnote #agf3 1 -- -- ' 1 4 ,the last seven words1 which are erased in ,h1 are supplied by the minuscule #icpaul and the ,armenian version4 ,on 8borrowing-receipt0 or 8voucher10 see ,th,lz41 #ahie1 #bhc1 #djg4 ,see also ,robinson1 ,euthaliana1 ,texts and ,studies1 iii4 #c4 ,footnote #agg3 ,to the literature referred to on p4 #gi should be added the second section of ,bousset's ,textkritische ,studien 7,,tu4 xi4 #d1 #ahid71 entitled1 ,der ,codex ,pamphili1 pp4 #de-gc4 ,bousset affirms the close connection between the ,corrector of ,sinaiticus indicated by ,tischendorf as c and ,codex ,h4 ,i have established the connection of this corrector in the ,psalter with ,eusebius by means of the latter's ,commentary on the ,psalms 7see above1 p4 #eh74 ,as yet no one appears to have examined the ,new ,testament quotations in ,eusebius4 ,cf4 however ,bousset1 ,th,lz41 #aijj1 #bb1 #faa ff4 ,footnote #agh3 ,it runs3 1 _/ 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 4 ,footnote #agi3 1 iv4 #ijd4 ,athens1 #ahdd-ahdi4 ,footnote #ahj3 ,texte und ,untersuchungen1 xvii4 7,n4 ,f4 ii47 #d4 ,see above1 p4 #ij4 ,footnote #aha3 ,euthaliusstudien1 pp4 #aaa-aae2 #aae ff4 ,footnote #ahb3 ,neue ,jahrbcher fr deutsche ,theologie1 ii4 #c1 #c 7#ahid71 pp4 #cfj-cfc4 ,compare also von ,dobschtz1 lib4 cit41 #aaa4 ,footnote #ahc3 ' 4 ,euseb41 ,eccl4 ,hist41 viii4 #aa4 ,footnote #ahd3 ,see above1 p4 #hg ff41 on ,evan4 #dgc1 ,act4 #bdf1 #dai1 ,evl4 #bhf1 and compare ,zahn1 ,th,lbl41 #ahii1 #aha3 ,would that some one with the time and opportunity to work in the ,monasteries of ,mount ,athos applied himself to the ,codex written in the year #hjj by the unhappy ,empress ,maria 7,lambros #abi1 ,s4 ,pauli #b74 ,since the above was written the manuscript has been collated by ,von der ,goltz4 ,footnote #ahe3 ,on 1 see ,chase1 ,syro-,latin ,text1 p4 #ace f4 ,it may be observed in passing how variously is rendered in the different ,latin manuscripts--viz4 by evacuat in b ff#b l q1 by detinet in ff#b;c i r1 by intricat in e1 and by occupat in d and the ,vulgate4 ,footnote #ahf3 ,the evidence of d in this passage cannot be had1 unfortunately1 as eight leaves 7a quaternio7 containing the ,greek of ,matt4 vi4 #bj-;ix4 #b1 and the ,latin of vi4 #h-viii4 #bg1 have gone amissing4 ,footnote #ahg3 ,unfortunately h exhibits only the text of ,matthew1 otherwise ,i might simply have referred to the list of variants on p4 #abj4 ,i am not aware if what ,wordsworth and ,white 7vol4 i4 p4 xxxii7 say of this manuscript is still true3 ,codex hodie1 ut fertur1 in bibliotheca ,vaticana inveniri non potest4 ,footnote #ahh3 ,see ,index in ,wordsworth and ,white1 p4 #gea4 ,footnote #ahi3 ,at the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in ,luke and ,acts1 but in all the books of the ,n4 ,t41 it is wrong in principle to present the alternative 8original or later alteration0 or even forgery4 ,the dilemma can be wrongly stated4 ,blass was not the first to express the opinion1 8,lucam bis edidisse ,actus40 ,de ,dieu did so before him1 and by an examination of those passages of the ,gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely 8,western0 witnesses ,hort 7 #bda7 was led to suppose that the ,western and non-,western texts may have 8started respectively from a first and a second edition of the ,gospels1 both conceivably apostolic40 ,similarly ,wordsworth and ,white are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manuscripts of the ,vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document itself contained certain variants 7corrections7 in the passages in question4 ,footnote #aij3 ,geschichte des neutestamentlichen ,kanons 7,erlangen73 ,i4 ,band1 ,das ,n4 ,t4 vor ,origenes1 #a and #b ,hlfte1 #ahhh-hi2 ,,ii4 ,band1 ,urkunden und ,belege zum ersten und dritten ,band1 #ahij-ib4 ,it is to be hoped that the third volume will not be long in making its appearance4 ,along with this we must take his ,forschungen zur ,geschichte des neutestamentlichen ,kanons und der altkirchlichen ,literatur1 of which six volumes have been published 7#ahha-aijj74 ,meanwhile ,zahn's ,einleitung in das ,neue ,testament 7,leipzig1 ,i41 #ahih2 ,,ii41 #ahii1 #bnd ed41 #aijj7 cannot be too strongly recommended4 ,it contains a great deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text4 ,needless to say1 textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests4 ,footnote #aia3 ,a small selection will be found in ,preuschen1 ,analecta1 pp4 #aeb-aeg4 ,footnote #aib3 ,here again1 unfortunately1 we have no collection of notices referring to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon4 ,footnote #aic3 ,jlicher1 loc4 cit41 from ,sozomen1 ,hist4 ,eccl41 i4 #aa4 ,on the ,latin form grabattum1 see ,w4-,w41 ,index1 p4 #gef1 occurs as early as ,clem4 ,al4 ,paed41 #a1 #b1 #f4 ,in the parallels to ,mark ii4 #f1 ,matthew has 7ix4 #f71 and ,luke 7v4 #bd74 ,cf4 the passage cited by ,lagarde 7,de ,novo ,test41 #bj ,ges4 ,abh41 #aah7 from ,lucian's ,philopseudes1 #aa2 ' 4 ,footnote #aid3 1 1 4 ,footnote #aie3 ,cf4 ,matt4 xiii4 #bg1 1 and also the superscriptions of the ,n4 ,t4 ,epistles1 particularly those of ,paul1 where is varied by 4 4 ,footnote #aif3 8is reserved0--,syr4 ,footnote #aig3 8but0--,syr4 ,footnote #aih3 ,this reading is confirmed by the ,syriac as against ' read by ,christophorson and ,savil4 ,footnote #aii3 ,the passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation4 ,bengel punctuates 1 1 and ,westcott and ,hort 1 4 ,weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing ,bengel along with ,bleek and ,hoffman as supporting the view of ,tertullian 7see ,bengel's ,gnomon74 ,it will be difficult to prove that ,tertullian's construction is impossible 8on account of the position of 40 ,westcott and ,hort surely know ,greek1 and ,tertullian knew it better than any of us4 ,footnote #bjj3 ,it seems worth while to quote here ,harnack's words on these notices of the earliest attempts at textual criticism4 ,he says 7ibid41 p4 #ahi73 8,the charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite ,tanner 7,theodotus7 by the author of the ,little ,labyrinth is threefold4 ,he complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of ,scripture1 of their arbitrary system of textual criticism1 and of the extent to which they were engrossed in ,logic1 ,mathematics1 and empirical ,science4 ,at the first glance1 therefore1 it would appear that these people had no interest to spare for ,theology4 ,but the very opposite is the case4 ,the complainant himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis #8with the object of establishing their godless conclusions1' and textual criticism in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy ,scriptures4 ,in place of the allegorical method of exposition1 the grammatical is the only right one1 and we have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original instead of simply accepting the traditional form4 ,how inimitable and charming really are these notices6444 ,these scholars had to be generals without an army1 because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had invested with admiration and respect4444 ,as #8genuine' scholars--this is an exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them--they also took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations4 ,no remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the ,christian ,church 7the ,syntagma knows of the existence of such2 cf4 ,epiph4 lv4 c4 #a740 ,so writes ,harnack4 ,nothing1 however1 is said in the text of ,eusebius of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures4 ,in the sentence which ,harnack renders 8for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it1 that is corrupted 7deleted8710 is to be understood simply of a diligent record of 8corrections0 undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents4 ,according to the ,syriac is not to be rendered by 8deleted10 but as ,harnack translates it3 cf4 the various ,syriac versions in ,matthew vi4 verse #af 7,syrp71 verses #ai and #bj 7,syrpc74 ,on the validity of the charge of inventing false ,scriptures1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 #a1 #bif f4 ,footnote #bja3 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,pt4 ,i4 c4 iv4 #h1 p4 #cjh ff4 ,footnote #bjb3 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,pt4 ,i4 c4 iv4 p4 #caj4 ,footnote #bjc3 ,ibid41 p4 #bia4 ,footnote #bjd3 ,ibid41 p4 #cjc ff4 ,cf4 ,texts and ,studies1 vol4 i4 #d3 ,the ,fragments of ,heracleon1 by ,a4 ,e4 ,brooke1 ,m4,a4 ,footnote #bje3 ,on the literature of the subject1 cf4 ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #ehe-gah1 ,das ,n4 ,t4 ,marcions2 ii4 #dji-ebi1 ,marcions ,n4 ,t4 ,all other works are superseded by this1 but mention may still be made of ,a4 ,hahn1 ,das ,evangelium ,marcions in seiner ursprnglichen ,gestalt 7#ahbc72 ,thilo1 ,codex ,apocryphus ,novi ,testamenti 7#ahcb3 for this work ,hahn attempted to restore the text of ,marcion1 pp4 #dja-dhf72 ,a4 ,ritschl1 ,das ,evangelium ,marcions und das kanonische ,evangelium des ,lucas 7#ahdf72 ,hilgenfeld1 in the ,z4 f4 hist4 ,theol41 #ahee1 pp4 #dbf-dhd2 ,sanday1 ,the ,gospels in the ,second ,century1 c4 viii4 ,footnote #bjf3 ,the proof passages will be found in ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fbj1 #fbf1 #ffc3 machaera non stilo3 erubescat spongia ,marcionis 7,tert41 v4 #d1 p4 #bhb4 ,is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the ,bible at that time8--cf4 ,augustine1 ,con4 ,jul41 iii4 #ac3 ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in minium73 non miror si syllabas subtrahit1 quum paginas totas plerumque subducet4 ,quis tam comesor mus ,ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit 7con4 ,marc41 i4 #a73 tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus 7,adamantius74 ,footnote #bjg3 ,see the passage from ,tertullian 7cotidie reformant illud 7sc4 evangelium71 prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur71 and from ,adamantius 7,pseudo-,origenes1 de la ,rue1 i4 #hhg ,lat4 in ,caspari ,anecdota1 i4 #eg7 in ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fac4 ,footnote #bjh3 ,cf4 also ,,gk4 p4 #fha4 ,footnote #bji3 ,cf4 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,pt4 ,i4 c4 iv4 #i1 ,marcion3 8,some of the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines1 but others are unlike arbitrary corrections1 and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest1 dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession0 7p4 #cae74 ,see also note at the end of the paragraph1 where certain readings peculiar to ,marcion are cited4 ,footnote #baj3 ,cf4 also ibid41 p4 #fhd1 and see below1 p4 #cac4 ,footnote #baa3 ,cf4 also ibid41 p4 #fhb3 8,i repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier than ,marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several ,catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the ,gospels and ,epistles than has generally been accorded them4 ,it is much more important to ascertain whether a certain reading has the support of ,marcion than to observe that it occurs in this or that uncial manuscript4 ,in spite of this1 however1 the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to ,marcion1 not to speak of their doing so systematically40 ,footnote #bab3 ,pp4 #dji-ddi1 on the criticism of the sources2 pp4 #ddi-ebi1 the restoration of the text4 ,on p4 #ddi f4 he gives his verdict on the earlier works of ,hilgenfeld1 ,volkmar1 and van ,manen in this direction4 ,footnote #bac3 ,zahn interjects 8as yet40 ,footnote #bad3 ,we have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly ,marcion's text4 ,the chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with which ,marcion was pursued4 ,but when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found1 and also a great part of the ,gospel of ,peter1 we need not despair of finding other lost works as well4 ,codex #fjd is interesting as exhibiting the ,marcionite reading1 ' 1 in the ,lord's ,prayer1 ,luke xi4 #b4 ,the same manuscript omits in ,luke ix4 #bj1 and in verse #ce4 ,compare also ,jlicher1 ,gleichnisreden ,jesu1 ii4 #e3 8,marcion1 who perhaps created the ,roman text of ,luke xxi4 #cj40 ,footnote #bae3 ,on this passage ,w4-,w4 observe3 8,d ex ,latinis forsan correctus40 ,footnote #baf3 8,licet suos adiectio sit haeretici40 ,tertullian4 ,footnote #bag3 ,in the critical notes at the end of this chapter ,i have cited a number of ,marcion's readings from ,zahn's work1 with the hope that these will now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries4 ,see e4g4 on ,luke xviii4 #bj2 xxiii4 #b2 xxiv4 #cg2 #a ,cor4 vi4 #bj2 xiv4 #ai4 ,footnote #bah3 ,see ,literature on p4 #aje f41 to which add ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,part ,i4 c4 iv4 #aj4 ,footnote #bai3 ,defending the plurality of the canonical ,gospels against the ,marcionites1 he says3 7,philocalia1 ed4 ,robinson1 #dg2 ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #dab2 ,,pre#c1 v4 #fed74 ,from what ,origen says1 ,contra ,celsum1 vi4 #ea1 it would seem that he himself heard ,tatian4 ,footnote #bbj3 ,euseb41 ,hist4 ,eccl41 iv4 #bi1 with reference to the ,encratites3 7,syriac has 71 444 1 4 ' 4 4 444 ,in the ,syriac version it runs3 ,but this ,tatian1 their first head1 collected and combined and framed a 7or1 the7 and called it 1 that is 8the combined10 which is in the possession of many till this day4 ,and it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the ,apostle 7the plural points in the ,syriac are to be omitted7 as with the object of amending the composition of the phrases4 ,and he has left many writings1 etc4 ,footnote #bba3 ,epiphan41 ,haeret41 #df1 #a 7,pet4 #cia73 ' 1 4 ,footnote #bbb3 ,minuscule ,evan4 #gb 7,harleianus #efdg of the eleventh century7 on ,matt4 xxvii4 #dh3 ' 4 ,instead of 1 ,harnack-,preuschen 7i4 #dic71 read 1 whether rightly or not ,i do not know4 ,nothing being known of the historical ,gospel of one ,diodorus1 it is natural enough to conjecture 7,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #bh7 that the reading should be '1 but what becomes then of 8 ,harnack suggests ' 1 but see ,zahn1 ,forsch41 ii4 #bih4 ,the omission of the article before ' is a difficulty4 ,footnote #bbc3 ,in his 7i4 #bj2 vol4 iv4 #cab71 written in the year #dec1 he says at the end of the chapter on ,tatian3-- 1 1 1 1 1 ' 4 ' 1 4 ,footnote #bbd3 ,see ,hamlyn ,hill1 ,earliest ,life of ,christ1 etc41 p4 #cbd2 ,hope ,w4 ,hogg1 ,ante-,nicene ,library1 ,additional ,volume4 ,footnote #bbe3 ,see ,die ,ueberlieferung der griechischen ,apologeten1 #ahhb1 pp4 #aif-bah1 and1 on the other side1 ,zahn1 ,forschungen1 ii4 #bib ff4 ,footnote #bbf3 ,the ,diatessaron of ,tatian3 a ,preliminary ,study1 #ahij4 ,footnote #bbg3 ,see ,th,lz41 #ahia1 col4 #cef4 ,footnote #bbh3 ,it is not clear whether ,harnack gives this as his own opinion or not4 ,for a reading of cod4 ,wd1 akin to that of ,tatian1 see below on ,mark vii4 #cc1 p4 #bfd4 ,footnote #bbi3 ,ante-,nicene ,christian ,library1 ,additional ,volume1 p4 #ch4 ,footnote #bcj3 ,see ,forschungen1 i4 #acj1 #adj1 #baf1 #bbh f41 #bcg1 #bdh1 #bfc4 ,footnote #bca3 ,london1 ,macmillan1 #ahie4 ,footnote #bcb3 ,forschungen1 i4 #agi4 ,footnote #bcc3 ,this will be found most conveniently in ,hogg's translation--,ante-,nicene ,library1 ,additional ,volume4 ,footnote #bcd3 ,cf4 p4 #cic3 8,to judge from ,ephraem's ,commentary1 the ,diatessaron contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as ,codex ,cantabrigiensis of the ,gospels and ,acts40 ,footnote #bce3 ,in his ,n4 ,t4 um #bjj1 p4 #ajh1 ,harnack treats ,zahn's interpretation of the words of ,eusebius as a bad blunder4 ,the latter defends himself by saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether ,eusebius himself was aware of the double meaning of the word which was employed in the tradition 7he says 7 reported to him4 ,he thinks that ,rufinus might be said to have 8paraphrased0 certain commentaries of ,origen1 correcting his thought and phraseology in many places4 ,true1 but in ,eusebius it is 1 not whole epistles1 that ,tatian is said to have 8metaphrased40 ,footnote #bcf3 ,on the words of ,jerome 7ad ,tit4 praef41 vii4 #fhf71 8,sed ,tatianus ,encratitarum patriarches1 qui et ipse nonnullas ,pauli epistolas repudiavit1 hanc vel maxime1 hoc est ad ,titum1 apostoli pronuntiandam credidit1 parvipendens ,marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem10 compare ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #f1 ,,gk4 i4 #dbf4 ,footnote #bcg3 ,introd41 ii4 #agj1 p4 #abj4 ,on all accounts the ,western text claims our attention first4 ,the earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it4 ,as far as we can judge from extant evidence1 it was the most widely-spread text of ,ante-,nicene times2 and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its influence4 ,but any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal character4 ,the eccentric ,whiston's translation of the ,gospels and ,acts from the ,codex ,bezae1 and of the ,pauline ,epistles from the ,codex ,claromontanus1 and ,bornemann's edition of the ,acts1 in which the ,codex ,bezae was taken as the standard authority1 are probably the only attempts which have ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively1 or even predominantly1 ,western ,greek text as the purest reproduction of what the ,apostles wrote4 ,this all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the last century1 which1 ignoring all non-,latin ,western documentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials1 maintained that the ,western ,greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the ,latin2 partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the ,western text as revealed by ,patristic quotations and by versions4 ,yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts of ,ante-,nicene textual history1 it would have been strange if this text1 as a whole1 had found much favour4 ,a few scattered ,western readings have long been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds2 and in ,tischendorf's last edition their number has been augmented1 owing to the misinterpreted accession of the ,sinai ,,ms4 to the attesting documents4 ,to one small and peculiar class of ,western readings1 exclusively omissions1 we shall ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption4 #bjb 7p4 #adi74 ,in spite of the prodigious amount of error which ,d contains1 these readings1 in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types1 render it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text2 and1 apart from this direct applicability1 no other single source of evidence1 except the quotations of ,origen1 surpasses it in value on the equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness4 ,to what extent its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost1 it is impossible to say2 but it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence1 especially ,old-,latin evidence1 supplies a second authority for readings in which ,d had hitherto stood alone4 #bdj 7p4 #age74 ,on the other hand there remain1 as has been before intimated 7 #agj71 a few other ,western readings of similar form1 which we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively ,western character of their attestation4 ,they are all omissions1 or1 to speak more correctly1 non-interpolations of various length1 that is to say1 the original record has here1 to the best of our belief1 suffered interpolation in all the extant non-,western texts4444 ,with a single peculiar exception 7,matt4 xxvii4 #di71 in which the extraneous words are omitted by the ,syrian as well as by the ,western text1 the ,western non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of ,st4 ,luke4 #bda4 ,these exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in exclusively ,western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin4 ,in the edition of #ahif1 the surviving editor 7,westcott7 appends an ,additional ,note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direction4 ,it is as follows3-- ,note to p4 #aba1 #agj 7p4 #cbh73 8,the ,essays of ,dr4 ,chase on ,the ,syriac ,element in ,codex ,bezae1 ,cambridge1 #ahic1 and ,the ,syro-,latin ,text of the ,gospels1 ,cambridge1 #ahie1 are a most important contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history of the text of the ,n4,t4 ,the discovery of the ,sinaitic ,,ms4 of the ,old ,syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types of the ,syriac and ,latin texts can outweigh the combination of the primary ,greek texts4 ,a careful examination of the passages in which ,syrsin and k are arrayed against ,b1 would point to the conclusion40 ,the proper title of ,chase's ,essays is ,the ,old ,syriac1 under which shorter 7outside7 title ,zahn also quotes them 7,einl41 ii4 #cdh74 ,this statement by ,westcott sounds strange after the remark made in the ,preface4 8,for the rest10 he says there1 8,i may perhaps be allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the general principles maintained in the ,introduction and illustrated in the ,notes since the publication of the ,first ,edition1 which were not fully considered by ,dr4 ,hort and myself in the long course of our work1 and in our judgment dealt with accurately4--,auckland ,castle1 ,march #bg1 #ahif4 ,b4 ,f4 ,d40 ,footnote #bch3 ,see my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #c1 where ,i have cited this passage of ,lagarde4 ,his book may not be very accessible to textual critics4 ,footnote #bci3 8,thou shalt worship no manuscripts0 was one of the ten commandments that ,lehrs gave philologists4 ,footnote #bdj3 ,this passage was the subject of a heated discussion between ,severus and ,macedonius at ,constantinople in the year #eaj4 ,on this occasion the superb copy of ,matthew's ,gospel1 which had been discovered in the grave of ,barnabas in the reign of the ,emperor ,zeno1 was brought upon the scene4 ,footnote #bda3 ,compare what ,westcott and ,hort say of ,whiston and ,bornemann1 cited above1 p4 #bbb1 and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the ,acts in ,zahn's ,einleitung1 ii4 #ei1 pp4 #cch-cei4 ,see also ,burkitt's ,introduction to ,barnard's ,biblical ,text of ,clement of ,alexandria 7,texts and ,studies1 v4 #e71 especially p4 xviii3 8,let us come out of the land of ,egypt1 which speaks1 as ,clement's quotations show1 with such doubtful authority1 and let us see whether the agreement of ,east and ,west1 of ,edessa and ,carthage1 will not give us a surer basis upon which to establish our text of the ,gospels40 ,footnote #bdb3 ,attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the witnesses are distributed4 ,thus we have in verse #ea1 for the omission of 4 4 4 99 ,d ,syrsin a b d e ff l991 ,aug4 2 verse #eb1 omit 1 ,d ,syrsin a b d e ff l1 ,aug4 #a_/a2 verse #ec1 for ,d a b d e ff l r 7,aug472 7,syrsin here has 1 not which represents in ,luke ii4 #ac1 #bj1 xix4 #cg1 and1 therefore1 must have read in this passage74 ,now ,i ask1 is it right to accept the testimony of ,d and its associates in verse #eb1 only to reject it in verse #ec8 ,and what amount of weight is added to the testimony of ,d by the addition of that of 998 ,schiller says in ,tell3 8,the strong is mightiest alone3 united e'en the weak are strong0--how far are both these notions true in textual criticism8 ,footnote #bdc3 ,so ,graefe1 but it is not apparent whether the that belongs to this reading is to be supplied before it or after4 ,evidently he intends to read 4 4 with the great majority of witnesses1 and not 4 4 with the ,ethiopic version4 ,see ,th4 ,st4 ,kr41 #ahih1 i4 #acf f4 ,the passage is regarded by ,westcott and ,hort as a good example of 8conflation10 #adf4 ,footnote #bdd3 ,see now ,textkritik der vier ,evangelien1 pp4 #dh1 #aha4 ,footnote #bde3 is not given in ,cremer's ,dictionary among the synonyms of 1 and is only cited on p4 #faj with the reading from this passage4 ,footnote #bdf3 ,see ,hilgenfeld1 ,das ,apostel-,concil nach seinem ursprnglichen ,wortlaute in the ,zfw,th41 #db 7#ahii71 #a1 #ach-adi4 ,footnote #bdg3 ,harnack1 ,das ,aposteldecret 7,acta xv4 #bi7 und die ,blass'sche ,hypothese1 ,berlin1 #ahii4 ,from the ,sitzungsberichte der preuss4 ,akad4 der ,wiss4 ,noticed in the ,expository ,times for ,june #ahii1 p4 #cie f4 ,see also the ,berliner philologische ,wochenschrift of the #acth ,may #ahii4 ,footnote #bdh3 ,see critical note in the ,expositor's ,greek ,testament 7,knowling71 in loco4 ,footnote #bdi3 ,cf4 the passage of ,hermas cited above1 p4 #dg4 ,footnote #bej3 ,a good example is seen in ,ezek4 xvi4 #c4 ,in the ,sixtine edition of #aehf a new page 7#fib7 occurs in the middle of the sentence 1 with the result that the eight words from the first to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton1 while in ,codex #fb they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same sort4 ,the former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints1 but the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony4 ,compare also ,mark ix4 #aj in codex ,t of the ,vulgate and ff of the ,old ,latin4 ,in the former the passage from resurrexit to resurrexit is repeated1 in the latter it is omitted4 ,footnote #bea3 ,i had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the ,greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton4 ,we did not always agree with him2 he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of a difficulty1 but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur4 ,footnote #beb3 ,this applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts4 ,van ,ess's reprint of the ,sixtine ,septuagint 7#ahbd7 is very carefully done1 yet five words have dropped out in ,joel iii4 #i4 ,these are omitted in all the later editions of #ahce1 #ahee 7novis curis correcta71 #ahfh1 and #ahgi1 and were only supplied by myself in #ahhg on the occasion of the third centenary of the ,sixtine edition4 ,they are omitted in ,tischendorf's first edition of #ahej1 and also in the second of #ahef4 ,footnote #bec3 ,in ancient times people always read aloud1 even when reading by themselves4 ,footnote #bed3 ,scrivener would explain the 8remarkable confusion0 of the two prepositions and 1 when compounded with verbs1 which we meet e4g4 in ,matt4 xxvi4 #ci2 ,mark xiv4 #ce2 ,acts xii4 #f2 xvii4 #e1 #bf2 xx4 #e1 #ac2 xxii4 #be1 by saying that the symbol ,symbol3 an abbreviation made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines4 is used indifferently for and in the ,herculanean rolls1 and here and there in ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,seeing that it has become a bad habit in ,hebrew ,grammars to speak of ,aleph prostheticum instead of protheticum1 and that the practice is still defended 7,gesenius-,kautzsch#bf1 p4 #fd1 n4 #c1 8rightly so07 after my notice of it 7,marginalien1 p4 #fg71 ,i have given some little attention to this confusion1 and could cite dozens of examples4 ,others1 of course1 have noticed it as well as myself4 ,in his ,n4,t41 i4 #bj1 ,b4 ,weiss says3 8,the compounds with and are interchanged quite heedlessly10 and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the ,acts4 ,he writes similarly in ii4 #cd4 ,i shall instance only one or two cases in connection with this same word 4 ,pitra on ,apost4 ,const41 #e1 #ag 7p4 #cbe73 restituimus cum ,vatican4 #b1 #c1 #d1 #e1 vulgo 2 ,excerpta 1 ed4 ,r4 ,schneider 7,programme of ,duisburg1 #ahie71 where the manuscripts deviate in five passages1 pp4 #e1 #ad4 #bj2 #f1 #e2 #ac1 #g4 #ac1 and we read in #aj1 1 etc41 and in #aa1 ' 1 1 4 ,both times1 of course1 it should be 1 as the better manuscripts have it4 ,wherever mention is made of the 8shewbread10 ,d invariably turns it into 8extra bread10 by reading instead of 4 ,tischendorf first called attention to this in ,luke vi4 #d1 but it occurs also in ,matt4 xii4 #d4 ,i have no doubt myself that in the case of verbal forms1 the was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus before the augment4 ,compare for 1 ,ex4 xxiv4 #bc2 1 ,ps4 lxxxix4 #h1 ,symmachus2 or 1 ,gal4 i4 #af4 ,in ,wisdom1 vii4 #bg1 the first hand of ,sinaiticus even writes for prophets4 ,it is disputed whether the title of one of ,philo's books is or 4 ,etc4 etc4 ,sapienti sat4 ,footnote #bee3 ,we find all the possible permutations of the words in ,john viii4 #ab4 ,see my note on ,codex ,purpureus ,petropolitanus 7,n7 in ,hilgenfeld's ,zeitschrift fr wissenschaftliche ,theologie1 #db 7#ahii71 p4 #fbc4 ,footnote #bef3 ,see ,harnack1 ,das ,magnificat der ,elisabeth 7,lukas i4 #df-ee7 in the ,berliner ,sitzungsberichte of the #agth ,may #aijj1 p4 #ech ff4 ,a good example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by ,philo 8,quod det40 #aa 7,cohn1 #a1 #bff74 ,footnote #beg3 ,on the influence of a system of pericop on the text of ,codex ,d1 see ,scrivener's ,introduction to his edition of the manuscript1 p4 li1 and ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #cee4 ,footnote #beh3 ,see ,semler's edition of ,j4 ,j4 ,wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem ,n4,t41 ,halae1 #agff4 ,footnote #bei3 7#a7 ,lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est4 7#b7 ,codices qui cum graecis ,b ,l concordant plerumque textum ,hieronymianum ostendunt4 ,footnote #bfj3 ,in view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between and 1 and 1 etc41 it is impossible to adjust their claims on any mere arithmetical principle4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #fa7 calls attention to an important consideration in support of the reading in #b ,peter i4 #d1 which applies to other passages as well--viz41 8that when the ,new ,testament epistles were read at divine service1 would very readily and very frequently be substituted for 1 which excluded the reader or preacher40 ,compare ,acts iv4 #ab3 --1 or 8 ,it might be laid down as a second rule in this connection1 that particular importance attaches to those versions in which the distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word 7nobis3 vobis1 etc474 ,in versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first2 in the case of the others1 the change could be made at any point of the transmission1 especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing1 which must also1 of course1 be taken into account4 ,a glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern editions of the text will reveal1 perhaps1 most clearly how strong is the tendency to interpolation4 ,of the verses into which ,stephen divided the ,greek ,n4,t4 7#aeea71 the ,stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the ,synoptic ,gospels--viz41 ,matt4 xviii4 #aa 7xxi4 #dd1 ,tischen471 xxiii4 #ad2 ,mark vii4 #af2 ix4 #dd1 #df2 xi4 #bf2 xv4 #bh2 ,luke xvii4 #cf 7xxi4 #ah1 ,w-,h margin72 xxiii4 #ag 7xxiv4 #ab1 #dj1 ,tisch474 ,compare also ,matt4 xx4 #bh2 xxvii4 #ce1 #ch1 #di2 ,mark vi4 #aa2 xiii4 #b2 ,luke vi4 #e2 ix4 #ee2 xii4 #ba2 xix4 #de2 xxi4 #ch2 xxii4 #ai f41 #dc f41 #dg2 xxiii4 #b1 #e1 #cd1 #dh1 #ec2 xxiv4 #e1 #cf1 #ea1 #eb4 ,in the case of several verses this or that part had to be omitted4 ,luke xx4 #cj1 e4g41 is reduced to the three words1 1 with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the ,n4,t4 ,footnote #bfa3 ,the best discussion of the form will again be found in ,zahn1 ,einl41 i4 #aic4 ,footnote #bfb3 ,see my note in the ,expository ,times for ,july #aijj1 p4 #dgh1 where ,i have brought forward a new witness for the reading ,jonatha--viz41 ,jerome's ,liber interpretationis ,hebraicorum nominum4 ,he explains the word as 8columba dans vel columba veniens40 ,footnote #bfc3 ,volck has an article of four and a half pages on ,balaam in the ,,pre#c1 iii4 #bbg ff41 but he says not a syllable about the form 1 which is too bad4 ,in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible it is at least mentioned though not explained4 ,footnote #bfd3 is explained as the ,hebrew form of the ,aramaic by ,c4 ,b4 ,michaelis 7,de ,paronomasia1 #cj72 ,hiller1 ,onomasticum1 #agjf1 p4 #ecf2 and ,bernardus 7in ,marck1 ,in praecipuas quasdam partes ,pentateuchi ,commentarius1 ,leyden1 #agac1 #cff74 ,marck himself makes it the equivalent of 4 ,m4 ,m4 ,kalish1 ,bible ,studies1 i4 ,the prophecies of ,bileam1 ,london1 #ahgg1 contributes nothing to the solution of the question4 ,,critical ,,notes ,,on ,,various ,,passages ,,of ,,the ,,new ,,testament4 ,,the ,,gospel4 ,matthew4 ,with regard to the title1 ,westcott and ,hort say 7,introduction1 #dbc1 p4 #cba73 8,in prefixing the name in the singular to the quaternion of #8the ,gospels1' we have wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an adequate sense to the preposition in the several titles4 ,the idea1 if not the name1 of a collective #8,gospel' is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of ,irenus1 who doubtless received it from earlier generations4 ,it evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by which the term ,gospel denotes a single written representation of the one fundamental ,gospel40 ,compare ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #ajf ff42 ,einleitung1 ii4 #agb ff41 #agh f43 8,of recent editors1 ,westcott and ,hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by setting on the fly-leaf1 and 1 etc41 over the separate books40 ,i have followed the same principle in the ,table of ,contents prefixed to the ,stuttgart edition of the ,new ,testament4 ,compare above1 pp4 #afd1 #afe4 ,on the spelling 1 instead of 1 compare on the one hand the ,,lxx4 manuscripts1 which exhibit the forms 1 1 2 1 1 7see ,supplement ,i4 to ,hatch and ,redpath's ,concordance to the ,septuagint71 and on the other1 ,blass's ,grammatik des neutestamentlichen ,griechisch1 #c1 #aa 7,english ,trans4 by ,thackeray1 #ahih1 p4 #aa74 i4 #af4 ,there are three forms of the text here-- 7#a7 1 3 all our ,greek uncials and almost all the minuscules4 7#b7 1 7 7 3 most of the ,old ,latin 7a d g#a k q1 with b c similarly71 ,curetonian ,syriac1 ,armenian1 and four minuscules--viz41 #cdf1 #eef1 #fbd1 #fbf1 with slight divergencies4 7#c7 1 7or 87 1 3 the form underlying the newly-discovered ,sinai-,syriac4#bfe ,these readings are discussed in the 8,additional ,note0 to ,notes on ,select ,readings1 ,westcott and ,hort1 ,introduction 7#ahif71 p4 #adj ff4 ,reading 7#b7 is dismissed on external grounds as displaying the characteristic features of the 8,western0 type of text4 ,reading 7#c7 is regarded as independent of 7#b71 neither confirming it nor confirmed by it4 ,taken therefore on its own merits1 it must yield to the received text 7#a71 as it is easier to suppose that 7#c7 is derived from 7#a7 than vice versa4 ,zahn goes fully into these various forms 7,einleitung1 ii4 #bia-bic74 ,he begins by saying that it is impossible1 except on a very loose view of the facts1 to conclude that the ,sinai-,syriac here preserves the original text1 which was gradually displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form presented in 7#b71 and ultimately by that given in 7#a74 ,on the contrary1 the ,curetonian-,syriac preserves an early form of text1 and one that had a pretty wide circulation1 so that it cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the ,sinai-,syriac4 8,if it be the case that the latter1 like the former1 is derived from a ,greek original1 and that these two earliest versions of the #8,distinct' ,gospel are not independent of each other but are two recensions of a single version1 then it follows that the recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old ,greek text 7in this case the ,curetonian ,syriac7 preserves the original form of the ,syriac version2 while1 on the other hand1 the one which deviates from all the ,greek1 ,latin1 and other forms of the transmitted text 7in this case the ,sinai-,syriac7 is derived from the other by a process of intentional alteration40 ,there would be nothing to object to this reasoning were it not that1 as it seems to me1 there is a flaw in the second of the premises stated above1 which of course vitiates the conclusion4 ,in the main1 it is true that the ,sinai-,syriac and the ,curetonian are not independent1 but two recensions of a single version1 but their common original was1 as ,zahn himself was the first to suggest1 ,tatian's ,diatessaron1 which did not contain the first chapter of ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,so that the ,sinai-,syriac may also go back to a ,greek text 7such as has been discovered in the ,dialogue of ,timothy and ,aquila1 see above1 p4 #ii71 and be earlier than the ,curetonian4 ,zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying3 8,we may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts and versions any indication that ,joseph was regarded as the natural father of ,jesus by the writers of lost ,gospels which may have been employed in the composition of the canonical ,matthew and ,luke4 ,a writer like ,matthew1 whose purpose was to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous birth of the ,messiah1 and who knew how to utilise the smallest details of an intractable genealogy to this end1 cannot at the same time have accepted in his narrative statements directly contradicting his view of that occurrence4 ,any text of ,matthew's ,gospel containing such features would be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in a manner contrary to the conception of the author40 i4 #ah4 ,the reading is now supported by the newly-discovered ,oxyrhynchus ,papyrus4 ,it was adopted in the text by ,vignon 7,geneva1 #aegd74 ,origen knew no other reading than 1 which is also attested by ,l 7,codex ,d is defective here74 ,westcott and ,hort have accordingly given it a place in their ,appendix4 ,weiss explains it as an alteration made in conformity with the verbal forms 1 1 occurring in the previous part of the chapter4 ,zahn 7,einleitung1 ii4 #bgj1 #bhi7 thinks it is probably original4 ,the two oldest and the latest ,syriac have a different word here from that in i4 #a4 ,these agree with ,irenus in the omission of 4 ,zahn thinks this is probably correct4 i4 #be4 ,on 1 see above1 p4 #aff1 and the ,oxford ,debate1 p4 #d ff4 v4 #be4 ,on 1 see ,lagarde1 ,de ,novo1 #bj 7,ges4 ,abhdl41 #ahh72 quem ,matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret ,lucianus in ,navigio #ce1 non ferebat3 ' 1 4 vi4 #a4 1 99 ,b ,d ,syrsin3 1 most authorities3 a3 8your gifts10 ,syrcu4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #caa7 asks whether these variants may not go back to a time when the ,aramaic ,gospel was interpreted orally in these different ways8 ,the agreement exhibited between a and ,syrcu is particularly strange4 vi4 #ac4 ,there is a considerable amount of unanimity now with regard to the doxology which used to be so much discussed4 ,among the witnesses supporting its insertion are ,syrcu1 which1 however1 omits 1 and the ,sahidic1 which omits 4 ,syrsin is unfortunately lost here4 ,in addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion of the ,doxology1 there is now that of the ,teaching of the ,apostles1 one of the earliest ,church writings4 ,but the very fact that the ,teaching is a ,church work reveals the source of the ,doxology--viz4 liturgical use4 ,the ,conclusion was early added in ,church worship from ,old ,testament analogies2 in the ,first ,gospel it is out of place4 ,the ,greek manuscripts from which ,jerome made his version knew nothing of it1 and accordingly the ,catholic ,church omits it to this day4 ,luther also passed it over in his ,catechism1 in which the exposition of the ,conclusion is limited to the word 8,amen10 and says1 8it is added that ,i may have the assurance that my prayer will be heard40 ,in the ,greek ,church the ,amen was explained as equivalent to 1 8so may it be40 viii4 #g4 ,fritzsche 7#ahbf7 took this verse as a question of surprise4 ,this view has been renewed by ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #cjg74 viii4 #bd4 ,the words 8erat enim ventus contrarius eis10 which are found in one manuscript of the ,vulgate in ,w-,w after 8mari10 and in four after 8fluctibus10 are an interpolation from ,mark vi4 #dh4 ,tischendorf cites two ,greek minuscules in support of it4 ,lagarde's ,vienna ,arabic manuscript 7see p4 #adc7 mentions it as an addition of the 8,roman0 version4 xi4 #ai4 ,schlottman and ,lagarde explain the variation between and as a confusion of the ,aramaic 7servant3 7 and 7work74 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #caa f41 and compare also ,salmon1 ,some ,thoughts etc41 p4 #aba f4 ,it is still to be shown1 however1 that is ever used as the equivalent of 4 ,hilgenfeld 7,zfw,th41 #db4 #d1 p4 #fbi7 refers to #d ,esdras vii4 #fd 7#acd71 where the ,latin and the first ,arabic version read 8quasi suis operibus10 the ,ethiopic 8quasi filiis suis10 and the ,syriac 8quia servi eius sumus40 xii4 #cf4 ,see on xviii4 #g4 xiii4 #ce4 is now attested only by 991 two members of the ,ferrar group1 and some other minuscules1 but ,eusebius and ,jerome found it in several manuscripts1 and it was used still earlier by ,porphyrius as a proof of ,matthew's ignorance4 ,it is certainly1 therefore1 genuine1 although it is omitted by ,syrsin1 ,syrcu1 by the 8accurate0 manuscripts according to ,eusebius1#bff and by the 8vulgata editio0 according to ,jerome4 ,the conjecture of the latter1 that was the original reading1 which was changed to by some unintelligent copyist and then dropped as incorrect1 only serves to show what sort of ideas he had with regard to textual criticism4 ,the assertion of the ,breviarium in ,psalmos1 p4 #ei f41 that all the old manuscripts read 8in ,asaph propheta0 is pure fiction4 ,compare in ,matt4 xxvii4 #i1 where one would expect 1 and where we find that is omitted by some witnesses and replaced in others by or 8,esaiam40 8,esaiam0 has also crept into the ,vulgate manuscript rus 7,w-,w's ,r74 ,on the insertion1 omission1 and interchange of such names1 see ,w-,h's discussion of this passage1 and the 8,supplementary ,note0 by ,burkitt on ,syrsin in the edition of #ahif1 p4 #adc4 ,for an interesting exchange of names 7,jonah and ,nahum71 see ,tobit1 xiv4 #h4 ,asaph is called in #b ,chron4 xxix4 #cj4 ,compare ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #cac f4 ,weiss#i would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as being simply introduced from iii4 #c1 iv4 #ad1 viii4 #ag1 and xii4 #ag4 xiv4 #c4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #cji7 thinks it extremely improbable that ,d and certain important ,latin witnesses should have removed the 7wrong7 name1 ,philip1 from this passage on the ground of their better knowledge1 while allowing it to stand without exception in ,mark vi4 #ag4 ,he believes rather that they have preserved the original text1 and that is here an interpolation from the passage in ,mark4 ,weiss#i1 on the other hand1 sees no reason why it should be either bracketed or omitted4 ,the possibility of its being inserted is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven manuscripts of ,jerome1 collated by ,w-,w4 ,this is one of the passages where ,tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly preferred ,codex ,d to all the other ,greek witnesses4 xv4 #d;b4 ,for 1 ,syrcu has 1 evidently in accordance with ,exod4 xxi4 #ag4 ,in the ,arabic ,diatessaron 7 #bj1 #bc7 the second half of this verse seems to be replaced by ,mark vii4 #aj;b4 ,after 8morte moriatur0 in this passage1 ,ephraem adds 8et qui blasphemat ,deum crucifigatur10 which ,zahn 7,forsch41 i4 #aeg7 thinks he must have found in his original4 ,this apocryphal addition1 which has no other testimony than that of ,ephraem1 does not seem to ,zahn like a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of the ,new ,testament with complete success 7,forsch41 i4 #bda74 ,the correct explanation of the words is given by ,harris3 they are the ,peshitto rendering of ,deut4 xxi4 #bc4 ,compare ,driver's ,deuteronomy on the passage1 and the reference there made to ,lightfoot's ,galatians 7,extended ,note on iii4 #ac1 ninth edition1 p4 #aeb f474 ,symmachus also renders the words3 8propter blasphemiam ,dei suspensus est10 while ,onkelos says 1 and ,siphre 4 ,this should be noted in connection with ,matt4 xxvi4 #fe1 and still more so with ,john xix4 #g4 ,the only passage usually cited there is ,levit4 xxiv4 #af1 according to which ,jesus should have been stoned4 ,our commentators pass too hastily over the question why the ,jews insisted on crucifixion instead of stoning4 xvi4 #ah;b1 #ai4 ,so far as the criticism of the text is concerned1 there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether this passage1 like the one resembling it in xviii4 #ae-ah1 is original or not4 ,there may1 however1 be cases in which one cannot overlook the fact that where the 8lower0 criticism ends the 8higher0 begins4 ,compare1 on the one side1 ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #bdd ff41 and on the other1 ,resch1 ,logia1 p4 #ee2 ,paralleltexte1 ii4 #ahg-aif1 #dda4 xvi4 #bb4 ,the peculiar reading1 8compatiens10 which is found in the ,arabic ,tatian 7,j4 ,h4 ,hill1 p4 #acg1 #bc4 #db3 ,zahn1 ,,gk41 ii4 #edf71 and which ,sellin has also traced in ,ephraem1 is now explained by the ,syrsin of ,mark viii4 #cb3 see my note in ,lewis1 ,some ,pages1 p4 xiii4 ,the very same play upon the words 1 8to pity10 and 1 8to be far from10 is found as late as in the ,histoire de ,mar-,jabalaha1 de trois autres patriarches1 ed4 ,bedjan1 #ahie1 p4 #djg1 line #ad2 p4 #djh1 line #d4 ,for a moment ,i thought of and in ,mark i4 #da4 xviii4 #g4 ,the ,dictum ,agraphum 1 ' 1 which1 according to the ,clementine ,homilies 7xii4 #bi71 1 was known also to ,ephraem 7cf4 ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #bda f4 on #ej4 #d74 ,an exact parallel to this 8harmless expansion of the canonical text0 is seen in the form which ,matt4 xii4 #cf assumed in ,codex ,c of the ,palestinian ,syriac ,evangeliarium3 that 8for every good word that men do not speak they shall give account0 7see ,lewis1 ,in the ,shadow of ,sinai 7#ahih71 pp4 #bef-bfa2 and thereon1 ,th,lz41 #ahii1 col4 #agg74 xviii4 #bj4 ,on the form in which this saying is found in the ,oxyrhynchus ,logia1 compare ,ephraem 7,moesinger #afe71 8ubi unus est ibi et ego sum40 ,zahn believes that ,ephraem found this in his text1 but that ,aphraates1 who also has it1 arrived at it by way of a 8spiritual interpretation0 of the canonical words4 ,after quoting the comments of ,aphraates on these words1 ,zahn says3 8,it appears certain1 therefore1 that ,aphraates did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in ,ephraem1 but by way of interpretation reached the same thought that ,ephraem found in his text as a word of comfort spoken by ,jesus to the lonely4 7,ephraem introduces the saying with the words3 #8,he comforted them in ,his saying4'7 ,the interpretation1 which may not have been original in ,aphraates1 became first a gloss and then part of the text of ,tatian's ,harmony40 ,this should be noticed in connection with the ,oxyrhynchus ,logion4 ,see ,burkitt in the ,introduction to ,barnard's ,biblical ,text of ,clement 7,texts and ,studies1 v4 #e1 p4 xiv74 xx4 #ac4 ,the peculiar form of the householder's reply given in ,syrcu1 7,baethgen1 7 is ignored by ,tischendorf4 ,our commentators also err in not taking note of the variant for 4 ,compare the similar variation in ,john viii4 #eg2 also ,luke xviii4 #bj1 1 read by the ,marcionites instead of 2 and ,ephes4 v4 #ad1 1 derived through a presupposed reading1 4 in ,matt4 xx4 #ac is also attested by ,syrsin1 which agrees with the common text in the first member of the verse4 ,it is also found in the newly-discovered purple manuscript in ,paris4 ,the ,arabic ,tatian agrees with the usual text in both members4 ,on the strange mixture of this verse and ,luke xvi4 #be in ,petrus ,siculus 71 7 see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 ii4 #dde4 xx4 #af4 ,the concluding member of this verse is now rightly omitted with ,b ,l ,z and the ,egyptian versions4 ,all the ,syriac versions have it1 including the newly-discovered ,syrsin4 ,it is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms the close of a lection in ,syrhier4 xx4 #bh4 ,westcott and ,hort devote one of their 8,notes on ,select ,readings0 to the addition to this verse1 and in the edition of #ahif ,burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in ,syrsin1 because there was not room for it on the leaf that is missing between ,matt4 xx4 #bd and xxi4 #bj4 ,according to ,w-,h the passage is ,western1 being attested by ,d among the ,greek manuscripts and by the ,latin and ,syriac versions4 8,the first part only1 --1 is preserved in m1 ger1 and apparently ,leo1 who quotes no more2 the second part only1 --1 in ger#b and apparently ,hilary4 ,the first part must come from an independent source1 written or oral2 the second probably comes from the same1 but it is in substance identical with ,luke xiv4 #h-aj40 ,tischendorf states that of the ,old ,latin1 four 7f g#b l q7 omit the section1 which1 however1 is found in c d e ff#a1 #b g#a h 7m7 n1 two manuscripts of the ,vulgate 7and4 emm471 the ,old ,german1 and the ,saxon4 ,to these ,w-,w add also the ,old ,latin r1 two manuscripts of the ,vulgate not usually employed by them1 and1 of those forming the basis of their edition1 ,hmg ,o--i4e4 the ,theodulfian ,recension4 ,a hand of the tenth century has written on the margin of ,o1 8mirum unde istud additum3 cum ,lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos accubitus eligentibus decimo canone1 ubi ,m7atthaeu7s sua non communia dicit referat40 ,this resembles the marginal note attached to the passage by ,thomas of ,heraclea 7not given by ,jos4 ,white1 but by ,adler1 from ,cod4 ,assem41 #a73 ,haec quidem in exemplis antiquis in ,luca tantum leguntur capite #ec3 inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis#bfg hoc loco3 quapropter hic etiam a nobis adiecta sunt4 ,the word 1 which ,resch took from this passage into the text of his ,logia ,jesu1 for 1 found in ,luke xiv4 #i1 should itself have provoked investigation4 ,the only ,latin witnesses which render it in a substantive form are d1 which has coenae invitator both times1 and m1 which has invitator the first time4 ,the others give it as a relative clause 7qui vocavit1 invitavit71 so that they may have read it in the form in which it stands in our present text of ,luke4#bfh ,it is impossible not to believe that some connection exists between these substantive expressions and the ,syriac 1 8master of the feast10 which is found in ,syrcu and ,syrsin1 and is also given by ,aphraates1 for in ,luke xiv4 #ab 7,aphr4 #chh1 #ab-ai2 ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #he1 note74 ,syrcu has it both times in this passage of ,matthew4#bfi ,bengel1 like our modern expositors1 says nothing of the interpolation in his ,gnomon1 and his view with respect to it has1 therefore1 to be gathered from his apparatus4 8,interjicit cod4 ,lat4 vetustissimus ,vos autem1 etc4 444 ,vid4 ,rich4 ,simon1 ,obs4 ,nouv41 p4 #ca4 ,et sic fere ,cant4 7i4e41 ,d7 cuius lectio passim exstat4 ,idem vero ,codex ,graeca sua ad ,latina haec1 quae modo exscripsimus1 confecit3 ,latina autem sua1 sub manu1 vehementius interpolavit1 magno argumento licentiae suae4 ,eandem periocham legit ,juvencus1 ,hilarius3 habentque praeterea codd4 ,lat4 aliquot1 et inde ,sax4 ,ex4 ,luc4 xiv4 #h f41 interveniente forsan ,evangelio ,nazaraeorum 444 ,priorem duntaxat partem1 #8,vos autem 444 minui' habet alius cod4 ,lat4 antiquiss4 ut si ,librarius1 cum describere coepisset1 non scribendum agnosceret3 eandemque ,leo ,m4 sic exhibet4 ,et tamen 444 porro ab hoc loco ad ,luc4 xxii4 #bh1 verbum crescendi protulit ,cant4 coenaeque invitator ei dicitur 40 ,the truth is1 of course1 the very opposite of this1 as is shown by the indicative quaeritis and the imperative of the ,syriac1 which are both derived from the ambiguous 4 ,there cannot be the slightest doubt of this1 seeing that the discovery of ,codex ,beratinus 77 has added a second ,greek witness in support of the interpolation4 ,it reads 7cf4 minor1 c71 omits the before just as m does with et1 has in place of 7accede3 d1 collige71 and the comparative 7utilius7 for the positive read by ,d d4 ,the word also occurs in 4#bgj ,it is not found in ,bekker's ,pollux or in ,schmid's ,hesychius1 and the only instance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is that of ,athenus1 who observes 7#d4 #aga ,b7 that ,artemidorus calls the by that name4 ,the note appended in ,hase-,dindorf's ,stephanus was not correct at the time of its publication3 ,quidam codices ,matt4 xx4 #bg1 ,hesych41 ,wakef4 ,eust4 ,od41 p4 #adac1 #c2 nor the quotation from ,ducange3 4 in ,lex4 ,,ms4 ,cyrilli exp4 4 ,in the same work is cited from ,eust41 ,il41 #gff1 #eh1 and as an explanation of from the ,lex4 ,,ms4 ,cyrilli4 ,the word therefore belongs to the later popular language4 ,the question is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of ,tatian4 ,moreover1 it reminds us of the equally rare word in ,acts iv4 #cd4 ,on the occurrence of the passage in ,tatian1 see ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #he1 #agi4 ,on the questions connected with its interpolation see ,chase and p4 #baf above4 xxii4 #bc4 ,we have in this verse an illustration of the difference caused by the insertion or omission of the article4 ,if we read with c ,e ,f ,g etc41 then the words introduce the creed of the ,sadducees 78who say10 ,weizscker3 8members of that sect who deny the resurrection10 ,stage72 if we omit with 99 ,b ,d and ,syrsin1 we have then what they actually said to ,jesus4 ,but as this would be the only place where ,matthew gave an explanation of this sort regarding ,jewish affairs1 the article should be omitted4 ,see note in loco1 ,expositor's ,greek ,testament1 and compare the margin of the ,revised ,english ,version4 xxiii4 #ce4 #a omits 1 which is replaced in the ,gospels of the ,hebrews by 8filium ,joiadae40 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #cjh7 refers to the view of ,hug1 adopted by ,eichhorn and many others1 that the author1 or redactor1 or translator of ,matthew made this ,zechariah1 who is rightly called the son of ,jehoiada in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews1 the son of ,barachiah in order to identify him with the ,zechariah1 son of ,baruch1 who was murdered by the ,zealots 7,josephus1 ,bell41 iv4 #e4 #d74 ,he points out that this would involve a prediction on the part of ,jesus1 and that1 moreover1 the scene of the murder is different in the two cases3 that the locality in ,matt4 points to #b ,chron4 xxiv4 #ba1 and that ,matthew's mistake in calling him the son of ,barachiah is due to a confusion with the ,zechariah mentioned in ,isa4 viii4 #b1 or that in ,zech4 i4 #a4 ,it should be observed1 however1 that ,lucian alone calls the murdered person in ,chronicles by the name of ,zechariah2 the ,,lxx calls him ,azariah4 xxv4 #da4 ,see on ,luke xx4 #ce4 xxvi4 #gc4 was formerly attested by ,d alone1 but has now the further support of ,syrsin4 ,the clause has crept into a great number of manuscripts1 including even ,a1 in ,mark xiv4 #gj4 ,there ,tischendorf remarks1 8,omnino e ,mt4 fluxit10 in which he is quite right4 ,but he is wrong when he says 8ipsum glossatoris est40 ,because the glossator must then have been earlier than ,tatian 7,ciasca1 p4 #hg71 and the parent of all those manuscripts4 ,the converse is the truth--viz41 that ,d alone preserves the original reading1 and that is the voice of the 4 xxvii4 #i4 ,the name of the prophet1 which was omitted in some manuscripts1 according to ,augustine1 is now omitted only by a b and the two minuscules #cc and #aeg4 ,augustine also observes that ,matthew himself would have noticed his mistake or had his attention called to it by others4 ,on this compare my notes on in ,acts iii4 #ad1 which ,i have explained by supposing that the author read or instead of 7,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #dj2 above1 p4 #agj74 ,origen1 ,eusebius1 and ,jerome evidently still found in all the manuscripts4 is supplied only by #bb and ,esaiam by #a4 ,see on ,matt4 xiii4 #ce1 and compare ,expository ,times1 ,november #aijj1 p4 #fb4 xxvii4 #af4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #bid7 points out that ,origen also found ,jesus given as the prenomen of ,barabbas 8in very ancient manuscripts10 but that in all probability ,tatian did not have it1 seeing that ,bar-,bahlul cites it expressly as the reading of the 8,distinct0 7i4e41 not harmonised7 ,gospel4 ,jerome says that in the ,gospel of the ,hebrews he was called by a name meaning 8filius magistri eorum10 so that he must have been thinking not of ,bar-'abbam but of ,bar-rabbam4 xxvii4 #di4 ,see above1 p4 #bbg1 and compare ,burkitt1 ,texts and ,studies1 v4 #e1 p4 xix4 xxviii4 #ah4 ,compare ,dan4 vii4 #ad;b 7,,lxx71 1 and also ,dan4 vii4 #ac 7 ,matt4 xxvi4 #fd71 vii4 #ad f4 7 ,matt4 xxviii4 #ah74 ,see the ,english ,revised ,version with marginal ,references 7,oxford1 #ahii74 ,according to the subscriptions found in various minuscules1 the ,hebrew ,matthew was translated into ,greek 8by ,john10 or 8by ,james10 to which some add 8the ,brother of the ,lord10 or 8by ,bartholomew1 the celebrated ,apostle 771 but as others say by ,john the ,theologian1 40 ,see ,tischendorf1 and ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #bfg4 ,mark4 ,as if to enforce the desire to which ,i have given expression above 7p4 #bdf71 there has come into my hands ,blass's ,textkritische ,bemerkungen zu ,markus4 ,if the statements contained in the introductory remarks are correct1 and scarcely any other view is possible in the circumstances described1 then the textual criticism of the first and second ,gospels is a hopeless matter4 8,an evangelist or teacher who obtained possession of the originally anonymous ,commentarius could not feel bound to respect the external form1 but considered himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be defective1 and even felt called to correct or complete its subject matter40 ,blass reminds us that we have whole classes of documents1 legends of saints e4g41 which were treated with the utmost possible freedom by the copyists1 who in fact were in this case editors and revisers4 ,but he says that no one has treated ,mark quite so drastically as all this4 ,his summing up of the matter is1 that the critic can often do no more than recognise and admit the early multiplicity1 and that in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel columns4 ,at the same time he is able to distinguish some of the variants as later falsifications or corruptions4 ,universally trustworthy authorities there are none2 here one group is right1 there another1 and we no sooner give them credence than they mislead us with some fresh error4 ,we are far removed1 truly1 from the confidence displayed by ,tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his death in #ahgc in answer to the question1 8,have we the genuine text of the ,evangelical and ,apostolical writings80 ,all the more urgently1 therefore1 do we need fresh studies in textual criticism1 and their appearance in ,germany is the more gratifying on that account4 ,the ,markus-,studien of ,dr4 ,h4 ,p4 ,chajes 7,berlin1 #ahii71 however1 are quite beside the point4 ,they are purely imaginary1 having neither substance nor method4 i4 #a4 ,on the title1 see above2 ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #bbj ff41 #bce2 ,swete1 in loco2 and on this last1 ,s4 ,d4 ,f4 ,salmond1 in the ,critical ,review1 ,april #ahii1 #bjf f43 8,we do not see1 however1 why ,professor ,swete should regard the opening verses as probably not a part of the original work4 ,one might say the same of the whole paragraph with which the ,gospel opens1 or1 for that matter1 the whole chapter4 ,the documentary evidence is substantially the same in each case1 and the internal considerations are much too indeterminate40 ,it may be pointed out1 as remotely analogous to this1 that before ,matt4 i4 #ah the margin of harl 7,z in ,w-,w7 contains a note in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect1 8genealogia hucusque3 incipit evangelium secundum ,matthaeum10 while ,y has the words 8incipit evangelium secundum ,matthaeum0 in the text1 and eight manuscripts begin verse #ah with capital or red letters4 ,compare ,scrivener1 ,i4 c4 iii41 on the divisions of the text in ,b and other manuscripts4 ,for the way in which the opening sentences are to be construed1 reference must be made to the commentaries4 ,it may be said here1 however1 that parallels may be cited from the ,new ,testament for each of the three possible constructions4 ,these are 7#a7 4441 444 1 2 7#b7 444 444 4 2 7#c7 444 444 1 4 ,for 7#a7 and 7#b7 compare ,luke iii4 #a ff41 and for 7#c7 #a ,tim4 i4 #a ff4 ,origen favours the first construction 7,contra ,celsum1 ii4 #d2 vol4 i4 p4 #aca74 ,as regards the text it need only be said that is read before 7v4 #d7 by #a1 and that is found after it1 not only in the ,coptic1 but also in ,syrhier4 i4 #b4 ,origen here read and 7i4 #aca74 ,but the former should be omitted with ,b ,d etc41 and the latter with all the good authorities4 ,it follows that ,matt4 xi4 #aj is not taken from ,mark i4 #b 7,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #caf1 #ccb74 ,one can see how important the so-called 8lower0 criticism may be for the 8higher40 i4 #aa2 ix4 #g4 ,see on 8,punctuation0 above1 p4 #eb4 i4 #bi4 8,b here has 1 and ,d b c e q ,pesh4 have substantially the same4 ,this is not an improvement1 because it excludes ,peter and ,andrew4 ,the reading of ,syrsin is peculiar1 #8and ,he went out of the synagogue and came into the house of ,simon ,cephas 7,andrew and ,james and ,john were with him71 and the mother-in-law etc4'0 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #beb1 and below on ix4 #ad4 i4 #da4 ,the remarkable 8,western reading0 is dismissed by ,swete with a reference to ,w-,h1 who call it 8a singular reading1 perhaps suggested by v4 #dc 771 perhaps derived from an extraneous source40 ,in my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #bf1 ,i have expressed the opinion that it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered to 1 even though does follow two verses further down4#bga ,either 1 has another meaning in ,biblical ,greek1 which is quite possible1 or we have here an instance of a difference in translation4 ,the confusion of the gutturals1 e4g41 is very common4 ,compare ,ps4 xii4 #f1 1 ,gr4 2 ,ps4 xiv4 #f1 liii4 #f1 2 in ,isa4 xxxix4 #b for in #b ,kings xx4 #ac2 ,ps4 xxii4 #be1 1 where ,gr4 has 2 ,ps4 xcvii4 #aa1 1 ,gr4 2 and especially ,mark ix4 #ai in the recently-published ,evangeliarium ,hierosolymitanum of ,lewis-,gibson1 where ,cod4 ,b has for found in ,a ,b4 ,compare also 1 ,matt4 vii4 #aa 7p4 #fh71 and 7p4 #ace74 ,a glance at the ,thesaurus ,syriacus #ciec shows that is used1 not only for 1 but also for 1 1 and 1 while stands for 1 1 and 4 ,payne-,smith gives no instance of 4 ,the usual ,syriac word for it even in ,syrsin and ,syrhier is or 2 both verbs are found together in #a ,macc4 vi4 #ei for the simple 7 74 ,it is worth noting that in ,col4 iii4 #ac1 is read by ,f ,g1 where ,d99 has 1 and the other authorities 4 ,on the reading in ,mark i4 #da1 see ,harris1 ,fragments etc4 7#ahie71 p4 #f4 ,he shows that ,ephraem had in his text alongside of 4 ,the ,arabic ,diatessaron1 in which the pericope does not come till #bb1 follows the usual text1 and so1 too1 does ,syrsin4 ii4 #ad4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #bfc7 holds that 8,levi son of ,alphaeus0 is the original reading here and not 8,james10 and that it was taken from ,mark into the ,gospel of ,peter4 ,the reading 8,jacobum0 was also taken into the first hand of the ,vulgate manuscript ,g from ,d #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 a b c d e ff#b r4 ,in ,koetschau's new edition of ,origen1 the name is no longer spelt but 7i4 #aac1 #ai2 ,cod4 ,p3 74 iii4 #ag4 ,our expositors might tell us where ,luther got his 8,bnehargem10 which is retained in the ,german ,revised ,version4 ,on ,daniel ii4 #g ,jerome has 8,benereem40 ,i have looked in vain in ,lyra1 ,pole's ,synopsis1 ,calov1 and ,wolf4 iii4 #ca4 ,we have here to choose between 7 ,b ,c ,l etc471 7,d etc471 and 7,a73 leaves a space4 ,i am inclined to think that is the original reading1 which was improved by the substitution of the more usual word 1 just as was altered to in the ,delphic ,oracle in ,herodotus i4 #dg4 ,compare a similar variation in ,heb4 xi4 #ac1 where the original reading 799 ,p7 was thought to be improved by the substitution of 7c ,d ,e ,k7 or 7,a74 ,here1 too1 ,a stands alone4 ,was it never copied8 vi4 #af4 ,there is a discrepancy in the ,eusebian ,canons in this verse which has not been explained4 ,both ,tischendorf and ,wordsworth and ,white number this verse #eh_/b4 ,but according to the table in ,ti,gr41 p4 #aeb1 ,w-,w1 p4 #aj1 pericope #eh belongs to the tenth ,canon as being one that is peculiar to ,mark4 ,as a matter of fact it is not so1 unless ,eusebius meant at the beginning of the verse4 ,it is remarkable that ,eusebius did not make the whole of verses #ad-bj one pericope of the second canon1 but numbered #ad1 #ae as #eg_/b and #ag-bj as #ei_/b4 ,he must therefore have found something peculiar in verse #af to make it #eh4 vi4 #bj4 ,this passage is very instructive from a textual point of view4 ,most authorities read that 8,herod had put ,john in prison1 heard him and did much10 or 8heard much of what he did10 77 4 ,but in place of this last word ,b ,l and the ,bohairic version alone read 1 8was much perplexed when he heard him40 ,the great majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter reading1 setting aside as the scriptio proclivior4 ,but in that case should it not have been 8 ,in classical ,greek it should undoubtedly1 but in ,biblical ,greek we find in ,wisd4 xi4 #e1 #ag1 for example1 and what is specially worth noting1 in the parallel passage ,luke ix4 #g1 for which ,d1 it is true1 has 4 ,the passage may therefore be taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved in a very few witnesses4 ,strict logic1 moreover1 would lead us to infer that not one of our #acjj manuscripts is derived from any one of these three1 but that ,b ,l continued childless4 ,is that likely8 ,field1 it may be added1 decides in favour of 7,otium ,norvicense2 see ,expository ,times1 ,august #ahii1 p4 #dhc71 and so1 too1 does ,burkitt 7,texts and ,studies1 v4 #e1 p4 xix74 ,in ,philo1 i4 #bfd1 line #h 7ed4 ,cohn71 the manuscripts vary between 1 --1 --1 and --4 vii4 #cc4 ,codex ,wd1 published by ,harris in facsimile 7#ahif71 here exhibits a very peculiar reading which ,harnack 7,th,lz41 #ahia1 p4 #cef7 thinks has affinity with ,tatian4 ,it reads3 4 ,this gives us quite another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities do4 ,it seems much more natural certainly to moisten the fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching the tongue4 ,it reads somewhat similarly in ,syrsin1 which says that 8he put his fingers and spat in his ears1 and touched his tongue40#bgb ,this manuscript exhibits other noteworthy readings1 which will be found most conveniently in ,swete4 ix4 #ad4 ,the singular1 444 1 has the support of ,d1 while ,syrsin takes the side of the plural1 444 4 ,zahn decides for the latter4 ,he explains the plural by saying that the original narrator was evidently one of the three disciples who were with ,jesus on the ,mount1 in all probability ,peter1 as tradition has it4 ,peter1 of course1 in telling the story1 used the first person and the plural number1 8,when we came down from the mountain we saw1 etc40 ,mark1 reporting the words of ,peter1 turned the first person into the third1 retaining the plural number4 ,zahn explains in the same way the somewhat peculiar expressions in ,mark i4 #bi4 ,here ,peter said1 8we 7i4e4 ,jesus1 ,andrew1 and himself7 came into our house with ,james and ,john40 ,in reporting ,peter's words ,mark paraphrases 8we0 and 8our10 and says1 8they came into the house of ,simon and ,andrew with ,james and ,john40 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #bde f4 x4 #cj4 ,neither ,tischendorf nor ,swete observes that in addition to the readings and the singular is exhibited by ,d4 ,has the mysterious reading in ,clem4 ,alex4 7,quis ,dives7 anything to do with this8 ,it is worth remarking that the ,vienna ,arabic manuscript 7,lagarde3 ,storr7 has a note after 8post persecutionem0 to the effect that this is the 8,roman0 reading4 xiv4 #ea4 1 ,b ,c ,l2 1 ,d2 1 ,a ,e etc4 ,this last is rejected by ,zahn on the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated to verse #dg1 under the false impression that another of the disciples is referred to4 ,it is adopted1 however1 by ,tischendorf#h1 and supported by ,brandt1 ,die ,evangelische ,geschichte etc41 ,leipzig1 #ahic1 p4 #bc ff4 xiv4 #fe4 1 ,a ,b and most authorities3 1 ,d ,g1 #a1 #ac1 #fi1 #bpe1 al#aj3 1 ,h44443 1 ,e ,m ,u etc4 ,the simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that was first1 and that it was changed into the more common aorist 1 which then became or 4 ,the converse is not so likely1 viz4 that or became first and then 1 or that gave rise directly both to and or 4 ,on these and also on internal grounds the reading of ,d ,g is to be preferred3 8they began to spit upon him1 and continued to buffet him40 xv4 #bh4 ,syrsin is now to be added to the authorities that omit the interpolation4 ,on the interesting names1 ,zoatham and ,chammatha1 ,dysmas and ,gestas1 ,titus and ,dumachus 7i4e4 71 see ,berger in the notice of ,wordsworth1 and ,white's ,epilogus mentioned above1 and also ,j4 ,r4 ,harris in the ,expositor1 ,march #aijj1 p4 #afb ff41 ,april1 p4 #cjd4 xv4 #cd4 ,it is extraordinary that no reference is made in ,swete's edition to the very singular reading of ,codex ,d1 instead of 4 ,in addition to the testimony of the ,old ,latin manuscripts c 7exprobrasti me71 i 7me in opprobrium dedisti71 k99 7maledixisti3 see ,burkitt in the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 i4 p4 #bgh71 this reading is attested in ,greek by ,macarius ,magnes4 ,no explanation of it has yet been given that is in all respects satisfactory4 ,see ,expository ,times1 ,august #ahih1 and ,february1 ,march1 and ,april #aijj4 xvi4 #i-bj4 ,the ,english ,revisers had not the courage to omit the conclusion4 ,they print it quite like the rest of the text1 only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat wider space than usual1 and give a note in the margin to the following effect--viz4 8,the two oldest ,greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse #i to the end4 ,some other authorities have a different ending to the ,gospel40 ,the ,german ,revised ,version has no remark to offer1 which is easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is made4 ,the most careful discussion of the passage is now that of ,swete1 pp4 xcvi-cv4 ,see also ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #bbg-bce1 #bcg1 #bdj1 and compare the ,appendix in ,chase's ,old ,syriac ,element1 pp4 #aej-aeg1 8,note on ,mark xvi4 #i-bj10 and ,arthur ,wright1 ,the ,gospel according to ,st4 ,luke1 p4 xv4 ,the subscription of several minuscules bears that ,mark's ,gospel was written at ,rome ten years after the ,ascension1 and delivered to the brethren there by ,peter1 the of the ,apostles4 ,others give ,egypt as the place of origin4 ,it is of more importance to observe that #bj1 #bfb1 #cjj contain the note3 4 ,this refers to the subscription to ,matthew found in these manuscripts3 4 ,a similar subscription occurs in #bpe1 a minuscule of considerable importance for ,mark 7#dgc in ,scrivener2 see above1 p4 #aea1 n474 ,luke4 ,apart altogether from the question how the numerous and decided peculiarities of ,codex ,d are to be explained1 we find a great many problems connected with the text of ,luke's ,gospel4 ,on the supposed title see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #chc4 i4 #bf4 ,in place of the definite indication of time1 ,blass follows certain ,latin authorities1 especially the ,latin ,irenus1 in giving3 in ipso 7or1 eodem7 autem tempore1 4 ,zahn points out 7,einl41 ii4 #ced7 that this is the customary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the ,lectionaries1 and that while no doubt in the later ,greek system the pericope of the ,annunciation began with verse #bd1 #bf is the more appropriate beginning4 ,he adds that in any case the origin of this formula is evident1 and that ,cod4 ,d1 which here parts company with the ,latin witnesses1 gives other indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system4 ,see the ,introduction to ,scrivener's edition of the ,codex1 p4 li4 i4 #df4 ,on the reading ,elisabeth1 see above1 p4 #bch4 i4 #fc4 ,the text inserted the words before 1 by way of explaining the astonishment of the people4 ,zahn thinks this an absurd misplacement1 seeing that the mention of ,zechariah's speaking does not come till the following verse1 and the people could not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him speak4 ,syrsin accordingly corrects this by putting the mention of the astonishment after that of the speaking1 in which it is followed by ,blass4 ii4 #d1 #e4 ,in the text ,blass adopts the reading 1 and transposes the clause to the end of verse #e4 ,this arrangement is also exhibited by ,d4 ,syrsin reads 8both40 ,one ,old ,latin manuscript has essent1 but as it exhibits the clause in the usual place1 ,zahn thinks that essent is manifestly a clerical error for esset4 ,the ,syriac1 he points out1 is derived from ,tatian4 ,see ,einl41 ii4 #cee2 ,forsch41 i4 #aah2 ,,gk41 ii4 #efa2 ,vetter1 ,der dritte ,korintherbrief 7#ahid71 #be4 ii4 #g4 ,one ,latin manuscript 7e7 has obvolverunt and collocaverunt1 which may be compared with essent in verse #d4 ,zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born infant4 ii4 #ad4 ,how does the ,christmas song of the angels run exactly8 ,is it 1 or 4 8 ,the question belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism4 ,the whole matter turns upon a single letter1 but it divides ,western ,christendom in two parts4 ,the ,latin ,church reads it as in hominibus bonae voluntatis1 8among men of goodwill10 or1 as modern critics understand it1 8among men of ,god's good pleasure40 ,the second reading makes it 8goodwill to men40 ,which should it be8 ,the former reading1 the genitive1 is supported by 99 ,a ,b99 ,d1 the ,latin1 and the ,gothic1 whereas nearly all the other witnesses1 including the ,bohairic1 the three ,syriac1 and ,a itself in the ,hymns at the end of the ,old ,testament ,psalter1 have the nominative4 ,one thing seems to me decisive in favour of the nominative4 ,scarcely any part of the ,new ,testament is so steeped in the ,hebrew spirit as the first two chapters of ,luke's ,gospel4 ,as ,field points out in the third part of his ,otium ,norvicense1 the ,greek corresponds to the ,hebrew expression 8son of ,adam10 which cannot take another genitive after it--8sons of ,adam of goodwill40 ,on the other hand1 the word goodwill in ,hebrew is always followed by the preposition corresponding to the ,greek 4 ,so that1 till we have further testimony1 ,i would retain the nominative and the tripartite division1 notwithstanding the authority of ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 ,weizscker1 ,stage1 and ,blass1 who1 by the way1 mentions no variants in the text4 ii4 #dj4 ,d here reads in place of ' 4 ,the difference is slight1 but not unimportant from a theological point of view4 ,it is not accidental1 as is shown by the corresponding change of ' into in ch4 iii4 #bb4 iii4 #bb4 ,zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein ,d and its associates have preserved the original reading4 ,they exhibit here in place of 4 ,he says1 moreover1 that 8those who hold the former as original need not lament its disappearance from tradition subsequent to the year #cjj0 7,einl41 ii4 #bdj1 #cef74 ,see ,burkitt in ,barnard's ,biblical ,text of ,clement1 pp4 xiii4 #ch4 iii4 #bc ff4 ,may not the peculiar form of the genealogy in ,d be explained by the ,diatessaron1 which originally had no genealogy8 ,the index of the ,latin edition shows that there was none originally1 but we find in the text one compiled from ,matt4 i4 #a-af1 ,luke iii4 #cd-cg1 ,matt4 i4 #ag4 ,the first-known manuscript of the ,arabic ,diatessaron had ,matt4 i4 #a-ag in #b1 and ,luke iii4 #bd-ch in #i4 ,the better manuscript1 discovered later1 has no genealogy in the text1 but it contains one compiled from ,matt4 and ,luke1 inserted between the close of the work and the subscription by way of appendix4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 ii4 #eci2 ,j4 ,h4 ,hill1 ,earliest ,life of ,christ etc41 p4 #c f4 iii4 #bg4 ,the correct explanation of is that given by ,plummer in his ,commentary on ,luke1 and quoted by ,bacon in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 ii4 #adj4 8,rhesa1 who appears in ,luke1 but neither in ,matt4 nor in #a ,chron41 is probably not a name at all1 but a title which some ,jewish copyist mistook for a name4 ,zerubbabel ,rhesa or ,zerubbabel the ,prince 77 has been made into #8,zerubbabel 7begat7 ,rhesa4'0 ,the interpretation of ,rhesa as 8prince0 is1 however1 not new4 ,see ,pole's ,synopsis3 it was not safe to use the proper name ,zerubbabel in ,babylon1 seeing that it meant 8ventilatio ,babelis10 and the name ,sheshbazzar was therefore substituted for it4 ,sic filii eius ,meshullam et ,hanania1 quia vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt ,abiud1 i4e4 patris mei est gloria1 et ,rhesa princeps 7,lightfoot1 ,horae ,hebraicae74 ,reuchlin 7,rudimenta1 p4 #ah7 gives the explanation 7sic7 qui cognominatur ,mesollam4 ,this interpretation1 however1 lends no real support to ,sellin's theory4 iv4 #cd4 ,the exclamation 1 which ,zahn 7,,gk41 i4 #fhb7 says is unknown in the ,new ,testament1 is omitted by ,d1 eleven ,old ,latin manuscripts1 and also by ,marcion4 ,it is supported by a considerable number of witnesses in ,mark i4 #bd4 ,according to ,zahn1 these witnesses took it from ,luke1 but of this ,i am by no means certain4 ,syrsin omits it in both places4 ,in ,luke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the ,vulgate mentioned by ,wordsworth and ,white4 iv4 #cd4 ,marcion invariably omits 4 ,there is1 however1 no other authority for its omission4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhe2 ii4 #def4 iv4 #dd4 is the better attested reading1 and on account of the improbability of its being invented1 should be regarded as the original4 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #cgc4 v4 #e4 in the ,new ,testament is peculiar to ,luke4 ,in place of it ,d has here1 and in viii4 #bd4 ,it retains 1 however1 in viii4 #de1 ix4 #cc1 ix4 #di1 and xvii4 #ac4 v4 #ad4 ,the long interpolation at the end of the verse found in ,d d is derived from ,mark i4 #de and ii4 #a1 though there are slight differences4 ,it is introduced here for harmonistic reasons4 ,was it taken from ,tatian8 v4 #bg4 ,after the name of ,levi1 ,d inserts 1 which1 according to ,zahn1 is not original4 ,see ,einl41 ii4 #bfc4 v4 #ci4 ,marcion agrees with ,d in the omission of this verse4 ,syrsin and ,syrcu are1 unfortunately1 both defective here4 ,to the authorities for its omission should be added r1 which ,weiss does not mention4 ,on the reasons for the omission of the verse1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fha4 vi4 #e4 ,zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man working on the ,sabbath is taken from the same source as ,mark xvi4 #i ff41 and the pericope adulter1 ,john vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa--viz4 from ,papias1 and that it may be historically true4 ,see his ,einleitung1 ii4 #cee4 ,westcott and ,hort insert it among their 8,noteworthy ,rejected ,readings10 and ,resch puts it among the 8,logia ,jesu40 ,the ,sinai-,syriac is defective here4 ,for a long time it was thought that ,d and ,stephen's were different manuscripts1 and they are here cited by ,mill as 8duo codices vetustissimi40 ,this was shown to be a mistake by ,bengel4 ,grotius also speaks of 8nonnulli codices10 and1 according to ,mill1 thought the words were 8adjecta ab aliquo ,marcionita40 ,the narrative seems to have remained quite unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between its relation by ,d and its publication by ,stephen in #aeej4 ,according to ,scrivener's edition of ,codex ,bezae1 p4 #dce1 none of the ten or twelve later hands that worked upon the manuscript down to the twelfth century and even later1 seem to have touched the page on which this narrative stands 7#bje;b74 ,it would seem1 therefore1 that no copy was ever made of this manuscript either4 ,how much would have been lost had it also disappeared entirely8 vi4 #aj4 ,whether is genuine or not is of no material consequence so far as the exposition of the passage is concerned1 but it is important in connection with the question of the relationship of ,luke to the other ,synoptics4 ,the words are wanting in ,mark iii4 #e1 but occur in ,matt4 xii4 #ac4 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #dbj4 vi4 #ca4 ,zahn is not sure if ,marcion's text contained the ,golden ,rule in this passage in the negative form4 ,,gk41 i4 #fhj2 ii4 #dfb4 vii4 #bg4 ,zahn thinks that should perhaps be omitted here 7,einl41 ii4 #caf74 viii4 #dc4 ,the words are omitted in ,b ,d4 ,zahn holds it to be an 8unworthy insinuation0 to suppose that ,luke1 being himself a physician1 toned down the expressions used by ,mark as reflecting on the credit of his profession4 ,the words are more likely to be a gloss from ,mark4 ,see ,einleitung1 ii4 #dcg4 ix4 #a4 ,this verse is written three times over in codex 4 ,this cannot be a mistake4 ,it might have been written twice by inadvertence1 but not three times4 ,the reason lies in the fact related--viz41 the conferring of the power over evil spirits4 ix4 #af4 ,the reading ' crept into the ,vulgate manuscript called ,g by ,wordsworth and ,white from the ,old ,latin4 ,it is now attested also by ,syrsin4 ,see ,lewis1 ,some ,pages1 in loco4 ,zahn thinks it is deserving of special attention 7,,gk41 i4 #fhb74 ,in this he is quite right4 ix4 #ah4 ,marcion here had 4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhf4 ix4 #eb-ef4 8,it is impossible to suppose that the shorter form of the text is the original1 and the longer due to a later interpolation1 as this would imply what is incredible--viz41 that one of ,marcion's most antinomian readings found its way into a large number of ,catholic manuscripts 7,d1 the ,peshitto1 ,harklean ,syriac1 most ,latin witnesses1 ,chrysostom1 etc474 ,the only probable explanation is that the ,catholic writers objected to #ed;b and #ee;b on account of the use made of them by the ,marcionites1 and the apparently ,marcionitic character of their contents4 ,they were particularly offensive when taken together4 ,accordingly1 some manuscripts like e and ,syrcu omitted only #ed;b1 others1 like ,a ,c1 only #ee;b1 while others again1 like ,b ,l ,syrsin1 boldly omitted both4444 ,the words were written by ,luke and not invented by ,marcion40 ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fha1 ii4 #dfh2 ,einl41 ii4 #ceg4 x4 #a4 ,instead of #gj1 ,b ,d1 ,tatian1 the ,syriac1 and the ,latin give #gb4 ,according to ,zahn1 the number has nothing to do with the ,jewish enumeration of #gj ,gentile nations1 languages1 or angels1 nor the #gj members of the ,sanhedrim1 the #gj translators of the ,old ,testament1 or with any other number #gj4 ,these #gj were not sent to the ,gentiles1 and ,luke gives no hint of the allegorical significance of their number4 ,any such allegorizing was foreign both to himself and ,theophilus1 neither of whom was a ,jew4 ,see ,einl41 ii4 #cib4 xi4 #b4 ,on in ,d1 see my ,philologica ,sacra1 pp4 #bg-cf4 xi4 #c4 ,there is a certain amount of probability in ,zahn's view that ,marcion was led to insert after by thinking of ,john vi4 #cc f41 a passage which suggested itself to ,origen also in this connection4 ,see ,zahn 7,,gk41 i4 #fgg1 ii4 #dga71 who thinks it probable that ,marcion interpreted the words in a spiritual sense 7 supersubstantialis74 xi4 #ec4 ,the text of ,d here displays several marked variations1 which1 however1 do not affect the sense of the passage4 ,zahn sees in them the arbitrary alterations of a later time2 but ,weiss thinks that in some particulars they may preserve the original4 xii4 #a4 ,marcion1 seemingly1 and ,jerome omit 1 which is attested by most of the ,old ,latin witnesses1 with the exception of b4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fib1 ii4 #dgd4 xii4 #ad4 ,the words were omitted by ,marcion 7,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhb74 ,they are also wanting in the ,sinai-,syriac 7see ,lewis1 ,some ,pages74 xii4 #ch4 ,the mention of the by ,marcion and other authorities is due1 according to ,zahn 7,,gk41 ii4 #fhc2 ,einl41 ii4 #cef71 to the 8magisterial consideration0 that an orderly householder would not come home from the festivities after midnight or in the early hours of the morning1 but at the latest in the first watch of the night1 which was still called the evening4 ,the reading is also found in ,irenus1 but not in the ,sinai-,syriac4 xii4 #ea4 77 is found here in ,syrsin in place of 7,d e ,syrcu71 mittere 7b l71 7usual text74 ,this is interesting in view of ,marcion4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fjd1 ii4 #dgf4 ,tertullian seems to have been mistaken in thinking that was read in place of in this connection 7machaeram quidem scriptum est4 ,sed ,marcion emendat1 quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae74 xiii4 #h4 ,see above1 p4 #aic ff4 ,chase cites this passage as an indication of the laxity of transcription of which ,d was guilty in introducing what appears to be a common agricultural phrase4 ,in ,columella 7,de ,re ,rustica1 xi4 #c7 we find 8confecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam cophinis obserat40 ,chase also cites from the manuscript notes of ,hort the reference to ,plutarch1 ,vita ,pompeii1 #dh1 4 ,better than any words of mine are those of ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #cdf3--,no one with any perception of the difference between nave originality and a regularity due to liturgical1 dogmatic1 and stylistic considerations can fail to assent to the following propositions--viz41 7#a7 as regards contents and form of expression 7i4e4 the text of ,d and its associates7 has preserved much original matter1 which from the very first was peculiarly liable to alteration1 and which was set aside by the learned revisers from the end of the third century onwards 7,lucian1 ,hesychius1 ,pamphilus71 etc4 xvi4 #ab4 ,while the common text with ,syrsin reads 1 for which ,b ,l have 1 ,marcion alone supports #aeg e i l in reading 4 ,how is this to be explained8 ,compare above1 p4 #baa1 and ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhb4 xvi4 #ai4 ,zahn denominates the introductory words found in ,d1 1 8a liturgical gloss at the beginning of a pericope40 ,blass1 too1 omits them from the text4 xvi4 #bb1 #bc4 991 most ,old ,latin witnesses1 and the ,vulgate omit at the beginning of verse #bc1 and read 4 ,this conjunction of the words is attested by ,tatian and ,marcion4 ,the ,sinai-,syriac presupposes the form 8was buried4 ,and being in ,hades he lifted up his eyes40 ,attention may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different readings by ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,they say3 ,asyndeton in ,johanne tolerabile1 in ,luca vix ferendum videtur4444 ,vix dubium est quin ,lucas ipse scripserit 1 sed secundum in antiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in 99 casu omissum1 ex conjectura tribus modis restitutum videtur1 sc4 1 et et 2 quae lectiones omnes in codicibus ,latinis referuntur1 et tertiam ab ,hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatam magis quam ex ratione praelatam credimus4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhb1 ii4 #dhj4 xvii4 #aa4 8,in all likelihood 1 without the preposition1 as given by ,d1 is the original form4 ,this was variously replaced by 7,ferrar ,group71 which is not amiss1 by 7,a ,x1 etc471 which is not so good1 and by 7 ,b ,l71 which is very bad40 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #cia4 ,compare1 also 7for 71 ,jlicher1 ,gleichnisreden ,jesu1 ii4 #eaf4 xvii4 #ba4 ,marcion inserts before 1 which ,zahn holds to be original4 ,syrsin reads 8here it is1 or there it is10 and therefore apparently omits the first as well4 ,see ,lewis1 ,some ,pages4 ,wordsworth and ,white omit ,tischendorf's g#a4 #b from the authorities given by him in support of the omission of the second ecce4 xviii4 #bj4 ,on the alterations made on the text here by the followers of ,marcion1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #faf1 ii4 #dhd4 xviii4 #be4 ,the evidence in support of the readings and is very strong 7 ,b ,d ,l74 ,the choice of the terms for or 1 and for 1 betrays the language of the physician4 ,see ,the ,expositor's ,greek ,testament1 ,acts of the ,apostles1 ,introduction1 pp4 #i-aa2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #dbg f41 #dce f4 xx4 #ce4 ,with reference to this verse1 ,tertullian makes the following charge against the ,marcionites3 ,nacti enim scripturae textum ita in legendo decurrerunt3 8quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi02 8illius aevi0 8deo0 adjungunt 444 cum sic legi oporteat1 8quos autem dignatus est10 ut facta hic distinctione post 8deum0 ad sequentia pertineat 8illius aevi10 etc4 ,zahn insists1 as against ,ritschl1 ,hilgenfeld1 and ,volkmar1 that this requires not only the insertion of after 1 but also the active voice instead of the passive1 as though the ,marcionites had read 1 4 ,a similar change of construction occurs in ,matt4 xxv4 #da1 where it is quite certain that is a correction of the stronger expression 1 found in ,d1 #a1 #bb1 ten ,old ,latin manuscripts1 and the earliest ,fathers4 xxi4 #cj4 ,the insertion of may be but a trifling addition1 intended to facilitate the sense 7,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fhb71 at the same time it is an interesting question how it comes to be in ,d1 #aeg1 #egb 7see above1 p4 #baa74 ,wordsworth and ,white say that ,d here is 8ex ,latinis forsan correctus40 ,syrsin agrees with ,syrcu in inserting the words4 xxii4 #af4 ,for ,d reads 4 ,on this see my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #ch1 where it is suggested that these two readings are due to the confusion of and 4 ,this occurs several times in the ,old ,testament--e4g4 #b ,chron4 xxx4 #bb1 where is represented in the ,,lxx by 4 ,but even apart from the question of a ,hebrew foundation for the variant1 ,i am inclined to regard as the original1 and as the correction4 xxii4 #af-ba4 ,the narrative of the ,last ,supper is extant in three forms4 ,there is 7#a7 the common text1 7#b7 that exhibited by the two most important of the ,old ,latin witnesses 7b1 e71 in which verse #af is followed by #ai;a1 after which come #ag1 #ah1 #ba1 so that #ai;b and #bj are wanting altogether4 ,the text of ,syrsin and ,syrcu resembles this4 ,there is further 7#c7 the form exhibited by ,d and four ,old ,latins1 which has the same order as 7#a71 but omits verses #ai;b1 #bj4 ,zahn decides in favour of 7#b74 ,see his ,einleitung1 ii4 #ceg ff4 ,it is to be observed that the last discovered ,syriac omits the nominatival clause after 1 which is the only member that seems to be derived1 not from #a ,cor4 xi4 #bd f41 but from ,matthew and ,mark1 and that does not agree in construction with the rest4 ,this confirms the supposition that these two verses are not part of the original text4 ,see ,westcott and ,hort1 ,notes on ,select ,readings1 p4 #fc f42 ,plummer1 ,commentary on ,st4 ,luke in the ,international ,series 7,t4 ,t4 ,clark74 ,compare also the article by the latter in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible 7,lord's ,supper74 xxii4 #cf4 ,on ,basil the ,great 7d4 #cgi7 remarks3 444 4 ,at present ,d is quite alone in exhibiting the reading 1 which is worth noting in view of above4 xxii4 #dc1 #dd4 ,these verses1 with their mention of the ,bloody ,sweat and the ,strengthening ,angel1 are omitted in ,a ,b ,r ,t1 one ,old ,latin 7f71 the ,bohairic1 ,sahidic1 and ,armenian versions1 and the ,sinai-,syriac4 ,on the other hand1 they are read by the ,curetonian ,syriac and the ,peshitto1 by the first and third hands of 7the second hand enclosed them in brackets and cancelled them by means of dots71 by ,d1 as also by most of the ,old ,latin witnesses and the ,vulgate4 ,in the ,greek ,lectionaries they are omitted at the place where one would naturally expect them1 but are found in the text of ,matthew xxvi41 together with portions of ,john xiii41 in the ,liturgy for ,holy ,thursday4 ,this explains their insertion after ,matt4 xxvi4 #ci in the ,ferrar ,group1 at least in #ac1 #fi1 #abd4 ,the first of these1 moreover1 repeats the first two words of verse #dc 7 7 in ,luke1 but no more4 ,the necessary inference is that these verses are no part of the original text of ,luke4 ,they go back1 however1 to a time when extra-canonical traditions from the ,life and ,passion of ,jesus were in circulation either orally or in writing4 ,zahn holds that ,d here has preserved what ,luke wrote4 xxiii4 #b4 ,zahn 7,,gk41 i4 #ffh7 expressly points out that ,marcion did not invent the additional words 1 but found them in his exemplar4 ,they occur in eight ,old ,latin and at least five ,vulgate manuscripts1 among which are four of the early codices collated by ,wordsworth and ,white4 ,one of them omits et prophetas1 while some others have nostram after legem4 ,weiss takes no notice of this addition1 nor of the further addition in verse #e of the words 1 supported by at least two ,old ,latin manuscripts1 both of which add non enim baptizantur sicut et nos1 while one of them exhibits the still further extension nec se mundant4 ,if the addition were really made by ,marcion1 it would be all the more deserving of attention4 ,the omission of the additional words in verse #b is conceivably due to homoioteleuton1 the eye of the scribe passing from to 1 ,in the case of verse #e1 the mention of the women and children is quite consistent with what is said elsewhere in the narrative of the ,passion1 but the reference to baptism and purification is not so clear4 ,codex c has the singular baptizatur1 but this is merely a clerical error4 xxiii4 #cd4 ,the case of the ,first ,word from the ,cross is remarkable4 ,this verse1 containing the words1 8,father1 forgive them1 for they know not what they do10 is bracketed in by an early corrector1 and then restored2 it is omitted by ,b without being replaced2 it is inserted in ,d by a hand not earlier than the ninth century1 and omitted by two ,old ,latin manuscripts1 by two ,bohairic codices1 by the ,sahidic version1 and by the newly-discovered ,sinai-,syriac4 ,is it possible to suppose that a ,christian would have cancelled these words in a ,bible manuscript like 1 unless he had valid reasons for doing so in the tradition of the ,gospel text8 ,zahn thinks they were omitted from ,d by mistake4 ,on the ,order of the ,seven ,words see my note in the ,expository ,times for ,june #aijj1 p4 #dbc f4 xxiii4 #ch4 ,the notice of the three languages in which the ,inscription on the ,cross was written is taken from the text of ,john1 and is read by all the ,latin authorities with the single exception of codex ,vercellensis 7a74 ,syrsin is now to be added to the witnesses supporting the omission of the clause4 ,its use of the word reveals the ultimate affinity of this version with the ,curetonian ,syriac4 ,the interpolation1 as ,zahn rightly asserts 7,,gk41 i4 #fge71 points to the estimation in which ,john's ,gospel was held at an early date4 ,its insertion in ,luke is undoubtedly erroneous4 xxiii4 #dc4 ,the insertion of in ,d1 as well as the other variants found in this manuscript1 viz4 1 which is also read by ,d in ,luke xxi4 #g1 and 1 which is inserted by others in ,luke viii4 #dh1 is attributed by ,zahn 7,einleitung1 ii4 #cef7 to some preacher who sought in this way to contrast the penitent thief with his comrade4 ,with the substantival expression 1 compare exhibited by ,d in ,matt4 xx4 #bh4 ,on the somewhat rare verb 1 compare the new edition of ,origen1 i4 #e1h2 also ,clement ,alex1 7ed4 ,dindorf71 i4 #ahf1 #ahh4 xxiii4 #ec4 ,after ,u1 with a few minuscules1 reads 1 while three ,vulgate manuscripts have a similar addition et inposito eo inposuit monumento lapidem magnum4 ,on the other hand ,d1 with its ,latin1 reads 7leg4 7 4 ,the same thing is found in the ,old ,latin manuscript c1 et cum positus esset in monumento1 posuerunt lapidem quem vix viginti volvebant4 ,the ,sahidic and ,ti exhibit a similar expansion of the text4 ,in this addition1 which ,scrivener thought was 8conceived somewhat in the ,homeric spirit10 ,harris detects a ,latin hexameter which the scribe of ,codex ,bezae 8deliberately incorporated into his text and then turned into ,greek40 ,see his ,study of ,codex ,bezae in ,texts and ,studies1 ii4 #a1 #dg-eb4 ,chase1 on the other hand1 adduces ,josephus1 ,bell4 ,jud41 vi4 #e1 #c 7,syro-,latin ,text1 p4 #fb ff474 ,compare my ,philologica ,sacra1 pp4 #ci1 #eh4 xxiv4 #f4 ,the reading 7,d1 c1 ,marcion1 etc47 in place of is now attested also by the ,sinai-,syriac4 xxiv4 #cb4 ,in place of 7 text7 and 7,d71 ,blass inserts in the text on the authority of the old ,syriac versions1 the ,armenian1 and the ,sahidic4 ,but in the ,syriac this last reading is due to a transcriptional error of for 7see ,blass himself1 p4 #abj1 and compare the variants and in ,rahmani's ,testamentum ,d4 ,n4 ,jesu ,christi1 p4 #aab1 #f72 and as the ,armenian is derived from the ,syriac1 the only question becomes whether the ,sahidic reading is due to the same error4 in ,d1 which has hitherto baffled explanation1 is shown to be a purely clerical error by comparison with ,heb4 xii4 #ah1 where also becomes in the ,greek of ,d and in ,pseudo-,athan4 #eg4 xxiv4 #cd4 ,for ,d reads 1 which is simply a clerical error arising easily from the influence of the ,latin1 which would be the same in either case4 ,for the conclusions drawn from this reading by ,resch1 see his ,aussercanonische ,paralleltexte1 iii4 #ggi f4 ,other examples of the same mistake 7-- for --7 occur in ,matt4 xxii4 #af2 ,acts vi4 #aa1 xvi4 #ce2 ,rom4 vi4 #ac4 ,it is interesting to observe that ,origen had 7i4 #ahd1 ed4 ,koetschau74 xxiv4 #cg4 ,zahn 7,,gk41 i4 #fha7 rejects the supposition that the reading for was coined by ,marcion and taken from a ,marcionite ,bible into ,d4 ,that he is right in doing so appears from ,chase1 who shows that here is the same as in ,ignatius 7,ad ,smyrnaeos1 iii4 #b74 ,see my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #be4 ,the ,semitic equivalent of as well as of is 1 1#bgc which is used in both the earlier ,syriac versions1 the ,curetonian and the ,lewis1 to represent in ,matt4 xiv4 #bf and ,mark vi4 #di4 ,i find that is used for in the translation of ,eusebius 7,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #af1 ed4 ,wright-,maclean1 p4 #bhi74 xxiv4 #ci4 ,all the authorities agree in saying that ,marcion omitted the words 1 while ,tertullian and ,epiphanius state that he also omitted 4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 ii4 #die1 who adds that 8the longer clause--i4e4 --is also omitted by ,d1 it 7with the exception of ,colbertinus71 vg1 but not ,syrcu1 as ,tischendorf wrongly states40 ,this however is a misapprehension4 ,the om in ,tischendorf refers only to after 4 ,this is omitted by ,syrcu as well as by ,d and also by ,syrsin4 ,it would be more exact to say1 however1 that the before is also omitted by ,syrcu4 ,moreover1 ,syrsin agrees with ,syrcu in reading after 4 ,the subscription of certain minuscules states that ,luke's ,gospel was written fifteen years after the ,ascension4 ,some say 1 others v 1 while one says very strangely1 v 1 8for ,theophilus1 who became bishop after divine baptism40 1 #bfb1 #cjj also contain here the notice of careful collation4 ,the chapter enumeration in these manuscripts is not the same1 being #cdb1 #cdi1 and #cde respectively4 ,john4 ,in this ,gospel the attention of textual critics was long confined to the passage vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa4 ,they failed to observe that in other places there are clauses and whole verses whose omission or interpolation has to be investigated in connection with vii4 #ec ff41 as1 for example1 iv4 #i1 v4 #c1 #d1 and that interesting questions of textual criticism are raised in other parts of the book as well4 ,chapter xxi41 which the last two verses of the preceding chapter clearly show to be an ,appendix1 is equally well attested by all the authorities1 while the omission of xx4 #ca by the first hand of ,g is just one of those unaccountable phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the domain of textual criticism4 ,the same thing is probably to be said of the omission in of the last verse of chapter xxi4 ,tischendorf was of opinion that this last verse in 1 together with the concluding ornament and subscription1 was not by the same hand 7,a7 as had written the ,gospel of ,john1 but by another 7,d7 who had acted as corrector1 and had written part of the ,apocrypha and six leaves of the ,new ,testament4 ,tregelles1 on the other hand1 who examined the passage in ,tischendorf's presence1 thought the difference was due simply to the scribe having taken a fresh dip of the ink3 that at all events the scribe who wrote the ,gospel 7,a7 did not intend it to conclude with verse #bd1 otherwise he would have added a concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of ,matthew and ,luke4 ,the verse is found in all the other manuscripts and versions with which we are acquainted1 and the question with regard to is interesting only from the fact that a few manuscripts do contain a scholium to the effect that the verse is an addition 77 inserted in the margin 77 by one of the scholars 7 71#bgd and afterwards incorporated in the text by another without the knowledge of the former 7 787 1 1 74 ,this entire note1 however1 is evidently no more than an inference drawn from the contents of the verse1 as the ,syriac ,commentary of ,theodore shows4 ,see further1 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #die1 and the reference to the ,commentary of ,ishodad in ,sachau's ,verzeichnis der syrischen ,handschriften in ,berlin1 p4 #cjg4 ,with respect to the pericope adulter1 on the other hand1 we may be quite certain that it did not originally stand in the position it now occupies 7vii4 #ec-viii4 #aa71 nor indeed in ,john's ,gospel at all1 although the decision of the ,holy ,office of the #acth ,february #ahig1 which was confirmed by the ,pope two days later1 obliges ,catholic exegetes to hold it as genuine4 ,it is omitted in a great many manuscripts and versions--e4g4 in ,b ,l ,t4 ,a and ,c are defective here1 but the amount of space shows that they could not have contained it4 ,it is omitted in the ,syriac and ,egyptian versions1 in the ,armenian and the ,gothic1 in some ,old ,latin codices1 and in the earliest of the ,greek and ,latin ,fathers4 ,on the other hand it is found in all the manuscripts of ,jerome and in ,codex ,d1 which is the only one of the earlier ,greek manuscripts to contain it4 ,in some minuscules and later ,armenian manuscripts it stands at the end of the fourth ,gospel1 where now ,westcott and ,hort put it4 ,in minuscule #bbe1 written in the year #aaib1 it follows vii4 #cf2 in the ,georgian version it comes after vii4 #dd2 while in the ,ferrar ,group--i4e4 in minuscules #ac1 #fi1 #abd1 #cdf1 #eef--;it is inserted after ,luke xxi4 #ch4 ,its insertion after vii4 #cf is probably the result of an accidental error4 ,in the ,greek ,lectionaries the liturgy for ,whitsunday begins at verse #cg and extends to verse #eb1 followed by viii4 #ab1 so that the pericope was1 by mistake1 inserted before instead of after this lection4 ,its position in the ,georgian version is the more remarkable1 seeing that in the ,old ,latin ,codex b1 which contained the pericope by the first hand1 the entire passage from vii4 #dd-viii4 #ab has been erased4 ,as a probable explanation of its position in the ,ferrar ,group after ,luke xxi4 #ch1 it has been suggested that the scribe inserted it there owing to the resemblance between ,luke xxi4 #cg and ,john viii4 #a1 and also between ,luke xxi4 #ch 77 and ,john viii4 #b 774 ,harris thinks that its proper place is in ,john between chapters v4 and vi41 because reference is made in v4 #de1 #df to the ,mosaic ,law1 which is also mentioned in viii4 #e4 ,but the remarkable thing is that here again the text of ,d differs in a conspicuous manner from that of the other witnesses4 ,in viii4 #b the words are wanting3 in verse #d we meet the sentence 1 which does not come till after verse #e in the other text3 for ,d has 3 in verse #e it reads1 1 for which the other text has 3 in verse #aa1 ,d has where the other text has 4 ,now1 if two persons got such an easy sentence as 8,moses in the ,law commanded to stone such0 to translate from ,latin1 ,hebrew1 or any other language into ,greek1 one of them might quite well use and 1 and the other and 4 ,and so the question is suggested whether the two forms in which the text exists were not derived from different sources1 that of ,d1 e4g41 from its ,latin4 ,but on closer examination the latter supposition is seen to be impossible4 ,for the ,latin corresponding to is 8haberent accusare eum10 showing that the ,latin translator read in his original1#bge and for he has 8uti omnes exire10 where again the infinitive speaks for the priority of the ,greek4 ,on the other hand1 it is to be observed that1 according to ,eusebius 7,eccles4 ,hist41 iii4 c4 #ci1 sub fin471 ,papias knew and recorded an incident 1 ' 4 ,so that the ,gospel according to the ,hebrews 7i4e4 the ,palestinian ,jewish ,christians7 contained a narrative similar to this1 we may say quite confidently1 contained this narrative4 ,from that ,gospel it was taken and inserted in some manuscripts after ,luke xxi41 in others after ,john vii4 ,by the time of ,augustine it was so widely propagated in the ,latin that he thought it had been removed from certain manuscripts by people of weak faith1 or rather by enemies of the true faith1 8credo metuentes peccandi immunitatem dari mulieribus suis40 ,the pericope is no part of ,john's ,gospel1 though it belongs to the oldest stock of evangelic tradition4 ,on the question whether it may not originally have stood between ,mark xii4 #ag and xii4 #ah1 and so between ,luke xx4 #bf and xx4 #bg1 see ,holtzmann in the ,th,lz41 #ahih1 col4 #ecf f4 ,vide supra1 p4 #ff4 i4 #e4 ,zahn raises the question what word ,ephraem found in his copy of the ,diatessaron corresponding to 1 seeing he gives vicit4 ,in this connection ,i might 7with the proviso that the reading may be more easily explained from the ,armenian7 point out that the ,syriac word corresponds to in ,sirach xxiii4 #f4 ,this stands elsewhere for 1 1 1 1 1 4 also frequently represents the ,greek 4 ,the ,sinai-,syriac for ,john i4 #e is unfortunately lost4 i4 #ac4 ,the reading 444 is1 so far as is known at present1 attested by ,latin witnesses only1 8qui natus est40 ,but as ,zahn is careful to point out 7,einl41 ii4 #eah71 it did not originate on ,latin soil1 for ,justin presupposes it1 and1 moreover1 ,irenus constantly applies the passage to the ,incarnation1 while the ,valentinians1 who had the usual text1 were accused by ,tertullian of falsification4 ,and it is not proved that the two last-mentioned used anything but a ,greek ,bible4 i4 #ag4 ,according to early testimony1 this verse1 so frequently quoted since the time of ,ritschl1 once ran3 8,the ,law was given by ,moses1 but its truth came by ,jesus40 ,see ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #aba1 #bdh4 i4 #ah4 ,zahn agrees with ,hort in holding that the originality of the reading 7without the article7 is established4 ,see ,westcott and ,hort1 ,notes on ,select ,readings2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #edd1 #eeg2 ,westcott1 ,commentary on ,john1 in loco4 ,it may be mentioned here that ,codex ,monacensis of ,origen's ,commentary on the ,gospel of ,john has _/ _/ with and both written above the line in a later hand4 ,this gave rise in the ,codex ,regius to the reading 4 i4 #bh4 ,is it or 8 ,the former is exhibited by the ,sinai-,syriac1 the ,curetonian1 and the margin of the ,harklean1 and the latter by the other three ,syriac1 and the ,arabic ,diatessaron4 ,with regard to the former1 is it the case1 as is supposed by many1 that it is due simply to a conjecture of ,origen1 and that ,syrcu and ,syrsin took it from him8 ,according to ,zahn 7,,gk41 i4 #djf71 ,hilgenfeld pointed in this direction in the ,zfw,th41 #ahhc1 #aai4 ,see also ,lagrange1 ,origne1 la critique textuelle et la tradition topographique 7,revue ,biblique1 iv41 #ahie1 pp4 #eja-ebd74 ,origen explains as 1 and the ,syriac as 8place of praise40 ,compare on this the much-discussed passage in the ,gospel of ,peter 7 1 c4 xi474 1 on the other hand1 he interprets as 1 so that he must either have spelt it ,bethbara1 1 as in ,jud4 vii4 #bd1 or taken it as ,beth-ha-bara4 ,it is spelt in ,lagarde's ,onomastica ,sacra1 #bdj1 #ab1 and ,bethabara in #ajh1 #f 7,bethbaara1 ,codex ,b74 ,jerome 7see ,onomastica ,sacra7 interpreted the name as 8domus humilis 7 87 vel vesperae0 in ,joshua xv4 #f1 as 8domus multa vel gravis0 in xv4 #ei1 and as in xv4 #fa1 following ,symmachus4 ,luther had ,betharaba1 but in three impressions of the ,new ,testament and in three of the ,postils he had ,bethabara 7according to ,bindseil-,niemeyer71 and in the margin ,bethbara1 with a note in which reference is rightly made to ,jud4 vii4 #bd1 8ut mysterium consonet40 ,see my ,german or ,greek-,german ,new ,testament4 ,it may be asked if 8,ainon0 in ,john iii4 #bc has any connection with ,bethania4 ,compare in ,jos4 xv4 #ei4 ,for e has in eremo and f has in deserto4 ,how is this to be explained8 ,compare ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #efa4 i4 #cd4 ,for 991 ,syrcu1 ,syrsin1 and e read 4 ,d is here defective4 ,zahn thinks the latter reading is original1 and the former an example of an early and widely current alteration4 ,westcott and ,hort insert among their ,noteworthy ,rejected ,readings4 ,the two readings are combined in some manuscripts 8electus filius ,dei40 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #eae1 #edd1 #eeg4 i4 #da4 ,zahn here decides for the nominative 4 ,both the disciples of ,john who attached themselves to ,jesus found their brother1 but ,andrew was the first to do so4 ,see ,einleitung1 ii4 #dgg f4 ii4 #b4 ,in his ,commentary on the ,gospels1 extant in the ,armenian only1 we find ,ephraem saying1 8,graecus scribit recubuit et defecit vinum0 7 #ec71 which shows that he had a ,greek exemplar before him containing the itacism for 4 ,see ,zahn1 ,forsch41 i4 #fb1 #abg1 and compare ,luke xiv4 #h1 where ,antiochus1 ,homil41 iii41 has for 4 ii4 #c4 ,zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic need doubt for a moment that the original reading is the longer1 genuinely ,semitic text exhibited by 991 the ,harklean ,syriac1 and the best ,latin manuscripts4 ,d is defective1 as also ,syrcu and ,syrsin4 iii4 #e4 is attested only by 991 a few minuscules1 by c m1 and certain early ,fathers1 in place of 1 which has now the support of the ,sinai-,syriac4 ,zahn thinks the former reading to be correct 7,einleitung1 ii4 #bid74 ,if that is so1 this will be the only place where the expression is found in the ,new ,testament outside the ,gospel according to ,matthew1 where it occurs some thirty-three or thirty-four times4 ,see note on 8,the ,kingdom of ,heaven0 in the ,expository ,times for ,february #ahif1 p4 #bcf ff4 iii4 #bd4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #eae7 thinks that the omission of the article before shows that there was some uncertainty regarding the fact mentioned by ,john4 ,this1 however1 is open to question4 ,that the insertion or omission of the article may be of importance is shown by such examples as ,john v4 #a2 ,matthew xxii4 #bc2 ,acts xvi4 #f2 ,james ii4 #b4 iii4 #cd4 ,our knowledge of the text of the ,sinai-,syriac here rests solely on the last reading of ,mrs4 ,lewis3 8,not according to his measure gave 7or1 gives7 ,god the ,father40 ,this rendering1 as well as the insertion of in many ,greek texts1 is due to the fact that was not taken as the subject of the sentence4 iv4 #a4 ,for ,tischendorf reads 1 which is probably correct4 is elsewhere found only three times in ,john--viz41 vi4 #bc1 xi4 #b1 xx4 #bj4 ,according to ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #cia7 the first two passages are explanations outside the ,gospel narrative interjected by the evangelist1 while the words in the last passage are spoken from the point of view of the disciples4 iv4 #i4 ,the words were retained by ,lachmann and by ,tischendorf in his seventh edition1 because the only authorities known at that time for their omission were ,d a b e4 ,but when the first hand of appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these witnesses1 the words were dropped by ,tischendorf and bracketed by ,westcott and ,hort4 ,syrcu and ,syrsin insert them1 and perhaps ,tatian4 ,zahn is inclined to admit them4 8,the classic brevity of the interjected explanation speaks for its genuineness40 ,see his ,einleitung1 ii4 #edi4 v4 #a4 is supported by ,c etc41 and by ,a ,b ,d etc4 ,on the chronology1 see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #eaf4 v4 #c;b1 #d4 ,after ,d alone inserts 1 and then adds1 with ,a#b ,c#c ,i 7this last1 however1 with asterisks71 the clause 4 ,the shorter text is given by ,a99 ,b ,c99 ,l4 ,the whole of the fourth verse is omitted by ,b ,c99 ,d1 #cc1 #aeg1 #cad4 ,in this case ,d and ,a change sides4 ,within the limits of the verse there are a great many variations1 which show that it is a very early addition4 ,some of the words are hapax legomena1 like 1 1 4 ,zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of the 8expositions0 of ,papias4 ,according to the ,commentary of ,ishodad1 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia did not consider this verse as part of the ,gospel of ,john 7,sachau1 ,verzeichnis der syrischen ,handschriften1 p4 #cjh74 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #eeg4 ,cyril says the incident occurred at ,pentecost4 v4 #cf4 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #eeg7 calls a difficult reading1 and one that could not have been invented3 8,i1 as a ,greater than ,john1 have the witness of ,god40 vii4 #h4 has taken the place of in all the uncials except ,d ,k ,m ,p1 a fact which reveals its antiquity4 is retained also by ,syrcu and ,syrsin4 ,the change was introduced to obviate the inconsistency between vii4 #h and vii4 #aj4 ,porphyry 7apud ,jerome1 ,contra ,pelagium1 ii4 #ag7 on the ground of 1 accused ,jesus of 8inconstantia et mutatio10 and ,schopenhauer 7,grundprobleme der ,ethik1 #bnd edition1 p4 #bbe7 cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood1 saying that 8,jesus ,christ himself on one occasion uttered an intentional untruth40 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #edg4 vii4 #ae4 ,see ,addenda1 p4 xvi4 viii4 #eg4 ,according to the authority cited in the ,th,lz41 #ahii1 p4 #agf1 the first hand of ,codex ,b is supposed to have written 3 8the final has been erased1 and the preceding it changed into 40 ,i have examined the photograph of ,b in the ,stuttgart ,library1 and can find no trace of an ever having stood after 4 ,the blank space of the size of two letters is meant to divide the sentences4 ,it is the case1 however1 though neither ,tischendorf1 ,fabiani1 nor the pamphlet of #ahha mentions it1 that the first hand wrote 1 which was then made into by means of a stroke drawn through the 4 ,the matter is not insignificant in view of what is said in ,westcott and ,hort's ,notes on ,orthography1 ,appendix1 p4 #afh4 ,burkitt supposes that was the reading of the ancestor of ,b 7,texts and ,studies1 vol4 v4 #e4 p4 ix74#bgf xii4 #g4 1 without 1 has the support of a comparatively large number of manuscripts4 ,peerlkamp and ,de ,koe read 444 2 ,zahn 7,einl41 ii4 #eah7 has no doubt that the correct reading is 444 1 and that it was replaced by v 7without 7 on the ground that this ,mary was not among the women who came to the sepulchre to anoint the body of ,jesus4 ,he says that the true text presupposes that ,mary would like to use the remainder of the ointment to anoint the body of ,jesus after his death1 and that the words of ,jesus were intended to prevent ,mary and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of ,judas4 xiii4 #b4 ,the change of a single letter here is important from a harmonistic point of view4 99 ,b ,l read 1 i4e41 8during supper10 but c ,a ,d have 1 which means 8after supper40 ,compare ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #ebj4 xiii4 #cd4 ,on the form in which this saying was cited by the ,marcionites1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fgh4 xviii4 #ab ff4 ,the ,sinai-,syriac1 probably following ,tatian1 gives the following arrangement of the verses--viz41 #ab1 #ac1 #bd1 #ad1 #ae1 #ai-bc1 #af-ah1 #be-bh4 ,on this see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #eba4 ,spitta would arrange the verses1 #ab1 #ac1 #ai-bc1 #bd1 #ad1 #ae-ah1 #be;b1 #bg1 #bh4 ,see ,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #eeh4 ,it does sometimes happen that a leaf of a manuscript is misplaced1 but it is hard to account for such transpositions as these4 ,compare the ,journal of ,theological ,studies1 ,october #aijj1 p4 #ada f4 xix4 #e4 ,though not properly connected with the criticism of the text1 the question may be asked here1 by way of a contribution to a subject much discussed of late1 whether the expression may not be connected with 4 ,compare and in ,mark ii4 #bg1 #bh4 ,in this passage of ,john1 ,b omits the article before 1 reading simply4 ,see the ,expository ,times1 ,november #ahii1 p4 #fb ff41 8,the ,name ,son of ,man and the ,messianic ,consciousness of ,jesus10 where ,schmiedel's article with the same title in the ,protestantische ,monatshefte is noticed4 xix4 #cg4 ,the quotation1 according to ,zahn1 is made from the ,hebrew4 ,the ,,lxx has ' 4 ,the later ,greek versions all seem to have kept the first three words as in the ,,lxx but to have variously corrected the second clause1 for which ,aquila gives 1 ,theodotion 1 ,symmachus 4 ,compare with this ,apoc4 i4 #g1 2 ,barnabas vii4 #i1 444 2 ,justin1 ,dial4 #cb1 4 ,it has accordingly been supposed that ,john in the ,gospel and ,apocalypse followed some unknown ,greek version which exhibited the characteristic forms 7found only in ,john and ,barnabas7 and 7given by ,john1 ,justin1 ,theodotion1 and partly by ,aquila74 ,but this supposition is simply a proof of unwillingness to admit a palpable fact--viz41 that in the ,gospel and ,apocalypse ,john gives an independent rendering of the original text of ,zechariah xii4 #aj1 and that ,barnabas and ,justin follow ,john4 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #efc4 ,the subscriptions state that the fourth ,gospel was written thirty or thirty-two years after the ,ascension1 at ,ephesus1 in the reign of ,nero1 or1 as some say1 of ,domitian4 ,it is also said to have been published by ,gaius1 the host of the ,apostles 7 74 ,others say that it was dictated to ,papias of ,hierapolis the disciple of the ,apostle4 ,on the alleged autograph 77 preserved at ,ephesus1 see above1 p4 #cj4 ,,acts4 ,it would unduly enlarge the extent of this work were ,i to go on mentioning all the passages in the ,acts that are more or less striking from the textual point of view4 ,this book has already been more frequently referred to than the others4 ,i would again refer the student to ,zahn's ,introduction4 ,i agree with that writer in thinking it impossible in many cases to suppose that a scholiast manufactured the text we now find in ,codex ,d with no other material before him save the usual text and his inkhorn4 ,at the same time there is undoubtedly room for much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of detail4 would instance such a simple narrative as that of ,acts iii4 #a-e1 and ask what reasonable ground a copyist could have had for altering into 1 into 1 into 1 into or vice versa1 or for omitting or inserting or 4#bgg ,such changes might1 however1 be introduced by an author who writes a passage twice over4 ,without himself being fully conscious of his reasons for doing so1 he might substitute a final construction for a participle1 introduce or remove an asyndeton1 replace one word by its synonym1 and make all the striking linguistic changes which a comparison of the two texts reveals4 ,time will show whether ,i am right in my conjecture that in iii4 #ad is due to an error in translation4 ,in illustration of the interchange of and in ii4 #dg1 ,i have cited in ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #ci1 a number of instances of the confusion of or with or 1 to which ,i would now add ,daniel viii4 #ai1 ,sirach xlv4 #g2 xlvii4 #d2 ,matt4 i4 #ba 7in the ,curetonian ,syriac74 ,compare also ,eusebius1 ,eccles4 ,hist41 iv4 #ae1 #bf2 ,history of ,mary1 ix4 #ag2 xiv4 #aa 7ed4 ,budge74 ,whether the change in the passage in question is really to be explained in this way1 or by the supposition of an 8anti-,judaic tendency10 as ,corssen prefers 7,gttinger gelehrte ,anzeigen1 #ahif1 vi4 #ddd71 may be left an open question for the present4 ,i would just point to one thing in favour of my view1 and in answer to what ,zahn says in his ,einleitung1 ii4 #dbc4 ,he says there3 8,linguistic considerations are against the supposition that a pure ,greek like ,luke1 the physician of ,antioch1 was able to read a ,hebrew book4 ,for a thousand ,jews 7,syrians and ,copts7 who were able at that time to read1 write1 and speak ,greek1 there would be at most a single ,greek possessed of a corresponding knowledge of ,hebrew or ,aramaic4 ,and ,i confess that ,i have hitherto sought in vain for this rara avis40 ,quite true1 but how do we know that the physician of ,antioch was a pure ,greek8 ,all the ,prologues to the ,gospels unanimously call him 8natione ,syrus40 ,i have pointed out in my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #ac1 what is very generally admitted1 that in the ,new ,testament denotes simply the 8heathen10 whether they speak ,greek or not4#bgh ,the woman mentioned in ,mark vii4 #bf was a - 1 and in the same way ,luke was a of ,antioch 7,acts xi4 #bj71 but 4 ,he is one of the thousand who could read1 write1 and speak ,greek1 though he was not above making such a mistake in translation when using a ,hebrew or ,aramaic book as ,i think he certainly does in ,luke xi4 #da1 and as ,i am inclined to think he does in ,acts iii4 #ad1 till ,i find a better explanation of the reading than has yet been given4#bgi ,i am glad to see from ,zahn that more than seventy years ago1 in his dissertation entitled ,de ,codice ,cantabrigiensi 7#ahbg71 p4 #af1 ,schultz suggested that the text of ,d may perhaps be derived from a ,syriac version4 ,according to what ,i have said above on ,tatian1 this view must certainly be admitted as possible1 and ,i see that it has been revived by ,chase4 ,a new solution of the textual problem in ,acts has been suggested by ,aug4 ,pott 7,der abendlndische ,text der ,apostelgeschichte und die ,wir-,quelle1 ,leipzig1 #aijj74 ,he thinks that the original narrative drawn up by ,luke existed as a separate work for some time after it had been worked up into our canonical ,acts1 and that notes were taken from the former and inserted in the margin of the latter1 and in this way came into the text of ,codex ,d and its associates4 ,against this1 however1 there is the fact that similar problems emerge in the ,gospel of ,luke where this distinction cannot be made4 ,for the sake of brevity ,i append notes to a few passages only of ,acts4 ,but at the outset ,i must express my surprise that ,wendt1 even in his eighth edition of #ahii1 repeats the statement that the title of the book in ,d is 4 ,even without the assurance given by ,blass in his ,grammatik1 iii4 #a1 #b1 it should be borne in mind that 8 stands equally for both and 10 and that accordingly may be either or 4 ,in the case before us it is the former4 ,as illustrations take the following from ,d in ,acts3--1 iii4 #ab1 iv4 #g2 1 vi4 #g2 1 iv4 #cj2 1 vii4 #bj2 and conversely 1 vii4 #aa2 1 viii4 #ba2 and side by side in ii4 #bb4 ,compare also ,mark vi4 #b2 vi4 #ad2 xiii4 #be2 ,luke xxi4 #bf2 ,acts viii4 #ac2 7 2 2 74 ,it is true that in every case in which the title is written out1 which occurs only five times altogether1 it is 1 but this is to be understood as plural1 like actus in the ,latin4 ,it came afterwards to be used as singular in the ,syriac 7,zahn1 ,einl41 ii4 #cgj1 #chc1 #chh71 but that is nothing strange4 ,we say 8the ,times says02 and we have an analogy in the use of the word biblia in the ,middle ,ages when the neuter plural biblia bibliorum became biblia bibliae 7singular feminine74 i4 #bc4 ,it is a matter of commentary rather than of textual criticism1 but ,wendt1 in his eighth edition1 asserts that nothing further is known of this ,joseph surnamed ,justus4 ,eusebius1 on the authority of ,papias1 mentions 1 7,eccles4 ,hist41 iii4 #ci74 ,the name of ,aristion is inserted in the margin of this passage in ,rufinus's ,latin translation of ,eusebius4 ,this marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance from the fact that the name ,ariston is inserted in the ,etschmiadzin manuscript of the ,gospels over ,mark xvi4 #i-bj1 apparently ascribing these verses or their main contents to him4 ,compare ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #bca1 and see ,plate ,,ix4 iv4 #f4 ,on the reading in ,d for 1 see above1 p4 #bdc4 iv4 #bd1 and v4 #ci4 ,see ,harris1 ,two ,important ,glosses in the ,codex ,bezae1 ,expositor1 ,november #aijj1 pp4 #cid-djj4 xi4 #bg1 #bh4 ,in his treatise1 8,on the ,original ,text of ,acts xi4 #bg1 #bh0 7,berliner ,sitz4-,berichte1 ,heft #ag71 ,harnack comes to the conclusion that the ,western text here cannot be the original4 xv4 #bj1 #ba4 ,on ,harnack's examination of the ,apostolic ,decree1 see ,selbie in the ,expository ,times for ,june #ahii1 p4 #cie4 ,harnack comes to the same results as ,zahn1 but draws the opposite conclusion from them4 ,see above1 p4 #bcb f4 xvi4 #f4 ,the article is omitted before by ,a ,b ,c ,d minuscules4 ,for this ,blass1 on the authority of p1 which reads 8,galatie regiones10 substitutes 8vicos ,galatiae40 ,on this see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #acc4 ,the omission of the article does not necessitate taking as an adjective 7so ,wendt#h72 it might still be rendered 8through ,phrygia and ,galatian territory40 xvii4 #bg4 ,in my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #db1 ,i say that it was easier to change 77 into 77 than vice versa4 ,to this ,wendt replies in his eighth edition1 p4 #bid1 by saying1 8,in all probability offence was taken at the representation of ,god himself as an object of 40 ,yes1 there is a considerable difference between ,hector alive and ,hector dead1 and of the latter it could be truly said 7,iliad1 xxii4 #cgb f473 4 ,but the of which ,paul speaks on the ,areopagus is most assuredly no more and no less a noli me tangere than the 4 ,among the witnesses in support of is ,clement of ,alexandria4 ,i can only repeat what ,zahn says3 8,whoever is careful to bear in mind that our earliest manuscripts are some two hundred years later than ,marcion1 ,tatian1 and ,irenus1 and has any sense of the difference between nave originality and a regularity due to liturgical1 dogmatic1 and stylistic considerations10 cannot but judge differently with respect to 4 xviii4 #c4 ,see my article1 8,the ,handicraft of ,st4 ,paul10 in the ,american ,journal of ,biblical ,literature1 xi4 #b1 #ahib1 on lorarius as the ,syriac rendering of 1 1 leather-cutter1 and the notes in the ,expository ,times for ,december #ahif1 and ,january and ,march #ahig4 ,chrysostom calls ,paul 1 and in the ,inventio ,sanctae ,crucis1 it is said1 8exercebat artem scaenographiam40 ,this last word ,i have explained as a confusion with 1 as ,professor ,ramsay also does4 ,in the ,compendious ,syriac ,dictionary of ,j4 ,payne ,smith 7which must not be confounded with the ,thesaurus of her father71 lorarius is explained as 8a maker of rough cloth for tents or horse-cloths40 ,but there is nothing said about tents even by the ,syriac scholiasts4 ,the correct meaning will be found in ,brockelmann4 ,celsus 7,origen1 ,contra ,celsum1 vi4 #cc7 speaks of 1 1 1 1 1 4 ,paul is evidently referred to after ,judas ,iscariot1 but who are meant by and 8 xix4 #f4 ,i fail to understand how anyone can dismiss ,d here with the remark1 8,on account of ,paul's express declaration as to the desirability of the gift of tongues being supplemented by that of interpretation 7#a ,cor4 xiv4 #e1 #ac1 #bg71 this addition seemed to be required in this case where ,paul communicated the gifts of the ,spirit0 7,meyer-,wendt1 eighth edition1 p4 #cab74 xx4 #d4 ,for ,d99 has or 1 and g doverius4 ,moreover1 ,d99 has 1 not 1 as ,tischendorf has it4 ,valckenaer and ,blass insert a comma after 1 and substitute for after 1 with the result that ,gaius becomes a ,thessalonian1 and ,timothy a ,derbean4 ,for this ,zahn sees no necessity4 ,see his ,einleitung1 i4 #adi4 xxviii4 #af4 ,on 77 which ,gigas renders princeps peregrinorum1 see note on xxvii4 #a1 in ,knowling's ,acts of the ,apostles1 ,expositor's ,greek ,testament1 vol4 ii4 p4 #eaf2 article 8,julius0 in ,hastings' ,bible ,dictionary1 ,ramsay in the ,expositor1 ,november #aijj2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #chi f4 ,wendt 7eighth edition1 p4 #dbj7 omits the words in xxviii4 #af1 on the ground that their omission either by mistake or design is very unlikely1 but their insertion1 on the other hand1 quite intelligible4 ,this only shows how little reliance can be placed on subjective criticism4 ,we are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the subscriptions of the minuscules1 but it may be cited here that in one of them ,luke is called 1 and in another 4 ,,pauline ,,epistles4 ,in the arrangement of the books of the ,new ,testament1 it has become customary to follow the order adopted by ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort1 who place the ,catholic ,epistles before the ,pauline4 ,in the ,stuttgart edition of the ,new ,testament1 however1 ,i have1 in accordance with earlier usage1 put the ,pauline ,epistles after the ,gospels and ,acts4 ,considering what is said by ,hort himself in #dbb of his ,introduction1 and also what we find in ,no4 #f of ,berger's ,list of the various arrangements of the books of the ,new ,testament 7,histoire de la ,vulgate1 p4 #cci f471 it might have been more correct to have put ,paul immediately after the ,gospels1 as in ,codex ,sinaiticus4 ,but seeing that the ,latin and ,german ,bibles at present exhibit the order1 ,gospels1 ,acts1 ,pauline ,epistles1 ,catholic ,epistles1 and that ,meyer's ,commentary is also arranged on this principle1 ,i have retained this arrangement for the sake of uniformity4 ,here again ,i must refer the student for matters of detail to larger works1 especially to ,zahn's ,einleitung4 ,a few of the more important passages will be considered in the sequel1 but previously something may be said here of the origin and circulation of the collective writings of ,paul4 #a4 ,paul1 accompanied by ,silvanus and ,timothy1 came from ,philippi to ,thessalonica on his second missionary journey1 somewhere about the year #ed1 though ,harnack puts it as early as #di-ej4 ,there he gathered together a church in the short space of three or four weeks1 if we may credit the account given in ,acts xvii4 #b in this particular4 ,at all events he was not long there4 ,disturbances similar to those in ,philippi arose1 which compelled him to leave the city4 ,he came to ,athens4 ,in his anxiety over the internal and external circumstances of the newly-founded church at ,thessalonica1 he sent back ,timothy from ,athens to confirm those he had left behind4 ,when his messenger returned he wrote to the ,thessalonian ,church1 in all probability not from ,athens but from ,corinth1 where he had gone in the interval of ,timothy's absence4 ,this letter we know as the ,first ,epistle to the ,thessalonians4 ,it is uncertain whether the apostle1 as in most other cases1 dictated the epistle1 writing only the salutation and concluding benediction with his own hand 7compare #b ,thess4 iii4 #ag3 1 71#bhj or whether he wrote it all himself in large letters1 as he did in the case of the ,epistle to the ,galatians which he wrote 7,gal4 vi4 #aa71 either on account of some affection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and had little practice in writing4 ,the epistle was intended for the entire church at ,thessalonica1 of which ,aristarchus1 ,secundus1 and perhaps also ,gaius 7see above1 on ,acts xx4 #d71 are known to us by name4 ,it was probably addressed to the oldest1 or most prominent1 or most active member of the ,christian community4 ,at the close of the epistle1 the writer expressly adjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren4 ,it would1 therefore1 be read aloud at the next meeting of the congregation4 ,there and then1 some poor slave or aged woman would ask to have the letter for the purpose of copying it4 ,what became of the original we do not know4 ,in the very first copy that was made1 mistakes and alterations would make their appearance1 and these would be multiplied with every fresh copy4 #b4 ,at the close of the ,epistle to the ,colossians 7iv4 #af71 ,paul asks that when they have read it1 they will see that it is also read in the ,church of ,laodicans1 and that they themselves read the epistle from ,laodica 7 74 ,from this it has generally been supposed that an epistle of ,paul to ,laodica has been lost4 ,an epistle with this title was restored at a very early date1 in the second century4 ,it is no longer extant in ,greek1 but many ,latin manuscripts and editions of the ,bible contain it1 and it is also found in the pre-,lutheran ,german ,bibles4 ,but the epistle from ,laodica referred to by the ,apostle may perhaps have been the circular letter which we now know as the ,epistle to the ,ephesians1 and which may have been intended to go1 among other places1 to ,laodica1 and from there to ,colossae4 ,however that may be1 we see that at a very early date there were epistles of ,paul to various places1 and that copies of these might be made at each place1 and still further distributed4 ,a parallel case is that of the ,koran1 the different recensions of which are distinguished according to the cities whence they originated4 ,even at that time1 therefore1 the beginnings of a collection of the ,pauline ,epistles might be made4 ,by the time that the ,second ,epistle of ,peter was written1 it was known that 8brother ,paul1 according to the wisdom given to him1 had written many epistles1 in which were some things hard to be understood0 7#b ,peter iii4 #ae74 #c4 ,when a great man dies1 we have usually a collection of the letters he received in his lifetime1 but not of those he himself wrote1 and to collect these last is frequently a matter of considerable difficulty4 ,we have therefore reason to congratulate ourselves that we have1 within the covers of the ,new ,testament1 epistles of ,paul addressed to the most diverse regions--to ,macedonia 7#a and #b ,thess41 ,philippians71 to ,achaia 7#a and #b ,corinthians71 to ,asia ,minor 7,ephesians1 ,colossians1 ,galatians71 and to ,italy 7,romans71 not to speak of the so-called ,pastoral or private ,epistles--epistles1 moreover1 the dates of which extend over a period of at least eight years4#bha ,it is1 of course1 evident that the appearance of an epistle in this collection is not in itself a guarantee of ,pauline authorship4 ,but on the other hand1 the collection must have been made at a very early date1 because we find1 almost without exception1 not only the same number of ,pauline epistles1 but also the same order of their arrangement4 ,there is scarcely any evidence of the circulation of a particular epistle by itself4 ,true1 the order now usually adopted1 which has been the prevailing order from the fourth century onwards and which seems1 for the most part1 to arrange the epistles according to their length 7,romans1 #a and #b ,corinthians1 ,galatians1 ,ephesians1 and so on71 is not the original4 ,in the ,muratorian ,canon 7so called from its discoverer71 which is a very old catalogue of the books of the ,bible1 the ,epistles to the ,corinthians stand at the head of the collection and that to the ,romans at the end4 ,tertullian had the same arrangement1 while ,marcion1 for dogmatic reasons apparently1 put ,galatians first1 then #a and #b ,corinthians1 ,romans4 ,the present condition of our ,epistle to the ,romans is also supposed to point to its former position at the end of ,paul's epistles to the churches4 ,in that epistle the concluding doxology is found at different places1 while many look upon chap4 xvi4 #a-bc as a separate document1 originally intended for ,ephesus1 which was attached to the entire collection at the end4 ,among other varieties of arrangement it may be mentioned that ,colossians frequently followed #b ,thessalonians4 ,when and where the first collection took its rise1 and by whom the second arrangement was introduced1 can no longer be determined with certainty4 ,zahn thinks the first originated at ,corinth about the year #he1 his reason being that it seems to be presupposed in the ,epistle to the ,corinthians written by ,clement of ,rome about the year #ie4 ,the second he would date from ,alexandria1 between #bbj and #bfj4 ,if we might suppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived1 not from separate copies of the ,epistles1 but from a copy of the earliest collection1 it would serve to explain how it comes that certain corruptions have found their way into the text of all our manuscripts--e4g4 in ,colossians ii4 #ah4 ,on the other hand1 the variations at the end of ,romans1 e4g41 are of such a sort that their origin seems to be anterior to the formation of the collection4 ,it is not so difficult to understand how it is that the ,epistle to the ,hebrews1 which1 it is certain1 was not written by ,paul1 varies so much with regard to its position in the collection4 ,in the ,syriac ,bible1 and in the majority of later ,greek manuscripts1 it comes after all the ,pauline epistles1 the reason being that the ,syrian ,church did not consider it to be really of the number of these4 7,see ,westcott1 ,bible in the ,church1 p4 #bcc f474 ,in the earlier ,greek manuscripts1 however1 it occupies the tenth place1 standing between the epistles of ,paul to the churches and the ,pastoral ,epistles4 ,in the early ,sahidic version1 and in the ,commentaries of ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 it is found between #b ,corinthians and ,galatians2 in the parent manuscript of ,codex ,b it stood between ,galatians and ,ephesians4 ,in his ,histoire de la ,vulgate1 p4 #eci f41 ,berger gives seventeen different ways in which the ,pauline epistles are arranged in ,latin ,bibles--viz41 ,col41 ,thess41 #a ,tim42 ,thess41 ,col41 #a ,tim42 ,phil41 ,laod41 ,col42 ,col41 ,laod41 ,thess42 ,col41 ,thess41 ,laod42 ,thess41 ,col41 #a1 #b ,tim41 ,tit41 ,laod42 ,thess41 ,col41 ,laod42 ,phil41 ,laod41 ,heb42 ,heb41 ,laod42 ,heb41 #a1 #b ,tim41 ,tit41 ,phil42 ,apoc41 ,laod42 ,ephes41 ,col42 ,gal41 ,laod41 ,ephes42 ,ephes41 #a1 #b1 #c ,cor41 ,laod42 ,phil41 ,thess41 #a ,tim42 ,apoc41 #c ,cor42 ,col41 ,phil4 ,romans4 ,with regard to the very name and introduction of the ,epistle to the ,romans1 it is worth observing1 that while the words are read in verses #g and #ae by all our manuscripts1 with the sole exception of ,g1 their omission by ,origen is attested by the critical work discovered by von der ,goltz on ,mount ,athos 7vide supra1 pp4 #ij1 #aij71 which says that ,origen takes no notice of the words3 4 ,the ,latin commentary has them1 and presupposes them in the exposition4 ,our editions of ,origen have hitherto given them once in the ,greek as well 7iv4 #bhg71 but we must wait for the new edition before we can say with certainty that this is correct4 ,the matter is not devoid of importance4 ,if the omission is original1 then it is possible to think that ,romans1 like ,hebrews1 was originally a circular letter2 while on the other hand1 if the words are an integral part of the epistle1 we may suppose with von der ,goltz that they were afterwards dropped when the epistle began to be read in church1 so as to make it applicable to all ,christians4 ,see ,jacques ,simon1 ,revue d',histoire et de ,littrature religieuses1 iv4 #b 7#ahii71 #agg2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #bgh2 ,th,lbl41 #ahii1 #agi4 i4 #c4 ,on the ,syriac reading 8of the house of ,david10 see ,vetter1 ,der apokryphe dritte ,korintherbrief1 #ahid1 p4 #be1 and my ,note in the ,lectionary published in ,studia ,sinaitica1 vi4 7see above1 p4 #ajf74 i4 #ac4 ,for ,d99 ,g ,ambrosiaster read 1 which ,zahn thinks sounds more natural1 and quite likely to be replaced by the other expression so common in ,paul's epistles4 ,einleitung1 i4 #bfb4 i4 #ae4 ,for ,d99 reads 1 ,g ' 1 g in vobis4 i4 #af4 ,marcion was accused of having removed or from his text4 ,this1 however1 is not so 7see ,zahn1 ,,gk41 i4 #fci2 ii4 #eae74 ,it is also omitted in ,b ,g1 showing1 as ,zahn thinks1 that it was regarded as obnoxious at an early date 7,einleitung1 i4 #bfc74 ,marcion did1 however1 drop the quotation from ,habakkuk in the next verse4 ii4 #af4 ,marcion in all probability wrote without 1 which is now omitted only by #cg d994 ,in the time of ,origen and in the centuries following1 ,marcion's disciples laid emphasis not on 1 but on the fact that is in the singular number4 ,they charged the ,church with having not one ,gospel1 but several4 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #aga4 v4 #a4 ,tischendorf1 ,westcott and ,hort1 and ,weymouth all follow the mass of the uncials in reading 1 and ,i was therefore obliged to give this as the text of my ,stuttgart edition of the ,new ,testament4 ,for myself1 however1 ,i hold with ,scrivener and ,weiss that is certainly the correct reading4 ,the same mis-spelling occurs in several manuscripts in ,john xix4 #g1 4 ,for the reason of it1 see ,schmiedel's ,winer1 #ai4 ,according to ,zahn1 must be considered the right reading1 and 7verse #b7 taken also as subjunctive4 ,see his ,einleitung1 i4 #bfd4 v4 #ba4 ,the words were omitted by ,erasmus1 and1 therefore1 also by ,luther4 ,this is not noticed by ,tischendorf1 nor by ,baljon1 who follows him4 xi4 #ac4 is read by ,a ,b ,p1 for which ,d ,g ,l have 4 ,zahn thinks it difficult to say which is right1 but that the sense is much the same in either case4 ,einleitung1 i4 #bfe f4 xiii4 #c4 ,the conjecture is thought by ,hort to have a certain amount of probability 7,notes on ,select ,readings1 in loco74 ,schmiedel also thinks it deserving of consideration 7,winer1 #ai74 xiv4 #e4 ,on the omission of 7,b ,d ,g71 see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #bff4 xiv4 #bc4 ,conclusion of the ,epistle4 ,the best discussion of the ,conclusion of the epistle will now be found in ,zahn's ,einleitung1 vol4 i4 #bb1 pp4 #bfg-bih1 ,die ,integritt des ,rmerbriefs4 ,compare also ,riggenbach1 ,kritische ,studien ber den ,schluss des ,rmerbriefs3 two treatises published in the ,neue ,jahrbcher fr deutsche ,theologie1 ,erster ,band1 #ahib4 ,bonn1 #ahib2 ,die ,adresse des #af4 ,kapitels des ,rmerbriefs1 pp4 #dih-ebe2 ,die ,textgeschichte der ,doxologie1 ,rm4 xvi4 #be-bg im ,zusammenhang mit den brigen den ,schluss des ,rmerbriefs betreffenden textkritischen ,fragen errtert4 ,also1 ,f4 ,j4 ,a4 ,hort1 ,prolegomena to the ,epistles to the ,romans and the ,ephesians1 #ahie2 ,sanday and ,headlam1 ,commentary on ,romans4 ,in certain manuscripts prior to the time of ,origen1 the ,doxology was found between xiv4 #bc and xv4 #a4 ,it now stands after xiv4 #bc in ,a ,l ,p and about #bjj minuscules1 while at the same time the epistle is certainly continued to xv4 #ac4 ,bengel alone has suggested a reason for this4 ,he supposes that the solemn words in xiv4 #bc1 1 were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a church lection1 and that the doxology was accordingly inserted here4 ,moreover1 seeing that no part of xvi4 #a-be was included in any lection1 this would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology to the end of chapter xiv41 as otherwise this grand passage might not be read at all4 ,it must be confessed1 however1 that this explanation is not altogether satisfactory4 ,it is further to be observed that the ,benediction is found sometimes after xvi4 #bj1 sometimes after xvi4 #bc1 and sometimes in both places4 ,in the last case it is found under three conditions3 7#a7 before the doxology1 7#b7 without it1 7#c7 after it4 ,with regard to the single ,benediction1 it is inserted after verse #bj in ,a ,b ,c1 and after verse #bc in ,d ,g4 ,an explanation of these variations has frequently been sought in the supposition that chapter xvi4 is part of an epistle addressed to ,ephesus1 which has in some way been incorporated in the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,on this supposition the only question is whether the whole of chapter xvi4 belongs to this ,ephesian epistle or only the first twenty verses1 while verses #ba-bc belong to the original ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,improbable as this may appear at the first glance1 it admits of an easy explanation4 ,it may be due to the fact that ,romans once stood at the end of the collection of ,pauline epistles4 ,or we may suppose that the commendatory epistle for ,phbe addressed to ,ephesus and the ,epistle to the ,romans were written at the same time1 and that in sending them off1 the sheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in before the last sheet of the ,roman epistle4 ,on this view1 the first benediction in verse #bj1 444 ' 1 would belong to the ,ephesian epistle1 while the second1 444 to the ,roman4 ,the uncial ,l would then be right in retaining both1 while ,d ,e ,f ,g will have omitted the benediction the first time it occurred1 and ,a ,b ,c the second time4 ,at the same time it cannot be disguised that there are difficulties in connection with the close of chapter xv4 ,minuscule #dh omits the last verse 7#cc74 ,in verse #cb1 ,b reads simply 1 while the other witnesses have 1 and vary between and ' 4#bhb ,zahn thinks that the original position of the ,doxology is after xiv4 #bc and nowhere else4 ,now the authority for inserting the ,doxology there only is ,l and many minuscules1 ,a ,p and a few minuscules having it in both places4 ,if ,zahn is right1 should not the testimony of ,l be accepted in other places as well as this1 or at least have more deference paid to it than seems now to be the case4 ,the testimony for the omission of the ,doxology there has recently been endorsed by that of the ,palestinian ,syriac ,lectionary1 published in ,studia ,sinaitica1 vi4 xv41 xvi4 ,zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay stress on the supposed entire absence of these chapters in ,marcion1 unless we are prepared to maintain at the same time that the other passages which he fails to mention1 such as ,gal4 iii4 #f-i1 #ae-be1 iv4 #bg-cj2 ,romans i4 #ai-;ii4 #a1 iii4 #ca-;iv4 #be1 ix4 #a-cc1 x4 #e-xi4 #cb2 ,coloss4 i4 #ae;b1 #af1 were unknown to him1 and only smuggled into the text afterwards by falsifiers on the ,catholic side4 ,zahn thinks it probable that ,marcion struck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi4 as being useless and unedifying for the ,church of his day4 xv4 #bc1 #bd4 ,zahn holds that the later ,antiochean reading 7c ,euthal41 etc47 is undoubtedly spurious1 and the as certainly genuine 7,einleitung1 i4 #bfg74 xvi4 #bg4 ,zahn 7,einleitung1 i4 #bhf7 is inclined to regard as the correct reading here for two reasons3 7#a7 because the incompleteness of the sentence made it liable to correction1 and 7#b7 because the correction is effected in very different ways4 ,in some manuscripts is changed into 7,p1 ,copt41 #ca1 #ed71 in others it is omitted altogether 7,b ,f-lat4 ,syr471 while in others again takes the place of 7#ee1 #dc-scholion74 ,subscription3 simply1 ,a ,b ,c ,d2 others1 1 to which some add 2 others1 4 #a ,corinthians4 ,all the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is indicated by a word and not by a numeral 7'7 call it 1 never 4 ,origen1 however1 says 7ii4 #cdg74 i4 #b4 ,the words are read immediately after by ,b ,d99 ,g4 ,this arrangement is adopted by ,weiss1 and supported by ,zahn as undoubtedly genuine 7,einleitung1 i4 #baj74 ,heinrici is inclined to regard it as a transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in copying stichometric manuscripts4 ,but were there stichometric manuscripts antecedent to the time of ,codex ,b8 iii4 #bb4 ,marcion seems to have dropped the name of ,apollos here4 ,indeed1 there is no trace in ,marcion of any of the passages where ,paul mentions his name4 8,what was ,apollos to the ,church of the second century80 7,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fdi47 v4 #b4 ,for ,naber suggests 4 ,this is not noticed by ,baljon1 who is elsewhere careful to mention the conjectural emendations proposed by his countrymen4 vi4 #bj4 ,it was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that ,marcion read between and 4 ,but how it originated1 whether from or by dittography1 it is hard to say4 x4 #i4 ,in place of we find read by ,d ,g ,k ,l1 ,marcion1 ,irenus 7iv4 #bg1 #c71 ,clement 7,ecl4 ,proph41 #di71 and the early versions4 ,see above1 p4 #aeb1 and compare ,zahn on the reading for in ,jude #e 7,einleitung1 ii4 #hh f474 xiv4 #ai4 ,for ,marcion read 8per legem0 1 which was arrived at partly by a transcriptional error and partly by conscious alteration4 ,this could not have occurred1 however1 unless the original reading was 1 which is still found in a good many manuscripts1 and not 1 the reading preferred by most of our editors4 ,the latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to the construction of 4 xiv4 #ca-cd4 ,these verses are variously punctuated by recent editors1 the main difference being with regard to the arrangement of the clause 4 ,this clause is referred to verse #ca by ,westcott and ,hort1 who place a comma after and bracket the intervening words 7#cb1 #cc;a7 as a parenthesis4 ,tischendorf and ,weiss place a period after 1 and link the clause to what follows4 ,this arrangement ,westcott and ,hort indicate in their margin4 ,for details and reasoning1 see the ,commentaries4 xiv4 #cd1 #ce4 ,these two verses follow verse #dj in ,d ,e ,f ,g #ic1 ,ambrosiaster1 and ,sedulius4 ,in ,codex ,fuldensis1 verses #cf-dj are found in the margin after verse #cc1 where they were inserted by ,victor of ,capua 7see p4 #abb71 who did not1 however1 remove them from their place further down4 ,he must therefore have had before him a manuscript exhibiting this arrangement4 ,we must suppose either that all these manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same exemplar1 in which this arrangement of the verses occurred1 or1 as ,heinrici suggests1 that the original document itself gave occasion to this variety by having these verses written in its margin4 ,our modern editors are unanimous in following the usual order4 xv4 #ch4 ,zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitution of for the first was due to certain followers of ,marcion4 ,see his ,,gk4 i4 #fae2 also ,zeitschrift fr ,kirchengeschichte1 ix4 #aih ff4 xv4 #dg4 ,on ,marcion's reading1 1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fch1 who suggests that this may have been an early gloss that ,marcion made use of1 seeing that it is in the highest degree improbable that the heretic and some of his most violent opponents should alter the original text in exactly the same way4 xv4 #ee4 ,tertullian found in ,marcion1 and he therefore leaves it an open question whether the word signifies victoria tua or contentio tua 7v4 #aj1 p4 #cjf74 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #ea4 xvi4 #bb4 ,on 8,maranatha10 see ,zahn 7,einleitung1 i4 #bae ff471 who1 while admitting that no objection on the ground of language or grammar can be made to reading the word as 7not or 71 prefers with ,halvy1 ,bickell1 and ,nldeke1 to take it as 1 which corresponds to the ,peshitto rendering of ,apoc4 xxii4 #bj1 7 74 ,see note by ,schmiedel in the ,hand-,commentar on #a ,cor4 xvi4 #bb1 and the article by ,thayer in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 sub voce4 ,luther has 8,maharam ,motha10 but whence he derived this ,i do not know4 ,subscription3 7 7 77 2 al4 2 al4 4 #b ,corinthians4 i4 #ab4 ,recent editors adopt the reading on the authority of 99 ,a ,b ,c ,k ,m ,p etc4 ,zahn1 however 7,einleitung1 i4 #bdc71 prefers as given by c ,d ,e ,g etc4 ,meyer thinks that was substituted for as being the more usual expression4 ,tischendorf is wrong in saying3 de suo add4 syrsch et cum puritate4 ,the ,syriac has --i4e4 #bhc 4444 vii4 #b4 ,zahn 7,,gk4 i4 #fej2 ii4 #eae7 thinks perhaps the whole section vii4 #b-xi4 #a was omitted by ,marcion3 8,let us cleanse ourselves from defilement of the flesh and blood 444 for ,i espoused you as a pure virgin to one husband1 7even7 ,christ40 ,subscription3 7 7 7 7 4 ,galatians4 i4 #h4 ,as illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led astray by his fondness for conjectural emendation1 it may be mentioned here that ,hitzig 7,das ,buch ,hiob1 #ahgd1 p4 #aii71 suggested that formerly occupied the place of in this verse1 and that this means 6 i4 #ah4 ,for 1 as given in our critical editions1 ,zahn 7,einleitung1 ii4 #ad7 would read 4 ,he accounts for the remarkable transition from the name in ii4 #g1 #h to in ii4 #i1 #aa1 #ad very well by saying that ,paul in the latter verses is echoing the language used by the ,judaizers from ,palestine1 just as he does in speaking of the ,three as 4 ,seeing that ,paul persistently employs the name in #a ,corinthians1 a scribe might have introduced this name1 with which he had become familiar1 into ,galatians i4 #ah also1 just as was carried over from the ,synoptics into most manuscripts of ,john's ,gospel1 displacing the title 4 ,the following table will show the distribution of the ,greek manuscripts in support of the readings and in ,galatians3-- 4 4 i4 #ah1 99 ,a ,b #ag1 #fg99991 #ga4 c ,d ,e ,f ,g ,k ,l ,p4 ii4 #g1 ---- omnes4 ii4 #h1 ---- omnes4 ii4 #i1 ,b ,c ,k ,l ,p etc4 ,d ,e ,f ,g 7,a omits74 ii4 #aa1 ,a ,b ,c ,h ,p4 ,d ,e ,f ,g ,k ,l4 ii4 #ad1 ,a ,b ,c #aj1 #ag1 ,d ,e ,f ,g ,k ,l ,p4 #fg99991 #acg4 ,it will be observed that in ii4 #i ,k ,l ,p take the side of 7,a7 ,b1 while in verse #aa ,p alone does so1 and that ,d ,e ,f ,g are the only witnesses that are consistent4 ii4 #e4 is omitted by ,d991 by ,tertullian1 who ascribes the negative to ,marcion 7,adv4 ,marcionem1 v4 #c71 by certain manuscripts known to ,victorinus ,afer1 who says 8in plurimis codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est ,ad horam cessimus subjectioni10 and by the ,latin translator of ,irenus 7,adv4 ,haereses1 iii4 #ac1 #c74 ,ambrosiaster calls attention to the discrepancy between the ,greek and ,latin manuscripts3 8,graeci e contra dicunt ,nec ad horam cessimus10 and similarly ,sedulius4 ,bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to insert or omit a negative3 8,omnino apud ,latinos lubrica sub calamo est non particula4444 ,saepe etiam in graecis aliisque omissum40 ,see ,haussleiter1 ,forschungen1 iv4 #ca ff41 who says that the subject is one deserving of special treatment4 ,bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion 8de negationibus quae ,pandectis ,florentinis recte male additae vel detractae sunt10 but there might be a good deal said on these theological ,sic et ,non also4 ,a single letter or little word more or less1 and the sense of a passage is completely changed4 ,did ,paul say that in his contention with the ,apostles he gave place 8for an hour10 or 8not for an hour10 1 or 1 or simply8 ,in ,gal4 v4 #h is it 1 or 8 ,in #a ,cor4 v4 #f is it 8your glorying is good0 or 8not good10 or 8 ,in ,rom4 iv4 #ai1 or 4 ,in #b ,peter iii4 #aj1 or 1 or are both these wrong8 ,compare1 for example1 the reading in ,matt4 viii4 #cj1 where almost all the ,latin witnesses1 and ,jerome too1 read 8non longe02 and ,john vi4 #fd1 where we have 1 and also 7 ,g74 ,in this latter passage the reading 8credentes0 was adopted in the ,sixtine edition of the ,vulgate1 but 8non credentes0 in the ,clementine2 ,wordsworth and ,white decide for the latter against the ,sixtine text4 ,in ,john vii4 #h1 ,d ,r etc41 read 1 for which ,b and the majority of the witnesses have 1 but this is manifestly a correction4 ,in ,john ix4 #bg we have 1 where a solitary ,greek manuscript 7#bb71 which1 however1 has the support of the ,vulgate and half the ,old ,latin witnesses1 reads 3 audistis4 ,in ,romans v4 #ad we find both and 4 ,in #a ,cor4 iii4 #g ,a reads 1 omitting the negative2 in ix4 #h we have both and 2 while in xiii4 #e ,b and ,clement of ,alexandria actually assert that 8love seeketh what is not her own1 06 ,again1 in #a ,cor4 xv4 #ea the position of the negative fluctuates between the first and second member of the sentence1 so that we have and 4 ,similarly1 in ,col4 ii4 #ah we find and 2 and in ,apoc4 iv4 #aa and --i4e4 8they were called out of nothingness into existence40 ,in ,codex ,d seven cases of this variation occur in ,acts alone--viz4 iv4 #bj1 v4 #bf1 #bh1 vii4 #be1 xix4 #dj1 xx4 #bj1 #bg4 ,compare1 further1 ,matt4 xii4 #cb1 where in place of ,b99 reads 4 ,in ,matt4 xvii4 #be one ,latin manuscript makes ,peter say 8utique non0 in answer to the question1 8,doth not your master pay tribute80 ,we have in ,matt4 xxi4 #af1 and 2 xxi4 #cb1 and 2 xxiv4 #b1 and 4 ,in ,mark viii4 #ad1 and 2 xiii4 #ai1 1 and ' 4 ,luke xi4 #dh1 3 2 xxi4 #ba1 3 4 ,john ii4 #ab1 3 2 xv4 #ai1 3 2 xx4 #h1 3 4 ,acts xxv4 #f1 3 4 ,rom4 iv4 #e1 3 7,studia ,sinaitica1 vi4 p4 lxvi72 x4 #c1 3 7ibid474 #a ,cor i4 #ai1 3 2 iv4 #f1 3 2 iv4 #ai1 3 2 vi4 #e1 3 2 vi4 #i1 3 7,b99 #ic7 and vice versa in verse #aj4 #b ,cor4 v4 #a1 3 7non manufactam74 ,gal4 iv4 #ad1 3 79974 ,heb4 x4 #b1 3 3 4 #b ,pet4 i4 #ab1 3 3 4 #a ,john v4 #ag1 3 4 ,apoc4 iii4 #h1 3 4#bhd ii4 #bj4 ,tischendorf fails to mention that ,marcion read 7redemit7 in place of 4 ,the variant is of sufficient importance to justify a reference to ,zahn1 ,,gk4 ii4 #dii4 ,i cannot at this moment recall any instance of a confusion between and 1 though it is not an unlikely mistake to make4 ,in ,leviticus xxvii4 #ai1 the first hand of ,b by mistake wrote for 4 v4 #i4 ,epiphanius accused ,marcion of having altered to 4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fci2 ii4 #ejc4 ,cf4 above1 p4 #gf4 ,ephesians4 ,tertullian says 7,adv4 ,marcionem1 v4 #ag73 ,ecclesiae quidem veritate epistulam istam ad ,ephesios habemus emissam1 non ad ,laodicenos1 sed ,marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit1 quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator4 ,nihil autem de titulis interest1 cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit1 dum ad quosdam4 iv4 #ai4 ,for ,d here reads 4 ,a glance at and will show how easy it was to make such a mistake in the days of uncial script4 v4 #ad4 ,the reading is attested by ,d991 some ,latin manuscripts1 and ,theodore of ,mopsuestia4 ,see above1 p4 #bed4 ,subscription3 3 4 ,philippians4 i4 #c4 is read by ,a ,b ,dc ,e#b ,k ,l ,p2 and by ,d99 ,e99 ,f ,g4 ,zahn defends the latter in the ,zeitschrift fr kirchliche ,wissenschaft1 #ahhe1 p4 #ahd1 and in his ,einleitung1 i4 #cgf calls it the 8genuine text40 ,haupt says 7,meyer#g1 #ahig1 p4 #c73 ,the reading 1 which is commonly ignored1 is1 it appears to me1 rightly recommended by ,zahn and ,wohlenberg4 ,but ,haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading 7for 71 which is far more important from a theological point of view1 and is content merely to explain at length why ,paul should thank his ,god4 ,weiss1 in his ,text-kritik der paulinischen ,briefe 7pp4 #f1 #g71 mentions 1 but says nothing about 1 or the change from to 4 ,but you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds4 ,if you accept you cannot reject 4 ,haupt1 moreover1 thinks it is far-fetched to suppose with ,zahn that contains an allusion to something the ,philippians had said4 ,but that is by no means the case1 as we may learn from what ,deissmann and ,harris tell us of the epistolary style of those days 7see ,a ,study in ,letter ,writing1 ,expositor1 ,september #ahih1 p4 #afa ff474 ,but if the ,western group preserves the correct text at the very outset of the epistle1 what about it further down8 i4 #g4 ,for ,ambrosiaster has 8gaudii10 so that he must have read 4 ,j4 ,weiss proposes to read 7,th,lz41 #ahii1 col4 #bfc74 and are frequently interchanged--e4g4 in ,tobit vii4 #ah2 ,sirach xxx4 #af4 is found for in ,ps4 xxix4 7xxx47 #aa4 ,the scribes felt a difficulty with in ,rom4 xii4 #ac1 and still more so in ,ephes4 iv4 #bi4 ,ephraem found in place of in ,john v4 #ad 7see above1 p4 #bic1 note #b74 i4 #ad4 ,zahn and ,haupt omit with ,d ,k etc4 ,so does ,j4 ,weiss1 who takes occasion to make certain important observations on the attempts hitherto made to restore the text4 ,see ,th,lz41 #ahii1 col4 #bfc4 iii4 #ad4 ,till lately ,tertullian was our only authority for the reading 8palmam incriminationis0 in place of 7,de resurrectione carnis1 #bc74 ,it was accordingly supposed that he had read instead of 4 ,we learn now from the ,athos manuscript1 discovered by von der ,goltz1 that ,origen also cited the reading in his commentary as being 4 ,even supposing that turned out to be no more than a single copy1 or even ,tertullian's quotation which ,origen had become acquainted with in some way1 his mention of this reading is in the highest degree interesting4 ,subscription3 3 ' 3 4 ,colossians4 ii4 #af4 ,on the reading suggested by the rendering of the ,peshitto1 and the ,latin version of ,ephraem's ,commentary on the ,pauline ,epistles1 see above1 p4 #afh f4 ,it was advocated by ,lagarde in his ,prophetae ,chaldaice1 p4 li4 ,zahn rejects it on the ground that it would require in place of 1 and also that agrees better with in verse #ah4 ii4 #ah4 ,on this difficult passage see above1 p4 #afh4 ,zahn thinks it quite certain that is a later insertion even in the ,syriac1 seeing that ,ephraem knows nothing of it4 ,of the various conjectural emendations1 he regards that of ,c4 ,taylor as the most probable--viz4 4 ,this is also the view of ,westcott and ,hort4 ,see their ,introduction1 8,notes on ,select ,readings10 in loco2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #cci4 iv4 #ad4 ,the words were omitted by ,marcion4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #fdg2 ii4 #ebh4 ,two minuscules omit the words 4 ,subscription3 7 7 4 #a ,thessalonians4 ii4 #g4 ,one can easily see how doubt should arise as to the correct reading here when we observe the form of the words in the uncial script1 4 ,moreover1 we must remember that at the end of a line was very frequently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding letter1 thus3 4 ,the same alternative readings are presented in ,hebrews v4 #ac1 and in ,clement of ,alexandria1 i4 #adj1 #g1 where ,codex ,f exhibits 1 and ,m1 which is the most important manuscript1 has in the text and in the margin4 ii4 #ae4 ,zahn 7,,gk4 ii4 #eba2 cf4 also i4 #fdd7 restores ,marcion's text here in the form 4 ,marcion founds throughout upon a ,western text1 and the fact of his agreement in this instance with the ,antiochean ,recension 7,d#b ,e#b ,k#b ,l#b7 is declared by ,zahn to be a mere coincidence1 more especially as the latter here reads 4 8,had ,marcion10 he says1 8really written 1 ,tertullian would have translated the passage differently1 and would scarcely have applied the term adjectio to a qualifying expression inserted before 40 ,what ,tertullian says is1 8dicendo et prophetas suos licet suos adjectio sit haeretici40 ,the term is employed so frequently to represent the pronoun when no particular emphasis is intended to be conveyed1 that there seems to me no necessity for ,tertullian translating suos prophetas1 or rendering the words in any other way than prophetas suos4 ,compare above1 p4 #baa4 iii4 #c4 ,lachmann here reads with ,reiske and ,venema4 ,beza and ,bentley suggested 1 ,holwerda 1 ,peerlkamp 4 ,zahn has no hesitation in adopting 1 which he understands in the original 7metaphorical7 sense of to flatter1 to talk over or cajole4 ,see ,einleitung1 i4 #aeh4 #a ,timothy4 i4 #d4 1 or 1 which is attested by ,irenus and a good many ,latin witnesses1 and received into his text by ,erasmus1 is nothing but an early transcriptional error for 4 iii4 #a4 8,the reading is attested in ,greek only by ,d991 but it was the prevailing reading in the ,west till the time of ,jerome4 ,when ,i consider the improbability of its being invented1 and its liability to alteration in conformity with #a ,tim4 i4 #ae1 iv4 #i2 #b ,tim4 ii4 #aa2 ,tit4 iii4 #h1 ,i am compelled1 in spite of the one-sided nature of the testimony1 to conclude that it is original4 ,it is a proverbial expression of general application and profane origin0 7,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #dhb74 ,this reading is usually ignored by our editors and commentators1 and yet the passage is one that plays an important part in the ordination of the clergy1 and therefore one on the correct interpretation of which a good deal might depend4 ,westcott and ,hort merely mention it in their ,notes on ,select ,readings and insert it in their ,appendix4 ,it is not cited by von ,gebhardt in his edition4 ,for my own part ,i am not quite convinced of its originality4 ,at the same time it is hard to understand how by any clerical error could be transformed into 1 and so become 4 iii4 #af4 ,in his ,forschungen1 vol4 iii41 ,beilage iv4 p4 #bgg1 8,zum ,text von #a ,tim4 iii4 #af10 ,zahn published two or three lines from some parchment fragments in the ,egyptian ,museum of the ,louvre1 which1 he thinks1 belong to the ,,iv-,,vi century4 ,the last three lines run-- 444 444 4444 ,he says1 8,the in the second last line is undoubtedly meant for 4 ,this adds another to the ,greek witnesses supporting this reading1 which has till now been attested only by the ,latin manuscripts1 by other ambiguous or doubtful witnesses1 and probably by the first ,greek hand of ,codex ,claromontanus4 ,the in the last line is1 so far as ,i am aware1 supported by no other evidence40 ,the reading 1 which was formerly so much discussed1 seems to be simply an early transcriptional error1 being read as --i4e4 with the usual mark of abbreviation4 ,the old dispute over the reading of the earliest manuscripts 7most of them exhibit a correction at the place71 whether the middle stroke of the in the oldest codices ,a ,c is by the first or second hand1 or whether in the case of ,a it may not be simply the tongue of an ,e shining through from the other side of the parchment1 cannot seemingly be decided now in the present state of the manuscripts4#bhe ,codex ,a was examined by ,scrivener both with and without the aid of a magnifying glass perhaps twenty times in as many years4 ,dean ,burgon devotes seventy-seven pages of his ,revision ,revised to a discussion of the reading4 ,the facility with which a variant of this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly analogous passage1 ,joshua ii4 #aa4 ,here ,b and ,f read 1 while on the other hand ,a in place of has 1 which in this instance is correct4 ,in #a ,tim4 iii4 #af the other witnesses--viz4 the versions and the ,fathers--throw their weight into the opposite scale4 iv4 #c4 ,isidore asks whether 444 may not be a of the scribes for 1 to which ,oecumenius replies that it is no but good ,attic ,greek for 4 ,the explanation of ,theophylact1 however1 is nearer the mark1 that is to be supplied from 4 ,bentley1 ,toup1 ,bakhuyzen1 and ,bois would supply before 1 while ,hort suggests the substitution of or in place of 4 ,there seems to be no need of such expedients4 ,subscription3 773 al4 3 al4 3 al4 4 #b ,timothy4 iv4 #ai4 ,after two minuscules 7#df and #aji7 insert 7 #aji7 4 ,the interpolation is derived from the ,acta ,pauli1 and is to be connected not with ,aquila1 but with the 8house of ,onesiphorus40 ,see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #daa4 ,subscription3 3 al4 4 ,titus4 i4 #i1 #aa4 ,considerable additions are made to the text after both these verses by ,codex #aji4 ,this manuscript is numbered #aa in the ,library of ,st4 ,mark at ,venice1 and described by ,gregory as 8haud malae notae40 ,it contains both a ,latin and an ,arabic version1 and dates from the thirteenth or fourteenth1 or1 as some suppose1 the eleventh1 century4 ,after verse #i we read3 1 4 ,after verse #aa we find 4 ,subscription3 7 7 7missa per ,arteman3 al4 per ,zenam et ,apollo74 ,hebrews4 i4 #c4 ,instead of 1 the first hand of ,b wrote 1 which a second hand altered to 1 while a third restored 1 and wrote in the margin 1 8 1 4 ,a great deal of material might be collected from the margin of old manuscripts1 not only for the history of ,prayer1 as von ,dobschtz recently observed1 but for other interesting departments of the history of civilisation4 ii4 #i4 ,the reading instead of is now found only in ,m and in the second hand of #fg4 ,origen1 however1 was aware of the various reading3 4 ,it seems to be a primitive transcriptional error4 x4 #cd4 ,we have here to choose between and 4 ,the latter is manifestly the correct reading4 ,it is attested by ,a ,d99 and certain minuscules1 among which are #cg99991 #fg99994 ,this last is a ,vienna manuscript 7,vindob4 gr4 theol4 #cjb71 whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely resembling that of the uncials ,b ,m1 which are defective in ,hebrews x4 is supported by ,dc ,h ,k ,l ,p1 ,clem4 ,alex41 ,origen 7i4 #da1 where1 however1 is omitted by ,m99 ,p1 according to ,koetschau's new edition71 and by d e 7vinculis eorum74 ,zahn 7,einleitung1 ii4 #abb7 thinks that the connection of the reading with the tradition of the ,pauline authorship of the epistle is suspicious4 ,we find the reading adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted4 ,it may1 however1 have been the means of confirming and spreading the tradition1 seeing that ,clement of ,alexandria is actually aware of it4 ,pseudo-,euthalius1 e4g41 employs the reading in support of the ,pauline authorship 7,zacagni #fgj74 ,in this same verse ,a ,h have preserved the proper reading 4 1 as given by ,d ,e ,k ,l1 is a would-be correction4 xi4 #bc4 ,in certain manuscripts 7,d and three ,vulgate codices7 an entire verse is inserted after verse #bc3 4 ,its position shows it to be an interpolation4 xiii4 #i4 ,the present tense is exhibited only by 99 ,a ,d991 all the other witnesses having 4 ,the minority are in the right here4 ,a correction is not always an improvement4 xiii4 #ah4 ,zahn accepts the before 4 ,it is found only in ,d d and ,chrysostom4 ,this combination of witnesses is very rare4 ,subscription3 7 #ca7 3 al4 3 al4 4 ,,catholic ,,epistles4 ,the variety in the order of the ,catholic ,epistles is even more significant than that of the ,pauline4 ,when the ,syrian ,church of ,edessa obtained the ,new ,testament1 it consisted only of the ,gospels1 the ,pauline ,epistles1 and the ,acts4 ,it contained neither the ,apocalypse nor the ,catholic ,epistles4 ,this is proved among other things by the fact that not a single quotation from these writings is found in the ,homilies of ,aphraates1 the date of which falls between #ccf and #cde4 ,at a later date the ,syrian ,church accepted the ,epistle of ,james1 #a ,peter1 and #a ,john1 but the four so-called ,antilegomena--viz4 #b ,peter1 #b and #c ,john1 and ,jude--are to this day excluded from their ,canon of the ,new ,testament4 ,even in the ,west1 ,james was not reckoned among the books of the ,new ,testament previous to the fourth century4 ,there is no mention made of it in ,africa about the year #cjj1 although it was cited at ,rome and ,carthage at an earlier date4 ,at ,alexandria1 however1 all the seven ,catholic ,epistles were counted in the ,new ,testament as early as the time of ,clement1#bhf and their place in the ,canon becomes more and more firmly assured from the time of ,eusebius onwards4#bhg ,at the same time1 the order of their arrangement varies very considerably4 ,indeed1 every possible variety occurs1 except that ,jude seems never to have been placed first1 nor #b ,peter last4 ,thus we find ,james1 #b ,peter1 #c ,john1 ,jude2 ,james1 ,jude1 #b ,peter1 #c ,john2 #b ,peter1 ,james1 ,jude1 #c ,john2 #b ,peter1 #c ,john1 ,james1 ,jude2 #b ,peter1 #c ,john1 ,jude1 ,james1 etc4#bhh ,it follows that in the case of this group of ,new ,testament writings1 as well as in that of the preceding1 it is necessary and possible to distinguish the three longer from the four shorter epistles in tracing the history of the text4 ,and we see at the same time what justification ,luther had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal books of the ,new ,testament as having been held in quite a different estimation in early times4 #a ,peter4 iii4 #bb4 ,after the ,vulgate inserts deglutiens mortem ut vitae aeternae haeredes efficeremur1 8apparently from a ,greek original which had the aorist participle 2 cf4 #a ,cor4 xv4 #ed0 7,w-,h1 ,notes1 in loco74 ,see ,vetter1 ,der dritte ,korintherbrief4 #b ,peter4 i4 #a4 ,zahn considers the original reading1 and a later correction due to taking together as 8faith in righteousness40 ,the last two words are to be taken with 4 ,einleitung1 ii4 #ei4 i4 #b4 ,zahn agrees with ,lachmann and ,spitta in holding that is the correct text here--that is to say1 he omits 4 ,tischendorf's ,apparatus is very diffuse on this verse1 and ,baljon's note1 which is extracted from it1 is accordingly not quite satisfactory4#bhi ,like all the other editors1 he gives in the text1 but the only variants he mentions are the insertion of after 1 and the omission of 4 ,there is no notice of the omission of the words by any of the witnesses4 ,they are not found in ,p1 the best manuscripts of the ,vulgate 7am fu dem harl71 ,philoxenian and ,harklean ,syriac1 nor in minuscules #fi1 #acg1 #afc4 ,these last1 however1 the ,syriac and the minuscules with m1 insert after 4 ,khl believes that the shorter form is probably due to the fact that in the epistle ,christ is everywhere regarded as the object of 4 ,but this is really very improbable4 ,for the scribe could not have been aware of this when he began to write the epistle1 so that he must have turned back and deleted the words afterwards4 ,at the same time it is a fundamental principle of textual criticism that the lectio brevior is to be preferred4 ,reference may be made to the ,epilogus of ,wordsworth and ,white1 ch4 vi41 ,de regulis a nobis in textu constituendo adhibitis1 where the very title of section #d implies this principle3 8,cum brevior lectio probabilior sit1 codices ,a ,f ,h99 ,m ,y plerumque praeferendi sunt10 and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule are said to be 8,additamenta nominum propriorum1 et praecipue sanctorum--e4g4 ,jesus1 ,christus1 ,dominus1 ,deus40 ,it is true that in the passage before us we have not simply a case of the insertion of a word or words understood2 at the same time1 here if anywhere the text is more likely to have been extended than abbreviated4 ,it remains to be seen whether ,p exhibits a good text in other passages of the ,catholic ,epistles as well as this1 but so far as the minuscules #fi and #acg are concerned1 they justly bear a good reputation4 ,hort calls #fi one of the better cursives1 and #acg has a text so closely resembling that of ,codices ,d ,e as to be of material assistance when these are defective4 ,the minuscules are too often regarded as mere ciphers2 as if a cipher more or less behind a number did not make a vast difference4 ,in the very next verse we find #acg supporting ,a in reading 1 which is accepted by ,tischendorf and ,weiss1 and preferred also by ,khl4 ,in this instance it contradicts ,p1 which omits with ,b ,c ,k ,l4 i4 #ab4 ,here is given by ,a ,b ,c ,p1 by #h f tol 7non differam71 and by ,k ,l etc4 78the ,antiochean recension and the ,syriac versions10 ,zahn74 81 with the present infinitive1 can hardly be simply a periphrastic future4 ,the idea is rather that the writer will be prepared in the future1 as well as in the past and in the present1 to remind them of the truths they know1 whenever the necessity arises4 ,as they had no evidence of the fulfilment of this promise1 the copyists and translators found a difficulty with this expression1 and hence the variants40 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #ec f4 i4 #ae4 ,the reading 1 found in #ca1 and the ,armenian1 is also attested by the ,philoxenian ,syriac1 a fact which ,zahn regards as important4 8,on transcriptional grounds the reading 1 preferred by our editors1 would appear to be confirmed by the reading 1 exhibited by the ,harklean ,syriac and a few minuscules4 ,but in reality both these latter readings merely serve to show that a difficulty was felt again in admitting a promise on the part of ,peter which he seemed never to have fulfilled40 ,einleitung1 ii4 #ed4 ,compare on above4 i4 #ba4 ,it is probable that ,theophilus of ,antioch 7,ad ,autolycum1 ii4 #i7 read 77 77 1 the form exhibited by and ,a 78the chief representatives of the ,antiochean family071 and also by several ,latin witnesses4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #cac2 ,chase on #b ,peter in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 vol4 iii4 p4 #hja4 ii4 #ac4 ,on this passage ,zahn remarks 7,einleitung1 ii4 #ec73 8,the similarity of #b ,peter to the ,epistle of ,jude was doubtless a source of textual corruption4 ,but it may also aid us in correcting the text4 ,because1 whichever of the two we regard as the original1 in any case the one is our earliest witness to the text of the other4 ,if we accept the reading in ,jude #ab1 it follows either 7#a7 that ,jude read in #b ,peter1 and that this is the original reading there1 or 7#b7 that ,peter1 supposing he wrote second1 altered ,jude's to 1 which it is hard to conceive1 the former being so unmistakable1 and the latter much less suitable to the context4 ,in either case1 therefore1 would seem to be the correct reading in #b ,peter ii4 #ac40 ,no doubt the alteration of to is 8hard to conceive10 but it is not inconceivable4 ,as illustrating how a piece of writing may be misread1 it is sufficient to point to ,justin's mistake with regard to 8,semoni ,sanco ,deo ,fidio40#bij ,as regards the particular words before us1 ,i may be allowed to cite my ,philologica ,sacra1 p4 #dg1 where ,i have referred to the frequent confusion of and 1 and in manuscripts of the ,old ,testament4 ,in ,ps4 lxxviii4 #cf1 for example1 out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been collated1 not one has preserved the correct reading 2 all have 4 ,in #b ,chron4 xviii4 #b again only one has the correct text 4 ,from a psychological point of view1 therefore1 it would seem more natural to suppose that is the original reading in the passage under consideration1 and the transcriptional error4 ,the authorities for each are distributed as follows3-- 4 4 #b ,peter ii4 #ac1 ,ac ,b m vg1 ,syrphil1 ,a99 ,c ,k ,l ,p 444 ,syrhark4 mg1 ,sahid4 ,syrhark1 ,copt41 ,arm4 ,jude #ab1 ,b ,k ,l vg1 ,sahid41 ,a ,c #dd1 #ef4 ,copt41 ,syrphil1 ,syrhark1 ,arm4 ,in the first edition of this work ,i said it was strange1 considering the frequent confusion of and 1 that ,tischendorf goes by the majority of his witnesses in the case of #b ,peter ii4 #ac 7,westcott and ,hort in their text1 ,weiss1 ,weymouth1 and ,baljon all do the same71 8whereas the same word should be read in both cases1 and that 4 ,otherwise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was already corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the other1 no matter whether ,peter or ,jude3 quod variat1 verum esse non potest40 ,i cannot understand an argument like that of ,khl 7,meyer#f1 on #b ,peter ii4 #ac1 p4 #dbh73 8 is presumably original in one of the passages1 most likely in #b ,peter1 as goes better with in ,jude #ab than with here4 ,b has in both places1 and ,c in the same way 1 which is explainable on the supposition that originally the one word stood in the one passage and the other in the other4 ,nearly all recent expositors favour the reading in #b ,peter40 ,i am glad now to have the powerful support of ,zahn in my dissent from that view4 ,reference may be made to the excellent article on ,jude by ,f4 ,h4 ,chase in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 ii4 #gii-hje4 ,his first paragraph is on the 8,transmission of the ,text10 and the article is a model of what such things should be4#bia ,on the ,philoxenian ,syriac see the work of ,merx mentioned above1 p4 #ajf 7#e74 ,on the rest of the verse1 see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 ii4 #ga4 ,he points out that ,tischendorf's apparatus is misleading here1 as it fails to notice the omission of by the ,philoxenian ,syriac1 the ,sahidic version1 the ,speculum of ,pseudo-,augustine 7m71 and by ,pseudo-,cyprian4 ,in his opinion it is an interpolation due to the -- of 4 ,these pronouns are very liable to be interpolated1 as is pointed out by ,wordsworth and ,white in their ,epilogus1 p4 #gbi1 where these 8additamenta0 come next after 8,proper ,names02 see above1 p4 #bch4 ii4 #ae4 ,on 1 see p4 #bdc f4 ii4 #bb;b4 ,in ,hippolytus1 ,refutatio1 ix4 #g1 we find3 ' 4 ,on the connection of this with #b ,peter ii4 #bb1 see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #caf4 ,wendland tried to make out that it is a saying of ,heraclitus4 ,compare also ,clement1 1 x4 #if2 1 1 1 4 iii4 #f4 ,the conjectural reading ' for ' ,schmiedel thinks well worthy of consideration4 ,see his ,winer1 #ai4 iii4 #aj4 ,none of the variants here appears to be the correct reading 7 in various forms3 3 74 ,what is required is a passive form of 1 or one of its compounds 78 74 iii4 #af4 ,the article is inserted before by and ,k ,l ,p 78the ,antiochean recension071 but omitted by ,a ,b ,c4 ,zahn1 who would omit it1 points out that would imply a complete collection of ,paul's ,epistles1 and would include all the constituents without exception1 whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one epistle known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had written4 ,see ,einleitung1 ii4 #ajh4 ,tischendorf admitted the reading now favoured by critics in his seventh edition1 but rejected it in the eighth4 ,this same thing occurs not infrequently4 ,see the article on #b ,peter by ,chase in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 vol4 iii4 p4 #haj4 #a ,john4 iv4 #c4 ,von der ,goltz has shown conclusively what was long a matter of conjecture1 that ,origen not only knew the reading 1 but seemingly preferred it2 and that ,clement also cites the text in this form in his work on the ,passover1 which is all but entirely lost4 ,he has also established anew the reliable nature of the ,latin version of ,irenus in the matter of ,biblical quotations4 ,see ,zahn in the ,th,lbl41 #ahii1 col4 #ahj2 ,einleitung1 ii4 #egd4 v4 #g4 ,the 8comma ,johanneum0 needs no further discussion in an ,introduction to the ,greek ,testament1 but its history on ,latin soil is all the more interesting4 ,the fact that it is still defended even from the ,protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view4 ,on the decision of the ,holy ,office1 confirmed by the ,pope on the #aeth ,january #ahig1 see ,hetzenauer's edition of the ,new ,testament1 and the notice of it by ,dobschtz in the ,th,lz41 #ahii1 ,no4 #aj4 ,on the literature1 compare also ,klling 7,breslau1 #ahic72 ,w4 ,orme's ,memoir of the ,controversy respecting the ,three ,heavenly ,witnesses1 #a ,john v4 #g 7,london1 #ahcj71 ,new ,edition1 with ,notes and ,appendix by ,ezra ,abbot 7,new ,york1 #ahff72 ,c4 ,forster1 ,a ,new ,plea for the ,authenticity of the ,text of the ,three ,heavenly ,witnesses 7,cambridge1 #ahfg72 ,h4 ,t4 ,armfield1 ,the ,three ,witnesses3 ,the disputed ,text in ,st4 ,john 7,london1 #ahic74 ,james4 ,an ,arabic scholion1 attributed to ,hippolytus1 cites this epistle under the name of ,jude4 ,see ,zahn1 ,,gk4 i4 #cbj1 #b2 #cbc1 #c4 ,in two minuscules cited by ,tischendorf1 is followed by or 1 and in one of the subscriptions by 4 ,the subscription in ff reads 8explicit epistola ,jacobi filii ,zaebedei 7sic740 ,see ,zahn's ,einleitung1 i4 #ge4 ii4 #b4 appears without the article in 99 ,b ,c and one of ,scrivener's minuscules4 ,this reading is accepted by ,zahn1 who sees in it an indication that those to whom the epistle is addressed were in possession of several synagogues1 that is supposing the word to mean meeting-place1 and not simply assembly1 as he himself is inclined to believe4 ,see ,einleitung1 i4 #fj1 #ff4 ,jude4 #e4 ,this verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of variants4 ,thus occurs with or without after it2 for we find both and 2 while the position of varies1 the word being found before 1 1 and 4 ,but even that is not all4 ,most recent editors read 1 but we find also 3 3 and 7textus receptus74 ,tischendorf's apparatus might lead one to suppose that the witnesses for and omit altogether1 but that is not so4 ,the ambiguity is due to the loose way in which the note is given4 ,westcott and ,hort think it probable that the original text was 1 and that this was read as 1 and perhaps as 4 ,khl thinks that the easiest explanation of the variants is to suppose that was the original reading1 and that and were derived from it4 ,but it seems to me that ,zahn has better reason on his side when he argues for as the original reading4 ,he first of all eliminates as having no great attestation1 and as being found alongside of in ,clement 7dominus deus74 ,the choice1 therefore1 lies between and 4 ,the latter has by far the stronger external attestation1 it is the lectio ardua1 and is1 on internal grounds1 also to be preferred4 ,see ,einleitung1 ii4 #hh4 #bb1 #bc4 ,zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies at the foundation of ,didache1 ii4 #g3 1 1 1 4 ,if this is really so1 we have here a piece of very early testimony1 not certainly to the actual words1 but to the thought conveyed4 ,see ,einleitung1 ii4 #hf4 ,subscription3 ,at the end of the ,armenian ,bible of #afih we find a note to the effect that 8this epistle was written in the year #fd by ,judas ,jacobi1 who is also called ,lebbaeus and ,thaddaeus1 and who preached the ,gospel to the ,armenians and the ,persians40 ,,apocalypse4 ,apart from particular passages1 the last book of the ,bible cannot be unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for special study1 but it is peculiarly well adapted as an introduction to the method of textual criticism1 and that for two reasons4 ,first of all1 because the number of available witnesses to the text is comparatively small1 and1 secondly1 because these are more easily grouped here than in the other divisions of the ,new ,testament4 ,reference may be made in this connection to the first part of ,bousset's critical studies on the text of the ,apocalypse1 where the distinction drawn by ,bengel between the ,andreas and ,arethas groups of manuscripts is correctly emphasized4 ,at the same time ,bousset himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an eclectic mode of procedure is all that is possible at present4 ,an attempt has been made above 7p4 #aeg7 with the conclusion of the ,apocalypse4 ,we shall now try a few further examples4 ,in order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we must select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of meaning with a small variation of form4 ,such a passage occurs in the last chapter4 ,in ,apoc4 xxii4 #ad1 after the words 8blessed are they10 we read1 in the one class of witnesses1 8that wash their robes10 in the other1 8that do his commandments40 ,that is to say1 we have in the one case and in the other 4 ,the difference is exceedingly small1 especially when we consider that in early times was frequently written 1 and at the end of a line 4 ,i have no doubt that 8wash their robes0 is the original reading here and that 8do his commandments0 is the later alteration1 though1 of course1 others will hold the opposite view4 ,for the former we have the authority of ,a1 for the latter that of ,q 7i4e41 ,bapoc2 see above1 p4 #hj7 with its associates4 ,the question now becomes3 ,are there any passages where and ,a part company1 and which are decisive in favour of 8 ,it is impossible to say offhand whether or ,a has preserved the correct text4 contains corrections that ,a does not1 and vice versa4 ,take another example4 ,the author of the ,apocalypse follows the ,hebrew idiom1 according to which the word or phrase in apposition to an oblique case is put in the nominative4#bib ,thus we have3 ii4 #bj4 4 ,q makes this 1 and the corrector of 4 ,similarly1 iii4 #ab1 1 where again ,q has 1 and c 4 ,but it is not only the later corrector of that does this3 the first scribe of that manuscript does it himself4 ,for example3 xiv4 #ab4 has instead of 2 in verse #ad instead of 2 in xx4 #b1 instead of 1 etc4 ,in other places ,a1 in this last ,a alone1 it appears1 has preserved the correct text4 ,there are other places1 again1 where the correct reading is preserved1 perhaps1 only in a later manuscript1 or in none at all4 ,we may compare with the idiom in the ,apocalypse what we find at the beginning of the book in the passage about the seven spirits before the throne of ,god4 i4 #d4 444 4 ,in the space indicated by the dots ,erasmus has 1 ,codex #cf has 1 ,q and ,c have 1 which is adopted by ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort1 and ,a have 1 which is adopted by ,lachmann1 ,tregelles1 and by ,westcott and ,hort in their margin1 while ,codex #hj has nothing at all4 ,all these variants are explainable on the supposition that the original reading was 4 ,exception being taken to this construction1 one copyist made it 1 the other 1 the third supplied the copula1 and the fourth dropped the offending word altogether4 ,similarly1 in chap4 v4 #ac1 alone has preserved the correct reading 1 for which the others have or 4 ,another case is ii4 #ac1 where the writer wished to say1 8in the days of ,antipas1 my faithful witness1 who was slain40 ,according to the idiom mentioned above1 while was in the genitive1 would be in the nominative of apposition4 ,but owing to the influence of this nominative1 was made nominative so as to agree with it1 and the sentence then ran1 444 444 which could not be construed4 ,the consequence was corrections of all sorts4 ,the boldest expedient was simply to drop the 1 but other means were adopted to relieve the construction4 ,after some inserted or 1 ,erasmus read 1 has 1 and some ,latin witnesses illis4 ,but read in the genitive and all is in order4#bic ,the ,apocalypse presents quite a number of passages enabling us to distinguish the manuscripts4 ,there is very little difference in form between and 7i4 #e71 and 7viii4 #ac71 and 7xv4 #f71 but it makes a great difference whether we read 8who redeemed us0 or 8who washed us10 an 8eagle flying0 or 8an angel flying10 8wearing pure linen0 or 8wearing pure stone40 ,these variations are the result of accidental errors in transcription4 ,but we meet an instance of intentional alteration in xiii4 #ah1 where the number of the beast is variously given as #fff and #faf4 ,grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have-- i4 #e4 1 ,a ,c1 ,syriac1#bid ,armenian4 1 ,q ,p1 ,vulgate1 ,coptic1 ,ethiopic4 viii4 #ac4 1 ,a ,q1 ,vulgate1 ,syriac1 ,coptic1 ,ethiopic4 1 ,p1 ,armenian4 ,the two readings are combined not only by certain commentators1 but in some manuscripts1 4 xv4 #f4 1 ,a ,c1 am fu demid tol4 1 ,p1 ,syriac1 ,armenian1 ,clementine-,vulgate4 is read by ,q1 and by 4 ,tregelles and ,westcott alone accept the reading 2 all the other editors regard it as an early transcriptional error4 ,holtzmann refers to the parallel passages i4 #ac1 iv4 #d1 vii4 #i1 #ac1 xvii4 #d1 xviii4 #af1 xix4 #h1 #ad1 in support of 1 but they point rather the other way4 ,for 8fine linen0 ,apocalypse has five times1 but never once 1 which means only the material1 and not the garment made of it4 ,moreover1 we find a parallel in the ,old ,testament1 though in another connection1 in ,ezekiel xxviii4 #ac1 where we read 1 so that here must not be so confidently rejected4 was more liable to be changed to than vice versa1 as the ,vulgate shows1 in which the authorised printed edition has linteo where the manuscripts read lapidem4 ,at the same time one cannot but admit that primitive transcriptional errors do occur4 ,the reading in viii4 #ac1 to which certain manuscripts prefix 1 seems to me to be corroborated by in xiv4 #f4 ,or are we to read there in the face of all the witnesses8 v4 #a4 ,the correct text here is that adopted by ,zahn3 4 ,grotius1 though mistaken as to the true text1 was the first to give the right interpretation of the words by taking 77 with 1 and 77 with 4 8,locus sic distinguendus 1 40 ,this combination of the words 78haec nova distinctio07 was combated for the reason among others that it deprived them of all their force and rendered them superfluous1 for who ever saw a roll that was written on the outside and sealed on the inside4 ,see ,pole's ,synopsis1 where it is said of ,grotius1 8tam infelix interpres ,apocalypseos est magnus ille ,hugo in rebus minusculis40 ,zahn 7,einleitung1 ii4 #eif7 improves the text of ,grotius1 but retains his connection of the words4 ,he holds that and are not correlative terms1 and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both sides 77 must be abandoned2 compare above1 p4 #dc1 n4 #b4 ,the book was1 in fact1 not a roll but a codex4 ,two things point to this4 ,there is1 first1 the fact that is said to be 4 ,had it been a roll it would have been 4 ,moreover1 the word used for opening the book is 1 and not1 as in the case of rolls1 1 1 or 4 ,that it was not written on the outside is also shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals1 the purpose of which was to make the reading of the book impossible4 ,not till the seventh seal is broken is the book open and its contents displayed4 ,this is quite different from the mentioned in chapter x4 #b1 #i4 ,see also ,e4 ,huschke1 ,das ,buch mit #g ,siegeln 7#ahfj71 to which ,zahn refers 7lib4 cit4 #eig74 ix4 #ag4 ,for ,primasius has spineas 7 71 a reading which neither ,bousset nor ,baljon1 strange to say1 think worth recording4 ,bousset rightly observes that in the following verse corresponds to 1 and to 1 so that lets us see what the writer understood as the colour of hyacinth--viz4 the colour of smoke4 ,but the ideas of 8thorns0 7spineae7 and 8smoke0 are even more closely related4 xiii4 #ah4 ,irenus found #faf given as the number of the beast in some manuscripts1 which he could only explain as a transcriptional error3 8hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur1 facile literam ,graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum in iota ,graecorum literam expansam40 ,in reality1 however1 the change from to would be a contraction rather than an expansion1 and the alteration would seem to be intentional1 seeing that #fff in ,hebrew characters gives the ,greek form ,neron ,kesar1 and #faf the ,latin ,nero ,kesar4 ,irenus himself1 however1 appeals to the fact that the number #fff was found 1 ' 7v4 #cj1 #a-c74 ,the opening words in the ,latin translation run1 8in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis40 ,the subscription which he himself appended to his own principal work 7see above1 p4 #adi7 shows how scrupulously exact he was with respect to 1 so that we may give him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts of the ,apocalypse4 ,the erroneous reading 7#faf7 is now found only in ,c and two minuscules 7#e and #aa74 xxii4 #aa4 ,the only authorities cited by ,tischendorf in support of the reading 7in place of 7 are the two minuscules #ch and #gi and the ,clementine ,vulgate4 ,but we find the passage alluded to in the epistle which the ,church of ,lyons wrote giving an account of the ,martyrdom of the year #agg3 1 7apud ,euseb41 ,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #a1 #eh74 ,this lends such support to the reading in ,apoc4 xxii4 #aa1 that ,zahn not unnaturally speaks of it as 8certainly the original text0 7,,gk4 i4 #bja74 ,e4 ,a4 ,abbott places the date of the ,epistle of the ,church of ,lyons as early as #aee 7see ,expositor1 #ahif1 i4 #aaa-abf74 ,another aspect would be given to the question if the ,greek form of the ,epistle were derived from a ,latin1 or if1 as ,resch supposed1 the words were a quotation of a saying of ,jesus 7,agrapha1 #acc1 p4 #bfc ff474 ,i take the opportunity of appending to ,resch's work the fine saying which ,zahn cites from ,augustine's ,contra ,adversarium ,legis et ,prophetarum 7ed4 ,bassan4 x4 #fei ff47 as an otherwise unknown ,apocryphum4 ,the disciples asked ,jesus 8de ,judaeorum prophetis1 quid sentire deberet1 qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putantur40 ,and ,he1 8commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire1 respondit3 ,dimisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini40 ,a similar saying from the ,acta ,petri ,vercell4 #aj is cited by ,harnack in connection with the third of the ,oxyrhynchus ,logia3 8,qui mecum sunt1 non me intellexerunt40 ,footnote #bfe3 ,see ,mrs4 ,lewis1 in the ,expository ,times1 ,november #aijj1 p4 #ef ff41 ,what have we gained in the ,sinaitic ,palimpsest8 ,i4 ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 where a number of important variants are cited from that manuscript4 ,footnote #bff3 ,corderius 7,caten4 ,psal41 ii4 #fca7 substitutes 8ancient0 for 8accurate40 ,footnote #bfg3 ,or 8exemplo graeco10 according as the plural points are inserted or not4 ,the passage is printed in ,syriac by ,cureton1 p4 xxxvi1 who says that it is also found in the margin of the ,london manuscript of the ,peshitto1 #addef4 ,he also gives the verses in which ,juvencus paraphrases this text4 ,footnote #bfh3 ,the other variations of the ,latin witnesses are extremely instructive--viz43 locis eminentioribus superioribus g#b emm4 honorificis m clarior dignior d m g#b honoratior e emm4 deorsum inferius g#b emm4 infra m inferior humilior minor superius sursum in superiori loco4 utilius utile gloriam4 ,this variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was translated into ,latin4 ,footnote #bfi3 ,the ,thesaurus ,syriacus does not contain the word either in col4 #adje under 1 or in col4 #bbje under 4 ,it may also be observed in passing1 that the passage is one of those whose sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the negative in this or that witness 7see below on ,gal4 ii4 #e74 ,instead of 1 ,syrcu reads 4 ,moreover1 it takes as imperative1 a fact that ,tischendorf has failed to notice4 ,footnote #bgj3 ,i see that ,chase1 who discusses the passage in pp4 #i-ad of his ,syro-,latin ,text1 has the same impression3 8the compound ,greek word in ,d1 1 seems intended to represent the ,syriac expression #8the lord of the supper4'0 ,footnote #bga3 ,the case is quite different in #a ,macc4 v4 #b1 where the first hand of wrote for 4 ,here occurs immediately before it4 ,footnote #bgb3 ,so given in ,merx's edition1 but not in ,lewis4--,tr4 ,footnote #bgc3 ,see also von ,dobschtz1 ,das ,kerygma ,petri1 p4 #hb1 where he cites the passage of ,origen relating to the ,doctrina ,petri1 which is also quoted by ,tischendorf on ,luke xxiv4 #ci1 and insists rightly that in the ,,lxx is never employed to represent 4 ,conybeare's articles on 8,the ,demonology of the ,new ,testament0 in the ,jewish ,quarterly ,review 7#ahif7 ,i have unfortunately been unable to consult4 ,joh4 ,weiss never mentions in his article on ,dmonen und ,dmonische in the ,,pre#c1 iv4 ,footnote #bgd3 ,this description is elsewhere understood as applying to ,theodore of ,mopsuestia4 ,footnote #bge3 ,the same variation occurs in ,luke vi4 #g1 where 99 ,b ,s ,x read 7 ,d71 while c ,a ,e ,f have 4 ,footnote #bgf3 ,when examining ,codex ,b ,i took occasion to look at certain other passages1 and discovered some strange mistakes in ,tischendorf's statements with regard to that manuscript1 as ,i did previously in the case of ,codex ,d4 ,in #c ,john #ac ,b has for '1 on which ,tischendorf has no note4 ,westcott and ,hort mention the passage in their ,notes on ,orthography1 ii4 p4 #aec1 but say nothing about ,b4 ,on ,jude #e we find ,tischendorf saying in his ,apparatus3 sine cum ,a ,b ,c#b 444 7,gboo7 add4 cum ,k ,l4 ,but stands quite plain in ,b4 ,had they known this1 ,tischendorf and ,westcott and ,hort would certainly have printed their text differently4 ,how far back this false testimony with regard to ,b extends ,i am unable to certify4 ,it is found in ,tischendorf's seventh edition of #ahei1 and in ,huther's ,commentary of the same date4 ,i repeat my ,ceterum censeo1 that two or three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current about ,b4 ,this one is repeated from ,tischendorf by ,baljon1 ,weiss1 and all our ,commentators4 ,at the same time1 ,weiss has quite properly inserted in his text1 on the ground that while there was no occasion for its interpolation1 its omission is quite conceivable4 ,he will1 no doubt1 be gratified to see his reasoning confirmed by this weighty testimony afforded by ,codex ,b4 ,footnote #bgg3 ,further instances of changes requiring investigation are3-- and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 1 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 active and middle voice1 1 etc4 ,footnote #bgh3 ,see1 however1 ,romans i4 #ad1 and compare ,zahn1 ,einl41 i4 #bfc4--,tr4 ,footnote #bgi3 ,i have already 7p4 #cg7 referred to the frequency with which mistakes1 often quite incredible mistakes1 in translation occur4 ,a few additional instances may be cited here4 ,there is1 for example1 that of ,ephraem in ,john ii4 #b1 mentioned above1 p4 #bhg4 ,according to ,aphraates #da1 #af1 ,jesus promised to the mourners 1 i4e4 that they should be entreated4 ,the writer of the text1 therefore1 that ,aphraates used1 must have taken here in the sense of 8to entreat40 ,see ,zahn1 ,forschungen1 i4 #gh4 ,the same writer 7#chc1 #af7 renders the words in ,luke xvi4 #be in the form 1 i4e4 8but to-day thou entreatest of him01 where is again taken in the sense of 8to entreat01 though a different word is used for it4 ,see ,zahn1 ibid4 ,again1 ,aphraates 7#cij1 #d7 renders 77 in ,luke vi4 #bd 1 8their prayer1 their request40 ,zahn1 ibid4 ,the last clause of ,john v4 #ad is rendered 8that thou mayest have need of nothing else10 where must have been read instead of 4 ,zahn1 ,forschungen1 i4 #afa f4 ,compare also the ,syriac text of ,apoc4 ii4 #ac2 viii4 #ac1 etc4 ,footnote #bhj3 ,on the custom of dictating letters1 see ,norden1 ,die antike ,kunstprosa 7#ahih71 p4 #ied ff4 ,on the autograph additions to the letters of the ,emperor ,julian1 see ,bidez and ,cumont1 ,recherches etc41 p4 #ai 7see above1 p4 #agd74 ,footnote #bha3 ,what an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had ,paul been in the way of dating his letters exactly1 or had the copyists preserved the dates1 supposing they were there originally6 ,one1 but only one1 of the epistles of ,ignatius bears a date--viz4 that to the ,romans3 7x4 #c74 ,footnote #bhb3 ,on these two verbs compare ,exod4 xxxi4 #ag1 where the ,,lxx has and ,aquila 2 ,isa4 xxxiv4 #ad1 ,,lxx 1 ,aquila 2 ,isa4 xxviii4 #ab1 ,aquila 2 compare also 1 ,matt4 xi4 #bi2 1 ,acts iii4 #bj4 ,weiss1 in his ,commentary1 ignores the reading of ,b in ,rom4 xv4 #cb2 in his discussion of the text he supposes that the text was mutilated by a translator1 and that ,d ,e ,f ,g 8sought to restore it in their own way40 ,footnote #bhc3 ,see #a ,cor4 v4 #h1 where the ,syriac has --i4e4 --for 4 ,footnote #bhd3 ,to these examples1 gathered quite incidentally1 one might add as many from the ,old ,testament and other books if one paid any attention to them in reading4 ,take1 for example1 ,herodotus i4 #bd4 ,was the votive offering that ,arion set up at ,taenarum or 8 ,in the ,germania xv4 #a did ,tacitus say of the ,germans 8non multum venationibus1 plus per otium transigunt10 or 8multum venationibus1 etc408 ,in the new edition of ,origen 7i4 #hg1 #af7 ,koetschau reads where the manuscript and the earlier editions have 1 and he lets an stand which others omit1 etc4 ,footnote #bhe3 ,in his ,lucian ,lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by certain letters shining through from the opposite side--e4g4 ,esther v4 #bb and #bg4 ,this latter is a most interesting case4 ,the following verse begins with 1 and ,lagarde thought that the first scribe had added another by mistake and afterwards erased it1 whereas it turned out that what he took to be was nothing else than shining through from the other side4 ,footnote #bhf3 ,cf4 ,westcott1 ,canon1 ,part ,,ii4 ch4 ii4 #a1 p4 #ced ff42 ,bible in the ,church1 p4 #abe f4 ,footnote #bhg3 ,cf4 ,westcott1 ,bible in the ,church1 p4 #aec ff4 ,footnote #bhh3 ,see ,article on ,the ,catholic ,epistles1 by ,salmond1 in ,hastings' ,dictionary of the ,bible1 i4 p4 #cei f4 ,footnote #bhi3 ,it is certainly difficult to construct an ,apparatus which shall be concise and yet clear4 ,in ,jude #bb ,baljon adopts in the text1 and yet he leaves the apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest that he intended to read with ,tischendorf4 ,footnote #bij3 ,the inscription on a column at ,rome dedicated to a ,sabine god which ,justin read as 8,simoni ,sancto ,deo10 and understood as referring to ,simon ,magus4 ,see ,kurtz1 ,church ,history 7,macpherson71 i4 p4 #ig2 ,neander1 ,church ,history 7,bohn71 ii4 p4 #abc1 note4 ,footnote #bia3 ,compare also the articles on #a and #b ,peter by the same writer in vol4 iii4 ,footnote #bib3 ,see ,blass1 ,grammar of ,n4 ,t4 ,greek1 #ca1 #f1 ,eng4 ,tr41 p4 #hj f4 ,compare the similar ,german idiom used in the titles of books1 8von ,x4 ,y4 ordentlicher ,professor40 ,how naturally this comes to a ,hebrew is shown by the fact that ,sal4 ,br1 in his translation of the ,massoretic note at the end of the books of ,samuel 7,leipzig1 ,tauchnitz1 #ahib1 p4 #aeh71 among other lovely things has 8ad mortem ,davidis rex ,israelis40 ,footnote #bic3 ,in this 7independent7 suggestion ,i am glad to find myself in agreement with ,lachmann 7,studien und ,kritiken1 #ahcj1 p4 #hci71 and ,westcott and ,hort 7ii41 ,app41 #acg74 ,i see that ,baljon and ,zahn too follow it4 ,but ,bousset still writes 4 ,footnote #bid3 ,including ,gwynn's ,syriac manuscript2 see above1 p4 #ajb4 ,,appendix ,i4 ,the following is a list of writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the ,new ,testament4 ,they are arranged chronologically1 but it must be remembered that the dates are more or less uncertain1 and that in the case of many writers the period of activity lies in two centuries3-- ,,first ,,century4 ,greek4 ,latin4 ,clement of ,rome1 fl4 #ie ,ignatius1 d4 #ajg8 ,barnabas1 8 ,,second ,,century4 ,didache1 8 ,hermas1 #adj8 ,marcion 7in ,epiphanius and ,tertullian71 fl4 #ade ,aristides1 #aci ,polycarp1 d4 #aee ,justin ,martyr1 d4 #afe ,clementine ,homilies and ,recognitions1 ca4 #aij ,papias1 fl4 #adj ,gospel of ,peter1 ca4 #agj ,tatian1 fl4 #agj ,athenagoras1 fl4 #agg ,theophilus of ,antioch1 d4 #ahb ,celsus 7in ,origen71 ca4 #ahj ,hegesippus1 fl4 #ahj ,irenus 7see ,latin71 d4 #bjb ,tertullian1 fl4 #bjj ,clement of ,alexandria1 fl4 #aid ,ireni ,interpres 7according to ,tischendorf and ,gregory1 but see below74 ,,third ,,century4 ,hippolytus1 fl4 #bbj ,julius ,africanus1 fl4 #bbj ,gregory ,thaumaturgus1 d4 #bfe ,origen1 d4 #bdh ,cyprian1 d4 #beh ,dionysius of ,alexandria1 d4 ,novatian1 fl4 #bea #bfe ,porphyry1 d4 #cjd ,lactantius1 fl4 #cjf ,pamphilus1 d4 #cjh ,arnobius1 d4 #cjf ,methodius1 d4 #caj ,victorinus of ,pettau1 d4 #cjc ,didascalia1 8 ,apostolic ,constitutions 7and fourth century1 etc474 ,,fourth ,,century4 ,arius1 fl4 #cbe ,jacobus ,nisibenus 7,syrian71 d4 ,juvencus1 fl4 #ccj #cch ,eusebius of ,csarea1 d4 #cdj ,ireni ,interpres 7according ,aphraates 7,syrian71 fl4 #cdj to ,westcott and ,hort74 ,eustathius1 ,bishop of ,antioch1 fl4 #cej ,hilary of ,poictiers1 d4 #cfh ,zeno1 fl4 #cej ,victorinus of ,rome1 fl4 #cfj ,athanasius1 d4 #cgc ,damasus1 ,pope1 fl4 #cff ,ephraem 7,syrian71 d4 #cgc ,lucifer1 d4 #cga ,basil the ,great1 d4 #cgi ,pacianus1 fl4 #cgj ,evagrius of ,pontus1 d4 #chj ,optatus1 fl4 #cga ,cyril of ,jerusalem1 d4 #chf ,philastrius1 fl4 #chj ,amphilochius1 fl4 #cgj ,gaudentius1 fl4 #chg ,macarius ,magnes1 fl4 #cgc ,rufinus1 fl4 #cig ,gregory ,nazianzen1 d4 #cij ,ambrose1 d4 #cig ,gregory of ,nyssa1 d4 #cid ,ambrosiaster1 fl4 #cij ,diodorus of ,tarsus1 d4 #cid ,chromatius1 fl4 #cij ,didymus of ,alexandria1 d4 #cid ,tyconius1 fl4 #cij ,theophilus of ,alexandria1 fl4 ,jerome1 d4 #dbj #chh ,epiphanius1 d4 #djc ,priscillian1 ca4 fin4 ,chrysostom1 fl4 #djg ,auctor libri ,de ,rebaptismate4 ,isidore of ,pelusium1 fl4 #dab ,,fifth ,,century4 ,nonnus1 fl4 #djj ,faustus1 fl4 #djj ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 d4 #dbi ,hilary of ,arles1 d4 #dbi ,victor of ,antioch1 d4 #dcj ,augustine1 d4 #dcj ,cyril of ,alexandria1 d4 #ddd ,prosper of ,aquitania1 fl4 #dca ,theodotus of ,ancyra1 fl4 #dca ,sedulius1 fl4 #dca ,basil of ,seleucia1 fl4 #ddj ,leo the ,great1 fl4 #ddj ,socrates1 fl4 #ddj ,petrus ,chrysologus1 d4 #dee ,theodoret1 ,bishop of ,gennadius1 fl4 #dei ,cyrus1 d4 #deg ,vigilius1 fl4 #dhd ,euthalius1 d4 #deh ,auctor libri ,de ,promissionibus4 ,sozomen1 fl4 #ddj ,,sixth ,,century4 ,candidus ,isaurus1 fl4 #ejj ,fulgentius1 ,bishop of ,ruspe1 d4 #ecc ,severus of ,antioch1 fl4 #eab ,justinian1 fl4 #ecj ,theodorus ,lector1 fl4 #ebe ,csarius of ,arles1 d4 #edc ,andreas1 ,bishop of ,primasius1 fl4 #eej ,csarea1 ca4 fin4 ,maxentius1 8 ,victor1 ,bishop of ,tunis1 d4 #efe ,cosmas ,indicopleustes1 fl4 #ece ,cassiodorus1 d4 #ege ,eutychius1 fl4 #eec ,gregory the ,great1 d4 #fjd ,chronicon ,paschale4 ,,seventh ,,century4 ,antiochus the ,monk1 fl4 #fad ,peter the ,deacon1 8 ,andreas of ,crete1 fl4 #fce8 ,maximus ,confessor1 d4 #ffb ,modestus of ,jerusalem1 8 ,,eighth ,,century4 ,damascenus1 ,johannes1 fl4 #gcj ,bede1 d4 #gce ,nicephorus1 fl4 #ghg ,petrus ,siculus1 8 ,,ninth ,,century4 ,photius of ,constantinople1 d4 #hia ,,tenth ,,century4 ,arethas1 8 ,symeon1 8 cumenius1 ca4 #iej8 ,suidas the ,lexicographer1 ca4 #ihj ,,eleventh ,,century4 ,theophylact1 ,bishop of ,bulgaria1 fl4 #ajgg ,,twelfth ,,century4 ,euthymius ,zigabenus1 fl4 #aaaf ,nicetas of ,byzantium1 d4 #abjf ,,appendix ,,ii4 4 ,i had intended to give in full those passages of the ,fathers known to me in which mention is made of manuscripts prepared by themselves or others4 ,in this way ,i hoped to make a start towards supplying the desideratum spoken of on p4 #aed above4 ,but ,i feel that in order to be anything like complete1 this would occupy too much space for the present work4 ,even the passages in which ,origen speaks of 1 though not 8innumerable10 as ,zahn says with a touch of exaggeration1 are yet too numerous to be included here4 ,a considerable number of such passages are already given in full in ,tischendorf's ,editio ,octava4 ,i have contented myself with giving here1 an alphabetic list of these1 in order to facilitate a geographical and chronological survey of the relevant matter4 ,where only one passage is given1 it will be found in full in ,tischendorf4 ,passages in which the word itself or its synonyms 7codex1 exemplar1 etc47 does not occur1 but where express mention is yet made of readings found in manuscripts1 are given in brackets4 ,some surprising facts are brought to light by such quotations4 ,witness the remark made by ,basil the ,great 7ob4 #cgi7 on ,luke xxii4 #cf1 who tells us that in ,cappadocia in his time many manuscripts1 indeed1 if the text is correct the majority of manuscripts 7 71 exhibited a reading now found in only one single manuscript1 and that the main representative of the 8,western0 text2 ,i refer to ,codex ,bezae4 ,see above on ,luke xxii4 #cf4 ,i may mention here that a certain 8,basilius diaconus0 was the possessor of a magnificent ,bible1 the cover of the first part of which was used for ,codex ,syrohexaplaris ,ambrosianus4 ,the inscription ran3 4 ,see the facsimile and description in ,ceriani's edition1 ,monumenta ,sacra et ,profana1 vol4 vii41 folio4 ,adamantius 7i4e4 ,origen71 see ,hieronymus4 ,ambrosiaster1 ,rom4 v4 #ad2 the quotation should be corrected in accordance with ,haussleiter1 ,forschungen1 iv4 #cb2 7,rom4 xii4 #ac72 #a ,cor4 v4 #c2 ,gal4 ii4 #e4 ,ambrose1 ,luke vii4 #ce2 ,gal4 iv4 #h4 ,anastasius1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #ah4 ,andreas1 ,apoc4 iii4 #g4 ,apollinarius1 possibly mentioned in the scholia in ,codex ,marchalianus 7see ,swete's ,septuagint1 iii4 p4 viii71 ,john vii4 #ec4 ----1 see ,macedonius4 ,apollonides1 ,eusebius1 ,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #bh4 ,arethas1 ,apoc4 i4 #b1 iii4 #g4 ,asclepiades1 ,eusebius1 ,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #bh4 ,athanasius 7also ,pseudo-,athanasius71 ,matt4 v4 #bb2 #b ,thess4 ii4 #i2 for his mention of the made for the ,emperor ,constans1 see above1 p4 #aha1 note1 and p4 #ahd2 ,zahn's ,forschungen1 iii4 #ajj1 ,,gk4 i4 #gc4 ,augustine1 ,matt4 xxvii4 #i2 ,luke iii4 #bb2 ,rom4 v4 #ad2 7,rom4 xiii4 #ad72 #a ,cor4 xv4 #e2 ,phil4 iii4 #c4 ,basil 7the ,great71 ,luke xxii4 #cf2 ,ephes4 i4 #a2 ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #cde4 ,bede1 ,acts1 passim4 ,chronicon ,paschale1 ,john xix4 #ad 7see above1 p4 #cj74 ,chrysostom1 ,john i4 #bh4 ,didymus1 #b ,cor4 i4 #a4 ,epiphanius1 ,matt4 i4 #h1 ii4 #aa 7 1 1 1 i4 #dcj1 #ajhe74 ,see ,westcott and ,hort1 8,notes10 in loco2 ,matt4 viii4 #bh2 ,luke viii4 #bf1 xix4 #da1 7xxii4 #dc f472 ,john i4 #bh2 ,ephes4 i4 #a4 ,eusebius1 ,matt4 xiii4 #ce1 xxvii4 #i2 ,mark i4 #b1 xvi4 #c1 #i ff42 ,john xix4 #ad4 ,euthalius1 ,jude #be4 ,euthymius1 7,mark xvi4 #i72 ,john vii4 #ec4 ,gregory of ,nyssa 7,pseudo-71 ,mark xvi4 #b1 #i4 ,hermophilus1 ,eusebius1 ,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #bh4 ,hesychius1 ,mark xvi4 #b1 #i4 ,hieronymus 7,jerome71 ,matt4 xiii4 #ce1 xxi4 #ca1 xxiv4 #ag2 ,mark iii4 #ag1 xvi4 #i2 ,luke ii4 #cc1 7xviii4 #cj71 xxii4 #dc f42 ,john vii4 #ec2 ,acts xv4 #bi2 #a ,cor4 ix4 #e2 ,gal4 ii4 #e1 iii4 #a2 ,ephes4 iii4 #ad2 #a ,tim4 v4 #ai2 ,heb4 ii4 #aj4 ,irenus1 ,apoc4 xiii4 #ah 7see above1 in loco74 ,isidore1 ,heb4 ix4 #ag4 ,macedonius 7see ,draeseke1 ,th,st,kr41 #ahij1 #ab71 ,rom4 viii4 #aa4 ,marcion1 see ,epiphanius1 ,ephes4 i4 #a4 ,maximinus1 #a ,cor4 xv4 #dg4 cumenius1 ,acts xiv4 #bf4 ,origen1 ,matt4 ii4 #ah1 viii4 #bh1 xvi4 #bj1 xviii4 #a1 7xix4 #ai71 7xxi4 #ae71 7xxvii4 #i71 xxvii4 #af ff4 7see above1 in loco72 ,mark ii4 #ad2 ,luke i4 #df2 ,john i4 #bh2 ,rom4 iv4 #c1 xvi4 #bc 7see ,zahn1 ,einleitung1 i4 #bgf1 #bhe72 ,col4 ii4 #ae4 ,pierius1 see ,hieronymus4 ,severus1 ,mark xvi4 #i4 ,socrates1 #a ,john iv4 #c4 ,theodoret1 ,rom4 xvi4 #c4 ,theodore of ,mopsuestia1 ,heb4 ii4 #aj4 ,theodotus1 ,eusebius1 ,eccles4 ,hist41 v4 #bh4 ,theophylact1 #b ,thess4 iii4 #ad2 ,heb4 ii4 #aj1 x4 #a4 ,victor1 ,mark xvi4 #i4 ,mention is made of in anonymous scholia on ,matt4 ii4 #ah1 xx4 #bh1 7xxii4 #ab72 ,mark xi4 #ac2 ,luke xvi4 #ai 7giving the name of the ,rich ,man as ,ninive1 i4e41 ,phinees2 see ,rendel ,harris in the ,expositor1 ,march #aijj72 ,luke xxii4 #dc f41 xxiv4 #ac2 ,john i4 #bi1 vii4 #ec1 xxi4 #be2 ,rom4 viii4 #bd4 ,,index ,i4 ,subjects ,abbot1 ,e41 #i1 #eh4 ,abbreviation1 #dh1 #cae1 #cag1 #ccj4 ,accentuation1 #dg1 #fa4 ,achmim1 dialect of1 #acc1 #ace4 ,acts1 text of1 #bbd1 #bid4 ,adamantius1 #ahg4 ,additions1 #bch4 ,adler1 #ai1 #ajc4 ,african ,latin1 #aaj1 #aai4 ,aggaeus1 #if4 ,alcuin1 #abe1 #agf4 ,aldus1 #b4 ,ambrose1 #aji1 #bje4 ,ambrosiaster1 #adh1 #bje4 ,amlineau1 #gj1 #ace1 #acg4 ,amelli1 #aac4 ,ammonian sections1 #ef4 ,andreas1 #aia1 #cbi4 ,anselm1 #g4 ,antilegomena1 #ab1 #ie1 #cba4 ,anthony1 #ace4 ,antwerp ,polyglot1 #aj4 ,aphraates1 #ih1 #baf1 #bed1 #bic1 #cba4 ,apocrypha1 #bf1 #acg4 ,apollonides1 #bjj f4 ,apollos1 #bdb4 ,apostolicum of ,marcion1 #bjg4 ,arabic version1 #adb4 ,aramaic1 #ic4 ,arethas1 #aia1 #cbi4 ,arians1 #bje4 ,arias ,montanus1 #aj4 ,aristion1 #adb1 #bie4 ,armenian version1 #ada4 ,artemonites1 #bjj4 ,article1 importance of the1 #beh1 #bhg1 #bhh1 #bie1 #cbh4 ,asclepiades1 #bjj f4 ,asterisks1 #aja1 #ahf4 ,athanasius1 #fb1 #aha1 #ahc4 ,dialogue of ,a4 and ,zacchaeus1 #ii n4 ,athos manuscripts1 #ij1 #aeb1 #aij4 ,augustine1 #ajh1 #abj1 #adg4 ,autographs1 #bi f41 #ig4 ,balg1 #aci4 ,baljon1 #bd1 #afh4 ,barabbas1 prenomen of1 #ajc1 #bdd1 #bei4 ,barnabas1 #cj1 #ed f4 ,barnard1 #aed n4 ,basil the ,great1 #bgg1 #cdj4 ,basilides1 #bjc4 ,bashmuric dialect1 #acc4 ,bthgen1 #aje4 ,batiffol1 #gc1 #ge1 #aci4 ,bebb1 #ie4 ,bede1 #ge1 #bba4 ,bellarmin1 #abg4 ,belsheim1 #aab ff4 ,benedict1 ,rule of1 #agc4 ,bengel1 #c1 #af1 #cj1 #abc1 #bba1 #bef4 ,bensly1 #gi1 #ig1 #ajb1 #aje4 ,bentley1 #af1 #gg1 #hc4 ,berger1 ,j4 ,g41 #cj4 ,berger1 ,s41 #aaa1 #aaf f41 #abc1 #acj4 ,bernhardt1 #aci4 ,bernoulli1 #agd4 ,bernstein1 #ajj4 ,bertheau1 #ah4 ,bessarion1 #hg4 ,beurlier1 #aag4 ,beza1 #i1 #fd1 #bba4 ,bibliotheca1 #ci1 #ec4 ,bidez1 #agd4 ,birch1 #ai4 ,bianchini1 #aaa f41 #aca4 ,blass1 #cb1 #fe1 #afc1 #bbd1 #bfj4 ,bohairic version1 #acc4 ,boniface1 #df1 #abb4 ,bonnet1 #bf4 ,bonus1 #aje4 ,boetticher1 see ,lagarde4 ,bouriant1 #ace4 ,bousset1 #ia1 #aeh1 #cbi4 ,brandscheid1 #bf4 ,breathings1 #dg4 ,brightman1 #ff4 ,british and ,foreign ,bible ,society1 #d1 #ac4 ,brugsch1 #acg4 ,burgon1 #hc1 #adf1 #aei4 ,burkitt1 #ig1 #ajd f41 #aji1 #aca1 #aci1 #adc1 #bbi4 ,byzantine ,recension1 #ba1 #ahj ff4 ,canons of ,criticism1 #af1 #bcd1 #bci4 ,eusebian1 #ef1 #bfc4 ,capitals1 #cd1 #ei1 #bfa4 ,cary1 #afj4 ,caryophilus1 #ad4 ,cassels1 #ajf4 ,cassiodorus1 #ej1 #abh1 #age4 ,castle1 #ab4 ,catalogus ,claromontanus1 #gf1 #afb4 ,catenae1 #adg4 ,celsus1 #add1 #bjd1 #bif4 ,ceolfrid1 #abb4 ,cephaleus1 #g4 ,ceriani1 #aaf4 ,ceugney1 #ace4 ,chapter division1 #h4 ,charlemagne1 #abe4 ,charles the ,bald1 #abe4 ,charles1 ,r4 ,h41 #adj4 ,chase1 #fe1 #baf1 #bgd4 ,cheikho1 #ajd4 ,chronicon ,paschale1 #cj4 ,chrysostom1 #ib1 #aha4 ,ciasca1 #ace4 ,clay as writing material1 #de4 ,clement of ,rome1 #ei1 #aaj1 #aec4 of ,alexandria1 #adg1 #aec1 #bjd4 ,clementine ,vulgate1 #abg4 ,codex1 #da4 ,cola and ,commata1 #di4 ,colinus1 #g4 ,columns1 #cg4 ,comma ,johanneum1 #d1 #bf1 #cj1 #hf1 #cbg4 ,complutensian ,polyglot1 #a4 ,conflate readings1 #bde4 ,confusion of vowels and consonants1 #afh ff41 #bcf1 #bfb4 ,conjectural emendation1 #afg4 ,constans1 #aha1 #ahc4 ,constantine1 #ed1 #bje4 ,contents of manuscripts1 #ch1 #eb4 ,conybeare1 #gi1 #ii1 #adb4 ,copinger1 #f4 ,coptic dialect1 #acb4 ,copying1 mistakes in1 #cg1 #agj1 #bcd ff41 #cac1 #ccj4 ,corpus ,scriptorum ,ecclesiasticorum ,latinorum1 #adf4 ,corrections1 intentional1 #aib1 #bji1 #bci4 ,corrector 771 #eg4 ,correctoria ,bibliorum1 #abf4 ,corruption of the text1 ,greek and ,latin terms for1 #aih4 ,corssen1 #aaf1 #abc4 ,cotton paper1 #cf1 #dd4 ,courcelles1 #ad4 ,cozza1 #fj1 #fb4 ,credner1 #fe4 ,criticism1 object of textual1 #bh1 #aef4 subjective1 #aeg4 ,cromwell1 #ab4 ,cronin1 #fh4 ,crowfoot1 #aje4 ,crum1 #ace f4 ,curetonian ,syriac1 #ig1 #ajd1 #bdh4 ,cursive script1 #ce1 #ha f4 ,cursive manuscripts1 see ,minuscules4 ,cyprian1 #aag1 #aai1 #adg4 ,cyril ,lucar1 #ac1 #eh4 ,damasus1 #ajg4 ,dated manuscripts1 #fi1 #gb1 #cjj n4 ,deane1 #aja1 #ajc4 ,de ,dieu1 #aja4 1 #bag1 #bef4 ,delisle1 #abc4 ,delitzsch1 #b1 #d1 #e4 ,dialects of ,egypt1 #acb4 of ,palestine1 #ic1 #ajc4 ,diatessaron1 see ,tatian4 ,dictation1 #bcd1 #bih4 ,didascalia1 #aee4 ,dillmann1 #adj4 ,dionysius of ,corinth1 #aii4 1 see ,corrector4 1 #da1 #dc4 ,dobschtz1 von1 #gj1 #gb1 #gi1 #abc4 ,dogmatic alterations1 #aff1 #aig f41 #bjj ff41 #bji1 #bci4 ,dutch school of conjectural criticism1 #afh4 ,dziatzko1 #cc4 ,eckstein1 #aci4 ,eclectic method of criticism1 #agj4 ,editio ,regia1 #g4 ,editions1 number of1 #e4 collections of1 #e4 size of1 #g4 ,catholic1 #be4 ,egyptian versions1 #acb ff4 ,ehrhard1 #gi4 ,ellis1 #af4 ,elzevir1 #ac4 ,engelbreth1 #ace4 ,ephraem1 #ih1 #ajf1 #baf1 #bed4 ,erasmus1 #c1 #adf4 ,erizzo1 #ajb4 ,errors1 sources of1 #bcd ff4 ,ess1 van1 #be4 ,ethiopic version1 #adj4 ,etschmiadzin manuscript1 #adb1 #bie4 ,eugipus1 #abb4 ,eumenes1 ,king of ,pergamum1 #dj4 ,eusebius of ,csarea1 #ed1 #ef1 #agi1 #ahe4 ,eusebian ,canons1 #ef1 #bfc4 ,euthalius1 #gh f41 #ahh4 ,evagrius1 #gh n4 ,evangeliaria1 #ci f41 #ia f41 #ajf4 ,fabiani1 #fj1 #fb4 ,families of manuscripts1 #ag1 #aai1 #agf ff4 ,fathers1 list of4 ,see ,appendix ,i4 ,fayumic dialect1 #acc1 #ace4 ,falsification of text by heretics1 #aig ff4 ,fell1 #ae1 #acc4 ,ferrar ,group1 #hd f41 #ii1 #agg4 ,field1 #aha1 #bfd4 ,ford1 #acd4 ,froben1 #c1 #abf4 ,gabelentz1 #aci4 ,gebhardt1 ,o4 von1 #g1 #bb1 #gc1 #agd4 ,gehringer1 #be4 ,gelasian ,decree1 #ahc4 ,genealogical method1 #afd1 #aga ff4 ,gennadius1 #agc4 ,georgian version1 #adb4 ,gibson1 #ig1 #aje1 #ajf1 #add4 ,gildemeister1 #adj4 ,gnostics1 #bjc f4 ,goltz1 von der1 #ij1 #aij4 ,goodspeed1 #ia4 ,gospels1 collection and order of1 #afa f4 division of1 #ef1 #fa4 title of1 #afe1 #bdg4 ,gospel-book of ,marcion1 #bjg4 ,gothic version1 #acg ff4 ,goussen1 #ace1 #acg4 ,graefe1 #ff1 #bca4 ,grandval ,bible1 #abe4 ,gratz1 #be4 ,graux1 #dh4 ,gregory1 ,pope1 #abe4 ,gregory of ,nyssa1 #hg4 ,gregory1 ,c4 ,ren1 #f1 #g1 #bj1 #hc1 #ia1 #aaa4 ,grenfell1 #gd4 ,griesbach1 #ah4 ,guidi1 #adj4 ,gwilliam1 #if1 #ajc1 #ajd4 ,gwynn1 #ajb1 #ajf4 ,haase1 #aad4 ,hberlin1 #dc4 ,hahn1 #bjf n4 ,hall1 ,isaac ,h41 #f1 #h1 #ajj4 ,hammond1 #aei4 ,harding1 #abe4 ,harklean ,syriac1 #gi1 #ajj1 #ajf1 #ahi1 #bee4 ,harmony of the ,gospels1 #af1 #ih4 ,harnack1 #aee1 #bjb1 #bcb4 ,harris1 ,j4 ,r41 #cj1 #dd1 #fe1 #gd1 #hf1 #ia1 #ig1 #ajb1 #aje f41 #aae1 #aec1 #bad4 ,haseloff1 #gc4 ,hauler1 #aee4 ,haussleiter1 #caa4 ,hebrew ,bible printed1 #a4 ,hebrews1 ,gospel of the1 #gb1 #if4 ,hegesippus1 #if4 ,heidenreich1 #aai n4 ,henten1 #abg1 #abh4 ,heracleon1 #bjc4 ,heretics1 their falsifications1 #aig ff4 ,hermas1 #dg1 #ed4 ,hermophilus1 #bjj f4 ,hesychius1 #fa1 #fb1 #ahc ff4 ,hetzenauer1 #be1 #acb4 ,heyne1 #aci4 ,hieronymus1 see ,jerome4 ,hilgenfeld1 #bf1 #aaf4 ,addenda4 ,hill1 #aje4 ,hitzig1 #afi1 #cji4 ,hogg1 #ajf1 #bad4 ,holtzmann1 #f1 #aaf4 ,holzhey1 #aje4 ,homer1 manuscripts of1 #cc4 ,homoioteleuton1 #bce f4 ,hppe1 #aci4 ,horner1 #acd1 #acf4 ,hort1 #ba1 #agj f4 ,hoskier1 #e1 #fb1 #hc4 ,hug1 #fa1 #ahb4 ,hunt1 #gd4 ,hyvernat1 #ace1 #acf4 ,iberian version1 see ,georgian4 ,ignatius1 #adf1 #cjj n4 ,illustrated manuscripts1 #ea4 ,indiction1 #fi4 ,indiculus ,cheltonianus1 #afa4 ,ink1 #db4 ,interpolation1 #bch1 #bda n4 ,irenus1 #adg1 #agf1 #bjb ff4 ,irico1 #aaa4 ,irish hands in manuscripts1 #gg1 #aac1 #abi4 ,iscariot1 the variants1 #bdb4 ,ishodad1 #bhb4 ,islinger1 #gi4 ,itacism1 #bcf1 #bhg4 ,itala1 #aji4 1 spelling of the name1 #afb f4 ,jacob1 #fc4 ,jannon1 #g4 ,jaumann1 #be4 ,jebb1 #af4 ,jerome1 #ajg1 #abd1 #agc4 ,jerusalem ,syriac1 #ajb1 #ajf4 ,jostes1 #aci4 ,jovinian1 #aee4 ,julian the ,apostate1 #add1 #agd4 ,jlicher1 #aaf1 #aih4 ,junius1 #aj4 ,karkaphensian version1 #ajc4 ,karlsson1 #aaf4 ,kauffmann1 #aci1 #aha4 ,addenda4 ,kaulen1 #abc1 #acj1 #aca4 ,kenyon1 #cc1 #eh1 #ha4 ,kipling1 #fe4 ,knapp1 #ai4 ,koetschau1 #adi ff4 ,krall1 #ace4 ,kroll1 #aee4 ,kster1 #ae4 ,la ,croze1 #ff1 #acd1 #ada4 ,lachmann1 #ai1 #hc1 #abc4 ,lagarde1 ,paul de1 #cj1 #fj1 #ie1 #ajb1 #ajf1 #acg1 #adj1 #adc1 #bbc4 ,a4 de1 #ajf4 ,lake1 #ff1 #gc1 #ia4 ,land1 #ajc n4 ,langton1 #h4 ,laodica1 ,epistle to1 #gg1 #aad1 #abi1 #bjg1 #bii1 #cac4 ,latin versions1 #ajg ff4 ,laud1 ,archbishop1 #ge4 ,lead as writing material1 #dd4 ,lectionaries1 #ci1 #ia4 ,le ,jay1 #aa4 ,le ,long1 #ie4 ,leo ,x41 ,pope1 #b1 #c4 ,leusden1 #ajd4 ,lewis1 #ig1 #ajb1 #aje1 #ajf4 ,lewis ,syriac1 see ,sinai ,syriac4 ,linen as writing material1 #de4 ,lines in manuscripts1 #cg4 ,linke1 #aab4 ,linwood1 #afh n4 ,lippelt1 #afb f4 ,liturgical alterations1 #ia1 #bci1 #bfg4 ,loebe1 #aci4 ,london ,polyglot1 #ab4 ,louvain ,vulgate1 see ,henten4 ,lhlein1 #ajd4 ,lwe1 #adj4 ,lucas ,brugensis1 #abg1 #adf4 ,lucian1 #he1 #ach1 #ahj ff4 ,luft1 #aci1 #adj4 ,luther1 #e1 #adi n41 #bhf1 #cji4 ,mace1 #af4 ,maestricht1 ,gerhard von1 #af1 #bci4 ,mai1 ,cardinal1 #fj1 #aac1 #aci4 ,manuscripts1 age and locality1 #ce4 contents1 #ch1 #eb f4 de luxe1 #di4 material1 #cf1 #dj ff4 number1 #cc1 #ha1 #hi1 #ij1 #ib4 size1 #ch4 ,marcion1 #hg1 #bje1 #bjf ff4 ,marcosians1 #bjb4 ,margoliouth1 #ajf4 ,marshall1 #acc4 ,martin1 ,abb1 #afj4 ,martyrs1 era of1 #acf4 ,masch1 #ie4 ,maspero1 #ace4 ,masudi1 #afb4 ,materials for writing1 #dj ff4 ,matthaei1 #ai4 1 spelling of the name1 #bdg4 ,mazarin ,bible1 #abf4 ,melanchthon1 #hf1 #adj1 #aei4 1 #cf1 #da4 ,memphitic dialect1 #acc4 ,mercator1 #ach4 ,merx1 #aje1 #ajf4 ,mesrob1 #ada4 ,michaelis1 #ajd4 ,middle ,egyptian versions1 #acc1 #ace4 ,mill1 #ae4 ,miller1 #f1 #aeb1 #aei4 ,mingarelli1 #ace4 ,minuscules1 #cd1 #hb1 #hc ff4 ,moldenhauer1 #ai4 ,montfortianus1 #d1 #hf4 ,morillon1 #ach4 ,morin1 #aa4 ,morrish1 #agj4 ,mller1 #aci4 ,mnter1 #ace4 abbreviated at the end of a word1 #cae1 #ccj4 ,name of ,dives1 #cdb4 ,names1 importance of proper1 #bda4 of the two thieves1 #bff4 of prophets confused1 #bea1 #beh4 ,negative liable to be omitted1 see 4 ,nestle1 #c1 #ag1 #bc1 #bf1 #dh1 #fe1 #acb4 ,noetus1 #bjc4 ,northumbrian manuscripts1 #abe1 #agf4 ,novatian1 #aee4 ,number of words in the ,n4,t41 #dh4 of manuscripts4 ,see ,manuscripts4 of ,greek editions printed1 #e4 of letters in the ,n4,t41 #dh4 ,obelus1 #aja1 #ahf4 ,oikonomos1 #di n41 #ahi4 ,old ,latin version and manuscripts1 #aaj ff4 ,order of the ,gospels1 #afa f4 of the ,catholic ,epistles1 #cba4 of the ,pauline ,epistles1 #cjj f4 ,order of words1 variation in the1 #bcg4 ,origen1 #adg1 #adi ff41 #ahe ff4 ,orthodox correctors1 #aib4 ,osgan1 #ada4 1 omission and insertion of1 #caj ff4 ,oxyrhynchus papyri1 #gd1 #hj4 ,palography1 #cb f41 #ha f41 #aha1 #ahd4 ,palestinian ,syriac1 #ajb4 ,palimpsest1 #cg1 #ea1 #fc4 ,pamphilus1 #eg1 #gh1 #ahe ff4 1 #ci1 #ec4 ,paper1 #cf1 #dd4 ,papyrus1 #cf1 #db4 ,parchment1 #cf1 #dj4 ,paris ,polyglot1 #aa4 ,correctoria1 #abf4 ,patricius1 #be4 ,paul's 8,books10 #de4 ,paul of ,tella1 #ajb4 ,pens1 #de4 ,pericop1 #ci1 #ia1 #bci1 #bfg1 #bgg4 ,pericope adulter1 #fh1 #hd1 #aab1 #adb1 #agg1 #bhb ff4 ,peshitto version1 #ie1 #ajc f4 ,philoxenian ,syriac1 #ajj4 ,pickering1 #g4 ,pierius1 #ahg4 ,pius ,v41 ,pope1 #abg4 ,plantin1 #aj f4 ,pococke1 #ajj4 ,polycarp the ,chorepiscopus1 #ajj4 ,polyglots1 #a1 #aj ff4 ,pott1 his view of ,acts1 #bid4 ,praetorius1 #adj4 ,praxapostolos1 #dj1 #ib4 ,preuschen1 #afa1 n4 #a4 ,printing of the ,n4,t41 earliest1 #a1 #c4 ,primasius1 #aai1 #adh4 ,priscillian1 #aai4 and 1 #bcg n4 ,prologues in ,latin ,gospels1 #aae f4 ,proper names1 see ,names4 ,provenal ,new ,testament1 #aag4 ,psalters1 #c1 #fh4 ,pseudepigrapha1 #bf4 ,punctuation in manuscripts1 #ch1 #eb4 importance of1 #eb1 #bja1 #bjd1 #bfa1 #bgf1 #big4 ,quaternio1 #da4 ,quotations1 #cb1 #add ff4 ,quotation1 marks of1 #ch4 ,rabbulas of ,edessa1 #ih1 #ajd4 ,rahlfs1 #ce n41 #fb1 #ahc ff4 ,ranke1 #aac1 #abi4 ,ravianus1 #hf4 ,reading and writing1 ,greek terms for1 #df4 ,reed pen1 #de4 ,rehdiger1 #aad4 ,reithmayer1 #be4 ,resch1 #bf1 #bhj4 ,resultant ,greek ,testament1 #bb4 ,reuss1 #f1 #aa1 #aei4 ,richelieu1 #aa4 ,ridley1 #ajj4 ,riegler1 #acj4 ,rieu1 #ada4 ,riggenbach1 #aij4 ,robinson1 #gi1 #ajf4 ,rocchi1 #fj4 ,roll1 #cf1 #da1 #dc4 ,rnsch1 #aah1 #abc1 #aca1 #adf4 ,rooses1 #aa4 ,rossini1 #adj4 ,regg1 #bca4 ,addenda4 ,rules of textual criticism1 #bcd ff4 ,saalfeld1 #aca4 ,sabatier1 #aaa1 #aca4 ,sachau1 #bhb4 ,sahak1 #ada1 ,sahidic version1 #acd4 ,salmon1 #afj1 #agj1 #bbg4 ,saubert1 #ad4 ,schaaf1 #ajd4 ,schaff1 #f4 ,schjtt1 #bd1 #afe4 ,schmidt1 #acg4 ,schmiedel1 #ef n41 #aag4 ,scholz1 #ai4 ,schultze1 #da n41 #ea4 ,schulz1 #fe4 ,schwartze1 #acd4 ,scriptio continua1 #cg1 #dg1 #cae1 #ccj4 ,script1 various kinds of1 #cd f41 #ha ff4 ,scrivener1 #f1 #h1 #cc1 #eh1 #fe1 #gg1 #hc4 ,sections1 #ef1 #fa n4 ,seidel1 #ff4 ,semler1 #ah4 ,sergio1 #fj4 ,simon of ,cyrene1 #bjc4 ,simon ,magus1 #bje1 #cbd n4 ,simon1 ,richard1 #ae1 #ie4 ,sinai ,syriac1 #ig1 #aje4 ,sionita1 #aa4 ,sitterly1 #cc4 ,sixtus ,v41 ,pope1 #abg4 ,skeat1 #adj4 ,speculum ,augustini1 #aad4 ,steindorff1 #acd4 ,stephen1 ,henry1 #g4 ,robert1 #g1 #abf4 ,stichometry1 #cg1 #dh1 #di4 ,stilus1 #de4 ,strein1 #ach4 ,stunica1 #a4 ,stuttgart ,new ,testament1 #bc4 ,subjective criticism1 #aeg4 ,subscriptions1 #eg1 #fi1 #gb1 #gh1 #abb1 #ahh1 #ahi1 #bfj1 etc4 ,sulke1 see ,euthalius4 ,swete1 #bf4 ,syllables1 division of1 #dh4 ,synodos1 #adj4 ,synonyms1 interchange of1 #bcf4 ,syriac versions1 #ie ff4 ,syro-,latin1 #baf1 #bah1 #bbc4 1 #da1 #ed f4 ,tatian1 #ig1 #aje1 #bab ff4 his ,diatessaron1 #ih1 #aje1 #bab ff4 ,tattam1 #acd4 1 #ej4 ,taylor1 ,isaac1 #agb n4 ,tertullian1 #bi1 #aai1 #adf1 #adg1 #bgf4 1 #ec4 ,textual criticism1 literature of1 #f1 #aei4 ,textus brevior1 #bde4 ,textus receptus1 #ac4 ,thaddaeus1 #if4 ,thebaic dialect1 #acc4 ,theile1 #ai4 ,theodore of ,tarsus1 #ge4 ,theodoret1 #ih1 #bac4 ,theodotus1 #bjj f4 ,theodulf1 #abe4 ,thomas of ,heraclea1 #ajj4 ,thompson1 ,e4 ,m41 #cc1 #ei4 ,timothy and ,aquila1 ,dialogue of1 #ii n4 ,tischendorf1 #ai1 #bf1 #ec1 #eh1 #fc4 ,title of the ,gospels1 #afd1 #bdg4 ,tittmann1 #ai4 ,toinard1 #ae4 ,trabaud1 #fe4 ,transcriptional errors1 #bcd ff4 ,transposition of letters and words1 #bcf f4 ,traube1 #agc4 ,tregelles1 #f1 #bj1 #hc1 #ada1 #aei4 ,tremellius1 #aj4 ,trent1 ,council of1 #abg4 ,tuki1 #ace1 #acg4 ,ubaldi1 #fj4 ,ulfilas1 #acg4 ,uncial script1 #cd1 #ha f4 ,uncial manuscripts1 #ec ff4 number of1 #ha4 ,valder1 #g4 ,valentinians1 #aih1 #bjc4 ,valla1 ,laurentius1 #abf4 ,vercellone1 #fj ff41 #abc4 ,verse division1 #h4 ,versions3 ,syriac1 #ie4 ,latin1 #ajg4 ,egyptian1 #acb4 ,gothic1 #acg4 ,ethiopic1 #adj4 ,armenian1 #ada4 ,georgian1 #adb4 ,arabic1 #adb4 other1 #adc4 ,victor of ,capua1 #abb1 #cjh4 ,vincent1 #afj4 ,vogt1 #aci4 ,vollert1 #cd n41 #ce4 ,voss1 #ach4 ,vulgate1 #be1 #aji1 #abb ff41 #abg1 #acb4 ,walton1 #ab4 ,warfield1 #aei4 ,weiss1 #bb1 #bbi4 ,wells1 #af4 ,westcott and ,hort1 their ,n4,t41 #ba4 their types of text1 #ba4 their method1 #aga4 ,western text1 #baa1 #bad1 #bba4 ,wettstein1 #ah4 ,weymouth1 #bb4 ,white1 ,h4 ,j41 #aca4 ,white1 ,joseph1 #ajj4 ,widmanstadt1 #ie4 ,wilcken1 #cc1 #dc4 ,wilkins1 #acc4 ,william of ,hirsau1 #abf4 ,wobbermin1 #ij4 ,woide1 #acd4 ,wolf1 ,j4 ,chr41 #ff f4 ,wlfflin1 #aah1 #agc4 ,wordsworth and ,white1 #abc1 #aca1 #agd1 #agf4 ,wright1 ,arthur1 #bf4 ,writing1 styles of1 #cd f41 #ha ff4 ,greek terms for1 #df4 ,xenaia1 see ,philoxenian-,syriac4 ,ximenes1 #a4 ,years1 reckoning of1 #fi n41 #ajj n41 #ada n4 ,zahn1 #afj1 #aif n4 #b1 #bjh ff41 #bah1 #bbd4 ,ziegler1 #aah1 #abc1 #acj4 ,zimmer1 #gg1 #aah4 ,zoega1 #ace4 ,zohrab1 #ada4 ,zwingli1 #hf4 ,zycha1 #acj4 ,,index ,,ii4 ,passages of the ,new ,testament referred to4 ,,note4--,passages treated in the ,critical ,notes are not entered here4 ,matthew4 i4 #b1444444afe i4 #c1444444afe i4 #aa1444444aff i4 #af1444444ii i4 #be1444444aff iii4 #ae1444444aff v4 #c1 #d1444444aff v4 #aj1444444bjd v4 #bb1444444afg vi4 #h1444444aib viii4 #i1444444eb ix4 #ah1444444cg x4 #cc1444444aej xiii4 #ag1444444bjc xvi4 #bc1444444cg xviii4 #bj1444444adc xix4 #ag1444444bci xx4 #bh f41444444#baf ,mark4 i4 #aa1444444eb viii4 #ch1444444aej ix4 #g1444444eb x4 #dj1444444cg xiii4 #bb1444444bci xvi4 #h1444444fg1 #adb ,luke4 i4 #ce1444444bja i4 #df-ee1444444c i4 #fh-gi1444444c ii4 #g1444444aff iii4 #bg1444444bdb vi4 #d f41444444#fd ix4 #bf1444444aej xi4 #b1444444fd1 #hg xiii4 #g1 #h1444444aic xvi4 #ab1444444baa xvi4 #ai1444444cdb xvii4 #aj1444444bcg xx4 #cj1444444bda xxi4 #cj1444444baa xxii4 #eb1444444bbf xxiii4 #ec1444444fd1 #acf xxiv4 #d1 #e1 #aa1 #ac1444444abj xxiv4 #bf1444444baa xxiv4 #ea-ec1444444bcj1 #bde ,john4 i4 #ad1444444bja i4 #bh1444444bjc ii4 #bj1444444bjc iii4 #f1444444bje v4 #h1444444aih vi4 #dg1444444bde vi4 #ga1444444bdb vii4 #ci1444444bde vii4 #ec1444444adb1 #agg xvi4 #ac1444444abd xix4 #ad1444444cj xix4 #cd1444444bbg ,acts4 i4 #e1444444acf iii4 #ad1444444agj iv4 #f1444444bdc iv4 #ab1444444bcg vi4 #h1444444bde xii4 #aj1444444fd xv4 #ae1444444agj xv4 #bj1 #bi1444444acf1 #bjf1 #bcb xvi4 #aj1444444acf xviii4 #bd1444444bdb xix4 #a1444444bdb xxi4 #be1444444bcb xxiii4 #be f41444444#i xxiv4 #ai f41444444#i ,romans4 v4 #ad1444444bje xv4 #ca-cc1444444agi #a ,corinthians4 ii4 #i1444444adh x4 #i1444444aeb xii4 #bh1444444cg xv4 #bi1444444bjd #b ,corinthians4 x4 #ae1444444afh n4 ,galatians4 ii4 #aa1444444cg iii4 #a1444444ahf iv4 #c1444444gg ,colossians4 i4 #af1444444bjd ii4 #af1444444afi ii4 #ah1444444afh #a ,thessalonians4 ii4 #ae1444444baa #a ,timothy4 ii4 #e1444444eb iii4 #af1444444cg #b ,timothy4 ii4 #ag1444444gg iv4 #ac1444444cf ,hebrews4 i4 #i1444444eb ,james4 iii4 #a1444444afh v4 #g1444444bde #b ,peter4 i4 #d1444444bdj ii4 #ae1444444bdc #a ,john4 iv4 #c1444444aeb v4 #g1444444d1 #hf #b ,john4 #ab1444444cf #c ,john4 #ac1444444cf ,apocalypse4 v4 #a1444444dc n4 viii4 #ac1444444aja xvii4 #d1444444d n4 xvii4 #h1444444d n4 xviii4 #ag1444444afh xxii4 #ba1444444aeg 4 ,,printed ,,by ,,neill ,,and ,,co41 ,,ltd41 ,,edinburgh4 ,plates ,plate ,i4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,i43 7#a7 ,codex ,sinaiticus4 7#b7 ,a4 ,codex ,alexandrinus4 ,plate ,,ii4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,ii3 7#a7 ,d4 ,codex ,bezae ,cantabrigiensis4 7#b7 ,d4 ,codex ,claromontanus4 ,plate ,,iii4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,iii3 d4 ,codex ,bezae ,cantabrigiensis4 7#b7 d4 ,codex ,claromontanus4 ,plate ,,iv4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,iv3 ,b4 ,codex ,vaticanus4 ,plate ,v4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,v3 ,siniatic ,syriac ,palimpsest4 ,plate ,,vi4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,vi3 am4 ,codex ,amiantinus1 circa #gjj ,a4,d4 ,plate ,,vii4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,vii3 8,bible of ,grandval01 of the ninth century4 ,plate ,,viii4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,viii3 ,sahidic ,manuscript1 probably of the fifth century1 in the ,british ,museum4 ,plate ,,ix4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,,ix3 ,armenian ,manuscript of ,etschmiadzin1 ,a4,d4 #ihf4 ,plate ,x4 ,illustration3 ,,plate ,x3 ,minuscule ,evv4 #bgd 7,par4 ,nat4 ,suppl4 ,gr4 #gi7 of the tenth century4 ,transcriber's ,notes3 ,text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores 7italics74 ,text in bold print is enclosed by equal signs 7bold74 ,footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are referenced4