This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual personal, non-commercial purposes.
and we request that you use these files for
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web a[nttp: //books . google. con/]
101. h 2.18.
"ha ἐν Oe Oe OF MPEP LT re ne
vet duo e Ne arr srl ineec
ΣΥΝ
4. "95
H ἢ rhe TT te fap: vaio e exces ^
4
un
dd:
velim AX
ἐν * ΨΥ κα ert grewes LI
ΠΡ € ud :
i
va
emm xXTYT
Ip]
etude Μι τάδε τ tun NU 4 eum er A 3 H * ow ἦν ri vrs Yr* i Aat ohh ut . ‘Ht & cae © ee Se Se NEU 1 . TOC : . A] iM; - εἴ . *A - ‘se "T" Mi « «ἢ * |I τῳ τα κ' Η Wa , Mn" d $47 . "rs . *. , lad >i X! Uu Sow CUN SMNU . a b, (tet . .
KS
AN EXACT TRANSCRIPT OF THE
CODEX AUGIENSIS,
A GRCO-LATIN MANUSCRIPT OF 8. PAUL'8 EPISTLES, DEPOSITED IN THE LIBRARY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
"
TO WHICH IS ADDED
A FULL COLLATION OF FIFTY MANUSCRIPTS
CONTAINING VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIBRARIES OF CAMBRIDGE, PARHAM, LEICESTER, OXFORD, LAMBETH,
THE BRITISH MUSEUM, &c.
WITH A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
BY THE
REV. FREDERICK HENRY SCRIVENER, M.A.
LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, PERPETUAL CURATE OF PENWERRIS, FALMOUTH.
“QUOD POTUI."
CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.
1859.
701. A. Ly
Cambridge: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.
My Lon»,
Many years have now passed since, encouraged by the counte- nance of that truly learned and revered Prelate, Archbishop Howley, I undertook the bold design of collating, all the Manuscripts of the Greek Testament deposited in England. I wish not to complain of the hindrances that have checked my progress in this labour of love: it is enough for me to know that the state of life God’s Providence has assigned to me has been found by men wiser and better than myself not incompatible with usefulness, with self-respect, and genuine peace of mind; nor ought I to wonder if a work so extensive, to which I have been able to devote mere fragments of my time, should prove itself a fragment. Such as it is, I most respectfully commend it to the judgment of your Lordship, so long my Diocesan; and through you to candid and im- partial scholars. Whatever be cbe. defects of my Volume, I have striven hard to be accurate ; aware that, in ‘these sacred : :Studies, all that is not accurate is much worse than useless. For the: dus. J sm in the hands of One who vouch- safes to accept the meanest service we chm offer in the cause of His word and truth, according to what we have, not according to what we have not.
Earnestly thanking your Lordship for the moat kind interest you have been pleased to take in my Biblical researches,
I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your dutiful and obliged servant,
F. H. SCRIVENER. FaLMOUTB, December 1858.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
THE Roya. LiBRARY, WiNDSOR CASTLE
His Rovan Hicuyess THe Prince Consort, K.G.
His ΟΥΑΙ, Hicuness Prince ALFRED.
His ΟΥΑΙ, Hicungess Tur Duke or ΟἌΜΒΒΙΡΟΕ, K.G.
THe Master AND FELLows or Trintty CoLLece, CAMBRIDGE, £100.
His Grace the Lord Archbishop of York. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Armagh. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin. His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, K.G. His Grace the Duke of Marlborough.
His Grace the Duke of Rutland...
His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, K.G. His Grace the Duke of Sutherland, K.G. The Most Noble the Marquis of Lansdowne,
K. e The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Derby, K.G. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Shaftesbury. The Rt. Hon. the Ear] Spencer. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Lanesborough. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Powis. The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Gosford, K.P. The Rt. Hon. the Ear] of Harrowby, K.G. ‘lhe Rt. Hon. the Earl of St Germans, K.C.B. The Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount Falmouth. The Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston, K*G. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst. The Rt. Hoag. Lord Brougham. The Rt. Hon. Lord Cranworth. The Rt. Hon. Lord Wensleydale.
The late Rt. Hon. and Rt. Rev. Bishop Blomfield, (two copies). The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Durham.
The Rt. Rev. Bishop Maltby.
The Re. Rev.the Lerd Bishop of Winchester. The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bangor. The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, (ten
copies).
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of St David's.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
The" Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of St Asaph.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The late Rt. Rev. J. Kaye, Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The late Hon. and Rt. Rev. H. Percy, Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
The late Rt. Rev. J. H. Monk, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
The Rt. Hon. and Most Rev. the Lord Bishop of Meath.
The late Rt. Hon. and Most Rev. E. Stopford, Lord Bishop of Meath.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ossory and
Ferns.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Cashel and Waterford.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.
The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe. The Re. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Calcutta.
A.
Aberdeen, the University of King’s College.
Acland, Rev. P. D. L., M.A., Prebendary of Catton, Vicar of Broad Clyst. __
Aidan’s St, Theological College, Birkenhead.
Ainslie, Rev. G., D.D., Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Alexander, Andrew, LL.D., Professor of Greek in the University of St Andrews.
Alford, the Very Rev. H., B.D., Dean of Canterbury. .
Andrews, St, University of.
Anglo-Biblical Institute, 22, Hart St., Blooms-
ury. Asher, Messrs, Booksellers, Berlin, (two copies). Atkinson, Rev: E., B. D., Master of Clare Col- e, Cam ridge. Atlas ; Rev. J., B.D., Fellow and Tutor of St
John's Coll Cambridge.
Aubyn, St, John, Esq., M.P., St Michael's Mount.
Aubyn, St, Rev. H. Molesworth, Clowance
ark. Austen, Rev. J. T., Rector of West Wickham, Kent.
B.
B. B. E. L.
Babington, Rev. Churchill, M.A., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge.
Balliol College, Oxford.
Barclay, Miss Elizabeth, Grove Hill,Falmouth.
Baring, T. G., . M.P., (two copies).
Barnes, Rev. R. W., M.A., Prebendery of Exeter, Vicar of Probus.
Barrow, Rev. J., D.D., Principal of St Ed- mund Hall, Oxford.
Barter, W. G. T., ., Barrister at law.
Bates, Rev. J., M.A., Fellow of Caius College,
Cambridge, .
Bees', St, Theological College.
Bell, Miss Elizabeth, Langham Place, London.
Benson, Rev. E. W., M.A., Assistant Master of Rugby School.
Bevan, Charles Dacres Esq., Judge of the County Court, Cornwall.
Bickersteth, the Venerable E., Archdeacon of Buckingham.
Bishop, Rev. D. G., Master of Buntingford
School.
Blackburne, the Rt. Hon. F., Lord Justice, Ireland.
Blakesley, Rev. J. W., M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Vicar of Ware.
LI
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Bloomfield, Rev. S. T.,D.D., Honorary Canon of Peterborough, Vicar οὐ Bisbrook. ase, Rev. C. W., M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.
Boileau, Sir J. P., Bart., 20, Upper Brook St., London. .
Bosan uel J. ΝΥ. Esq., Claysmore, Enfield.
Botfield, Beriah, Esq., M.P., F.R.S., Norton Hall, Daventry.
Boyd, Rev. H. M.A., Curate of Probus.
Bradby, Rev. E. H., M.A., Assistant Master of Harrow School.
Bradley, Rev. G. G., M.A., Head Master of Marlborough College.
Brady, the Rt. Hon. M., Vice-Chancellor of the Queen’s University, Ireland.
Brasenose College, Ox ford.
Brewer, Rev. J. S., M.A., Professorof English Literature, King's College, Londen.
Bromhead, Rev. A. L., M.A., Rector of Win- wick, Rugby.
Brougham, Rev. M. N.,B.A. Curateof Germoe.
Browne, Rev. E. H., B.D., Canon of Exeter, Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.
Buller, Rev. R., M.A., Rector of Laureath,
Liskeard.
Bullocke, Rev. H., M.A., Vicar of Mullion, Helston.
Bunsen, de, Rev. H. G., M.A., Vicar of Lilles-
, Salop.
Burgess, Rev. H., LL.D., F.S.A., Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature and of the Clerical Journal.
Burney, the Venerable C. P., D.D., Arch- deacon of Colchester.
Butcher, Rev. S., D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Dublin.
Butler, the Very Rev. R., Dean of Clonmac- noise.
C.
Canterbury, the Dean and Chapter of. Cardwell, Rev. E., D. D., Principal of St Al- ban Hall, and Camden Professor of History, xford.
Caswall, Rev. H., M.A., Vicar of Figheldean,
Amesbury.
Chaffers, Rev. T., M.A., Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.
Challis, Rev. J., M.A., Plumian Professor of Astronomy, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Champneys, Rev. W. W., M.A., Canon of St Paul's.
Chester, the Dean and Chapter of.
ChristC hurch,Oxford,the Dean and Chapterof.
Christ's College, Cambridge.
Clark, Rev. W. G., M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Public Orator in the University of Cambridge.
Coleridge, the Rt. Hon. Sir J. Taylor.
Coleridge, J. Duke Esq., Barrister at Law.
Collis, Rev. J. D., M.A., Honorary Canon of Worcester, Head Master of Bromsgrove School.
Compton, the Rev. Lord Alwyne, Rector of Castle Ashby.
Conington, J., M.A., Professor of Latin Lite- rature in the University of Oxford.
Conquest, J. T. Esq., M.D., the Oaks, Plum- stead Common.
Coope, Rev. W. J., M.A., Rector of Falmouth.
Cooper, Rev, J., M.A., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, (wo copies).
Cope, the Rev. Sir W. H., Bart.
Coplestone, Rev. W. J., M.A., Rector of Crom- hall, late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.
Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Corrie, Rev, G. E., D.D., Master of Jesus
College, Cambridge. th ble H., D.C.L., Archdeacon
Cotton,the Venera of Cashel.
Cox, George Esq., 15, Southwick Crescent, Hyde Park. .
Crampton, the Rt. Hon. Mr Justice, Queen's Bench, Ireland.
Creewell, the Rt. Hon. Sir W. Creswell, Judge
rdinary. Croft, Rev. J. H., M.A., Rector of Timbers- combe, Dunster. Cuddesdon Theological College. . Cureton, Rev. W.,D.D.,Canon of Westminster. Curzon, the Hon. Robert, Jun., Parham Park, ussex.
D.
Dale, Rev. T., M.A., Canon of 8t Paul's. David's, St, College, Lampeter, (gift of the Earl of Powis). . Day, Rev. J. J., M.A., Incumbent Reader in
verley Minster. 2L Denman, the Hon. G., M.A., University Counsel, Cambridge. . Dickinson, F. H. Esq., M. A., Kingweston. Dickson, Rev. B., A.M., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin. . . Dixon, Bev. RA D.D., Principal of King Wil- liam's College, Isle of Man.
Dobbin, Rev. T. O., LL. D., Incumbent of Ballivor, Meath.
Drummond, Henry, Esq., M.P., Albury Park, Guildford.
Durham, the Dean and Chapter of.
E.
Edinburgh, the University of. .
Edinburgh, the Theological Lieary in the University of.
Edleston, Rev. J., M.A., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Edmonds, Richard, Esq., Solicitor, Penzance.
Egan, Rev. Michael, M.A., Rector of Bally-
comber. . Ellis, Rev. A. A., M.A., Fellow and Junior Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge. Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Enys, J. S., Esq., of Enys, ( four copies). Evans, the Venerable R. W., Archdeacon of Westmoreland. Exeter, the Dean and Chapter of. Exeter College, Oxford.
F.
Fairhead, Rev. F. J., M.A., Head Master of Guildford School. . Farrar, Rev. F.W., M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College Cambridge, Assistant Master of Harrow School. Field, Rev. F., M.A., Rector of Reepham, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Ford, Rev. J., M.A., Prebendary of Exeter. Forster, Rev. C., B.D., Rector of Stisted,
Essex. Fowler, R. N., Esq., Tottenham.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Fox, Mrs Barclay, Roscrow, Penryn.
F Fox, Charles, Esq. T rebah Constantine. Fox, R SENI ‘FR , Falmouth.
Free Church Ce lege, B ilusgon.
Freeman, John, EN
Freer, the Venerable R. 1, , Archdeacon of Hereford.
G. Garrett, Rev. J., M.A., Rector of Paul, Pen- Gibson, Rev. J., B.D., Vicar of Furneux and Brent Pelham, late Fellow and Tutor of Sidney Sussex Co , Cambridge.
Gifford, Rev. E. H., A., Head S Master of Birmingham hoo
Gladstone, the Rt. Hon. W. E., M.P.
Gonville and Caius Colle Cambr
Goodford, Rev. C. O., D.D., Head Master of Eton School.
Goodwin, Rev. J., B.D., Rector of Lamborne, Romford. Goulburn, Rev. E. M., D.D., Prebendary of
St Paul's.
Greatheed, Rev. S. e MA. late Fellow of Trinity y College, Cam bridge. or of Trinity
᾿ ui A., Head Master of ΡΣ -de- le. Zouch School, late Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambrid
Greswell, Rev. E., B.D., Vice-President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
c Colles, Cin Cambridge.
Griffin, W., Esq. Captain R.N., Hoe, Ply- mouth. Grote, George, Esq., D.C.L., F.R.S. Gus, Rev. H., M.A., Vicar of St Neot's, ornwal].
Gulson, 3 E., Esq., Poor Law Inspector, Teign- mou
Gurney, Samuel, Esq., M.P. Carshalton. Gwyn, Howell, Esq. Dyfiryn House, Neath.
H.
Hale, The Ven. W. H., Archdeacon of Lon- don, Canon of St Paul's.
Hall, Rev. W , M.A., Vicar of Tottenham.
Hamilton, The uy Rev. H. P., Dean of Salisbu bury.
Hannah, Rev. J., D.C.L., Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond.
Hardwick, Rev. C., die A ideo" of St Ca- tharine's College, C
Harington, Rev. E τσ ΡΣ ΠΟ and Ca- non Residentiary of Cy Che Cathedral.
Harris, Rev. B., M.A., Garrison Chaplain, Sheerness.
Harrison, The Ven. B., M.A., Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of Canterbury
Harrison, Rev. J. B.A., Chaplain of
H.M.S. Royal George.
» Rev. v. W., M. A. Rector of Buck- , late Fellow of King’ s College, Cam-
br
E Rev. E., D.D., Provost of Oriel College, Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Oxford.
Heath, Rev. D. L., M.A., Vicar of Brading, late Fellow of ‘Trinity College, Cambridge.
Henderson, Gilbert, Esq., Recorder of Liver-
pool. Herrick av Perry, Eq, Bear Manor Park,
Loughborou Hervey, the "a ΤΟΝ Lord Arthur, Rector of
Ickworth.
Rev. J. A., D.C.L., Head Master
"OP Hs of Merchant Taylors’ School, Preacher of ray’
Heu by, Rev. C. A., D.D., Canon of Christ
Church, Margaret Professor of Divinity,
ford, Hil. Rev. C. G., MA Henbury, Bristol. Hildyard, Rev. J., B. D., Rector of Ingolds- by, late Fellow of Christ’s College, Cam-
Hoots” Rev. Edward, D.D., Killyleagh. Hoare, The Venerable C. J., Archdescon of
Hobhouse, Rev. R., M.A., Rector of St Ive. Holme, Rev: R., M.A As , Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cam ridge. Hoole, Rev. Elyah, DD. neral Secretary jssions Β. D., Prebendary of St me Rector of M Nicholas Acons. » Vicar of St Ip-
bd e Horsford, M., Esq., Barrister at Law, almou Hough, Rev. George, M.A., Church House, Severnstoke. Howell, Francis, Esq., Ethy Park, Lostwithiel, (two copies). Howson, Rev. J. S., M.A., Principal of Liver-
pool Coll ate Institution. Hubbard, . Th, Donnington Priory, Newbury.
Humphry, Rev. W. G., B.D., Rector of St Martin's in the Fields, late Fellow of Tri- nity College, Cambridge.
Hussey, Rev. H., Cambridge.
I.
J., M.A., Head Master of the
Ingle, Re
ing’s ὃ School, Ely.
Irons, Rev. W. J., D.D., Incumbent of J.
Brompton.
Jackson, Rev. F. C., M.A., Rector of Ruan Minor and Grade, Helston.
Juckson, Rev. T., Wesleyan Theological Col- lege, Richmond
Jacobson, Rev. Ww. D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Divinity, Ox-
rd James, R Rev. T., M.A., Rector of Lillington,
Jelf, Rev. R. W., D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Principal of King's College, Lon-
Jeukyns, Rev. H., D.D., Canon of Durham, Professor of Divinity in the University of Durham.
Jeremie, Rev. J. A., D.D., Sub-Dean of
Lincoln, Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge
Jesso P, Rev. Augustus, M. A., Head Master
elston School.
Jesus College. Oxford.
John’s, St, College, Cambridge.
John’s, St, College, Oxford.
Jowett, Rev. B., M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Regius Professor of Greek,
xfo
K. Kennedy, Rev. B. H., D.D., Head Master of Shrewsbury School.
King’s College, Cambrid Knight- Bruce, "The Rt. Hon. the Lord Justice.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
L.
Landor, Walter Cavage, Esq., Bath. Lee, Rev. R., D.D., Dean of the Chapel yal, yal, Professor of Divinity i in the Univer- an ο
Edinbu Lee, Rev. aE ofeseor of Ecclesiastical History, Duda Universit
Lemon, Sir Charles, Bart., Carclew. Lichfield, The Dean and Chapter of. Lightfoot, Rev. J. B., M.A., Fellow of Tri- .Dity College, Cambrid D. htfoot, Rev. J. P,D Rector of Exeter llege, Oxfo Lincoln, The Desa and Chapter of. Lincoln Colle ee, O xford. Lloyd, Rev, Dra Senior Fellow of Trinity ublin. London Institution, Finsbury Circus. Longman, J. Ww Fea. [2^ Bristol. Longman, W Balham. Lowe, The Verg Rer. A H., Dean of Exeter. Luard, Rev. H. R » Fellow of Trinity Cambridge. . C., M. ren Prebendary of Exeter, L Vicar of ‘Tywardroath, Rec f Obo yon v. W. tor o rne and Castleton, herbe
"e
Macbride, J ; D.C.L., Principal of Magdalen inn Lord Almoner’s Professor of Arabic, Oxford.
McLean, Rev, W., Ashkirk, Hawick.
Abp. King’s
Divinity Lecurren T DD College, Dublin.
McNeile, Rev. Hugh, D.D., Honorary Canon
of o A hester Incumbent of St Paul’s, Liver-
Meedalen College, Oxford. Maitland, Rev. . R., D.D., Gloucester. Ma kn Rev. R. J., D.D., Head Master of Bing 8 College School , M.A, Vicar of Broad- Malas er
Mann, Rev. C. N., M.A., Rector of Mawgan in Meneage. Mansel, Rev. H. L., B.D., Tutor of St John's College, Reader in "Moral Philoso- phy, Oxford.
Rev. W. B., B.C.L., Assistant Mas-
ter ter of ton School.
Martin, Rev, F., Combi Senior Fellow of
rinity Co ᾽ bri
Martin, Rev. CM “Fe sncellor of the Diocese and Coon of "Exeter.
Maskew, Rev. T. R., M.A., Head Master of Dorchester School.
Mason, Rev. H. B., M.A., Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.
Mason, Rev. P. H., M.A., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge.
Mayor, J Esq., M.A., Fellow of St John's Co » Cambrid idge.
Mayor, Rev. yu M.A., Fellow of St John's College E By MA
Medland, Rev. T., B.D., icar of 8 ning.
Melvill, Rev. H., B. D., ‘Canon of St Paul's.
Milman, the Very Rev. H. H., D.D., Dean of St Paul's.
Mure, Colonel, of Caldwell.
Munro, Ἠ. » M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge.
N.
Napier, The Rt. Hon. Joseph, Lord High hancellor of Ireland. New College, Oxford.
Newport, Rev. H., M.A., Head Master of Exeter School. Norwich, The Dean and Chapter of.
Ο.
og Rev. C. A., D.D., Canon of Christ hurch, ch, Regius Professor of Pastoral Theo-
on Cot Collen ¢ Oxford.
Osborne Rey. N. À., M.A., Head Master of Rossall Sc hool, late Fellow of Trinity Col- lege, Canbrnge,
Ouseley, The Rev. Sir Frederick Gore, Bart.
Owen’s College, Manchester.
P. Palliser, rint Col. Wray, Waterford Militia,
(two Parker, Mz) J. H., Bookseller, Oxford, (two
copies ).
Pascoe, Rev. ἢ. C., M.A., Vice-Principal of ‘Lichteld Theological College, Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.
Patteson, The o Rt. Hon,.Sir John, Feniton
Peacock RIB a, Hest Bank, Lan eac o caster.
ears, Hev. S. , Head Master of Peeptom Soho ἮΝ
Peile, Rev. T. W.,D. D., Vicar of Luton, late Fellow of Trinit College, Cambridge.
Penny, Rev. C.,M.A., Rector of West Coker,
eovi
Penny, William Webb, Eaq., Sherborne.
Penrose, Rev. J., M.A. 9 Exmouth.
Perowne,Rev. J. J. S., B.D., DivinityLecturer in King's College, London, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambrid
Peter's, St, Co ese, C Cambridge.
Phillimore, R. J., Esq., D. GL L., ‘Chancellor of the Diocese of Oxford.
Phillips, Rev. G., B.D., President of Queens’ Col ege, Cambridge.
Phillippe, Sir Thomas, Bart., Middle Hill.
Philpott, Rev. H., D.D., Canon of Norwich, Master of St Catherine's Coll., Cambridge.
Plumptre, Rev. F. C., D.D., Master of Uni- versity College Oxford.
Pococke, Rev. N., M " H.M. Inspector of Schools, late Michel el Fellow of Queen's Col- lege, Oxford.
Pollock, The Rt. Hon. Sir F., Lord Chief
Posen Rev. R. C., M. A, late Fellow of Exe- ter College, Oxford. Presbyterian Theological College, Belfast.
R.
Reed, Thomas, Esq., Trevissome. Rickards, Rev. R. F. "B. ; M.A., Vicar of Con-
Ridou t Rev. J .D., M.A., Vicar of Bourne, fuae ellow of Christ'a College, Cambridge. n, Library of the Gramm orien the Venerable T., D.D., Canon of Rochester, Ma 3 of the Temple.
Roby, H M.A., Fellow of St John's Cres Ced Cambridge.
Rochester, ‘The n and Chapter of.
Rodd, Rev. H. T., M.A., Vicar of Gwinear.
Rogers, John Jo x Ῥω , of Penrose.
Rogers, Rev. S M.A., Vicar of Gwen-
na Rogers, Rev. W., M.A., Rector of Mawnan. Romilly, The Right Hon. Sir J., Master of
the Rolls.
Romilly, Rev. J., M.A., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Registrar of the University of Cambridge.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Rose, Rev. H. J., B.D., Rector of Houghton Conquest, late Fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge.
Royal Society of Literature. Rule, Charles, ., Falmouth. Russell, Rev. J., D.D., Canon of Canterbury.
S. T. P., Cantabrigiensis. Sawle, Ὁ. B. Graves, Esq., Restormel, Lost-
withiel.
Scott, Rev. C. B., M.A., Head Master of Westminster School, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Selwyn, Rev. W., B.D., Canon of Ely, Mar- garet Professor of Divinity, Cambridge.
Sharp, Rev. G., M.A., Perpetual Curate of Merther.
Sheepshanks, Rev. J., M.A., Rector of St John’s, Coventry.
Sherborne, Lib of the King’s School. Shirley, Rev. W. W., M.A., Tutor of Wad- ham College, Oxford.
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
Sion College Library, City of London. Smith, Augustus, Esq., M.P., Trescoe, Scilly. Smith, George, Esq., LLD., Trevu, Cam-
e. Smith, Rev. G. Sydney, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek in the Üniversity of Dublin. Spring Hill College, Birmingham. Squire, Lovell, Esq., Falmouth. Stead, Rev. S., M.A., Head Master of Probus ool. Stevens, The Ven. J. M., Archdeacon and Canon of Exeter. Stuart, Hon. Sir John, Vice-Chancellor. Sutton, Rev. R. S., M.A., Rector of Rype, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Swainson, Rev. C. A. .A., Principal of the Theological College, Chichester, late Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. Symonds, Rev. John, B.A., Incumbent of u. ᾿
T. Tayler, Rev. H. C. A., M.A., Fellow and utor of Trinity College, Cambridge. Temple, Rev. F., D.D., Head Master of Rugby School.
Thrupp, Rev. J. F., M.A., Vicar of Barring-
ton, late Fellow of Trinity College, Camb. Tischendorf, Constantine, Theol. Dr. et Prof.
Leipsig.
Todd, Rev. J. F., M.A., Vicar of Liskeard.
Todd, Rev. J. H., D.D., Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Regius Professor of Divi- pity in the University of Dublin.
Townsend, Rev. R., M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.
Tregelles, S. P., LL.D., Plymouth.
Tremayne, John, Esq., of Heligar.
Trench, The Very Rev. R. C., n of West- minster.
Trinder, Rev. Daniel, M.A., Incumbent of Teddington.
Tucker, Rev. Marwood, M.A., Knowle, Top- Tucker, Marwood, Esq., B.A., Exeter Col- Tweedy, Edward Bryant, 4 Falmouth. Tweedy, William Mansell, .» Alverton, Twycross, Rev. J., M.A., Upper Holloway.
V. Vaughan, Rev. C. J., D.D., Head Master of
Harrow School.
Vaughan, Rev. E. T., M.A., Hon. Canon of Peterborough, Vicar of St Martin's, Lei- cester.
Vautier, Rev. R., M.A., Vicar of Kenwyn and Kea.
Vaux, W. Sandys, W., Esq., F.S.A., British Museum.
Venn, Rev. J., M.A., Prebendary of Here-
ford.
W.
Waddington, Horatio, Esq., Under Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Wadham College, Oxford.
Walpole, Right Hon. 8. H., M.P., Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Wargrave, Rev. J. M., Henley on 'l'hames.
Waterfield, Rev. R., B.D., Hon. Canon of Peterborough, Rector of Thurcaston.
Waterford, The Dean and Chapter of.
Webber, Hev. F., B.A., Rector of St Michael Penkevil.
Wells Theological College.
Westcott, Rev. B. F., M.A., Assistant Master of Harrow School, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Westminster, Dean and Chapter of.
Whiston, Rev. R., M.A., Head Master of Rochester Cathedral School, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Wigram, L. T., Esq., M.P., Q. C.
Wilkinson, Sir J. Gardner, D.C.L., F.R.8.
Wilkinson, Rev. M., D.D., Vicar of West Lavington, late Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.
Wilkinson, Rev. N., Rector of Comragh, Le-
mybrien.
Wilkinson, Rev. W. F., MLA., Vicar of St Werburgh's, Derby.
Williams, Rev. David, D.C.L., Warden of New College, Oxford.
Williams, Rev. Rowland King's College, Cambridge, Vice-Principal
W^ood, The Hon. Sir W. Page, Vice-Chan- cellor.
Worcester College, Oxford.
Wordsworth, Rev. Ch., D.D., Canon of West- minster.
Wratislaw, Rev. A. H., M.A., Head Master of Bury St Edmund’s School, late Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.
Rose, Rev. H. J., B.D., Rector Gone vest | L Pe ataeeee enfin
Rape Soe Society of Literature. Cherie, ba Falmouth. Rumell, Rev. J., .., Canon of Canterbury.
S. T. P., Cantabrigiensis. Seis C. B. Graves, Esq, Restormel, Lost-
soot, ἢ Ἦν. Ο. Β., M.A., Head Master of | ena κὰν School, date Fellow of Trinity ambrit
Colle v. W., B.D,, Canon of Ely, Mar- aret r of Divinity, Cam! Sharp, Rev. G., M.A., Perpetual Curate of Merther.
Sheepshanks, Rev. J., M.A., Rector of St Jol 's, Coventry.
et the King School. Shirley, Rev. W. υἱοῦ of We
faster of
le, Rev. Fy Dubs’ Head Rugby Schoo
Rev. W. L., M.A,, City Road, i » Head Master of Uj
E. [s ΠΥ ate Felow of King’s Cambridge. .
. F., M.A., Vicar of Barring- Fellow of Trinity College, Camb. : hendorf, Constantine, Theol. Dr. et Prof.
. J. F., M. icar of Liskeard.
‘Rey, J. Ἧς, Senior Fellow of
inity College, Regius Professor of Divi- the University of Dublin.
nd Rev. Ry MA, Fellow of Trinity
se Bog of Helge m, CASES ae of West-
Tw
Tweedy, William Mansell, ‘Truro.
Twycross, Rev. J., M.A., Upper Holloway.
Tucker, Rev. Marwood, M.A., Knowle, Top- sham. Tucker, Marwood, Esq., B.A., Exeter Col-
Oxford. ly, Edward Bryant, Esq., Falmouth.
.» Alverton,
Vaughan, Re. C3. D.D., Head Master of vestes or: X T., M.A., Hon. Canon of
Peterborough, Vicar of St Martin’s, Lei- Vautier, Rev, R., M.A., Vicar of Kenwyn de. ' T
an Vaur, W. Sandys, W., Esq, Ἐ.8.Α., British
luseum.
ve s] Rev. J., M.A., Prebendary of Here- ford.
Ww.
Jaripqton, lae Fillon οἵ Clare College, M 72 N., Rector of Comragh, Le-
ye w. ;P M.A., Vicar of St "s, Derby
ew College, Ox Williams, Rev. G., B.D., Fellow of King’s ridge. iams, John, Esq., liam, Rev. Rowland, D. Fellow of Ἢ Ἴδε
of St Davide Collogo empor nt Wilton, Rev. Robert D. D., Brel of Biblical
Criticism, APR, lege, Belfast. Wibon, e Rev. Rt Chaplain of the Royal Dock was tev, Se M.A., Fellow of 8: John’s
Carabrid
Colle cod. Tie Hon. Si W. Page, Vice-Chan-
Ms Worcester College, Oxford. Wordsworth, Rev. Ch., D.D., Canon of West-
minster. Wratislaw, Rev. A. H., M.A., Head Master ‘of Bury Bt Edmund's’ School, late Fellow of
Christ's College, Cambri
CONTENTS.
PAGE IntropucTion. CHapTer I. On the Principles of Comparative Criticism .
Cuaprer II. Description of certain Manuscripts
collated by F. H. Scrivener . . . . . . . xxii Copex AvarkNsis Graco-Latinus EPISTOLARUM PAULINARUM . . 1 ANNOTATIONES EnDITOBMIS . . . . . . . . . © © © © s. s 273
APPENDIX: in quo exhibetur collatio plena et accurata plus quam quadraginta codicum, diversas Novi Testamenti partes complectentium, ad editionem Elzevirianam 1624 fideliter elabrata . 2. 2. .. 2 6 .. . ew ew we oe ee) 28b
ILLUSTRATIONS.
1. To face the title-page. A photograph of one page of the Codex Augiensis (a little reduced in size), executed by the Rev. R. F. B. Rickards, and containing
\ Tim. iii. 14—iv. b. The reader will find its effect materially improved by the use ofa magnifying glass.
2. To face p. xl. (1) A lithographed facsimile of the portion of the Codex Leicestrensis which contains 1 Tim. iii 10—16. The peculiar form of the epsilon (see p. xL) is very observable in this specimen. For many kind offices in connection with this MS. I am indebted to the Rev. E. T. Vaughan, Vicar of St Martin's, Leicester.
3. To face p. lii. Lithographed facsimiles of (2) an extract from the Evangelis- larium belonging to Christ's College, Cambridge (F. 1. 8), containing Matt. xxv. 10—13 : tad of (3) one entire page of the MS. of the Epistles belonging to Emmanuel Gilege (I. 4. 35), containing Rom. v. 21—vi. 11.
The three lithographs are of the exact size of the originals.
INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
THE term “Comparative Criticism" has been happily applied to that delicate and important process of investigation whereby we seek to trace the relative value and mutual connexion of the authorities upon which the Greek Text of the New Testament is based, whether they be manuscripts of the original, early versions, or citations by the Christian Fathers. Our accurate acquaintance with these authorities is very limited, much that we know about them being due to the exertions of scholars yet living: but we are sufficiently aware of the extent of the subject}, and the ininute and perplexing inquiries which beset the Biblical student at every step, not to seize with hearty welcome any clue that may pro- mise to guide us through a labyrinth thus dark and doubtful. To this natural feeling, far more than to any external evidence or internal probability of the theories themselves, I would ascribe the favour extended to the schemes of recension promulgated by Griesbach and his imitators in the last generation. Men wished such compendious methods of settling the sacred text to be true, and as demonstrated truths they accordingly accepted them. These systems, bold, ingenious, imposing, but utterly groundless, I have elsewhere discussed at length (Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. Chap. 1.); it were needless to revert to them, for I believe that no one at the present day seriously entertains any one of them. |
As Griesbach's scheme and its subsequent modifications were gradually aban- doned by critics, a more simple, but (I am persuaded) ἃ no less mistaken theory grew up in its place, which, under the seemly profession of recurring to ancient authorities alone for the remodelling of the text, deliberately refuses so much as to hearken to the testimony of the vast majority of documents that freely offer themselves to the researches of patient industry. This certainly appears a short and easy road to Scriptural science, but, like some other short routes, it may
! I can hardly estimate the number of copies | twentieths of which are for critical purposes as containing the Gospels alone (including Evangelis- | good as uncollated. taria) to be much under a thousand, nineteen-
il INTRODUCTION.
prove the longest in the end: yet it is recommended to us by names I cannot mention without deference and respect. The countenance which Dr Davidson lends to this principle is neither unreserved, nor supported by arguments he can well deem conclusive. Tischendorf practically adopted it in his earlier works, but even then made concessions amounting to nearly all a discreet adversary would be disposed to claim: in Dr Tregelles, however, it finds an advocate learned, able, uncompromising’. In my endeavour to refute what I conceive to be erroneous in his views on this subject, I trust I shall not be betrayed into one expression that may give him pain. I honour the devotion and singleness of purpose he has brought to bear on these divine pursuits; I am sure that his edition of the New Testament by reason of the large accession tt will make to our existing store of critical materials, and of its great accuracy so far as it has yet been tested, will possess, when completed?, what he modestly hopes for it, “ dis- tinctive value to the Biblical student :” 1 am not the less earnest in hailing the fruits of his long and persevering toil, because I fear that, as a clergyman of the English Church, I differ from him on matters of even more consideration than systems of Comparative Criticism.
I. For Dr Davidson a short notice will suffice. In his chapter (an excellent one on the whole) entitled “General Observations on MSS.” he tells us that * The first thing is to collate the oldest thoroughly and accurately, publishing the text in facsimile or otherwise, so that they need not be re-examined. All the rest, or the great mass of juniors, may be dispensed with. They are scarcely needed, because the uncials are numerous, At present they do nothing but hinder the advancement of critical science, by drawing off to them time and attention which might be better devoted to older documents” (Davidson, p. 328, &c.) He then states (I am not concerned to say how truly) that Scholz, from attempting too much, accomplished little, and adds, “ Critics have discovered a better way than Scholz’s diffuse perfunctory method.” No profound discovery surely: that it is better to do a little well than much carelessly is an axiom tolerably familiar to most of us. Yet why must what is well done be of necessity but little ?
Dr Davidson’s judgment with regard to the order in which the work should be executed must be assented to by every reasonable person. Of course there is a presumption beforehand that the older MSS. written in uncial characters will prove of more weight than comparatively modern copies in cursive letters: the
1 I refer to Davidson’s ‘‘ Treatise on Biblical | ter, simply by the page affixed to their authors’ Criticism,” Vol. 11. 1852; Tischendorf’s Prolego- | names. mena to his manual Greek Testament, Lips. 1849; 3 At present (July 1858) but one part of this and Tregelles’ * Account of the Printed Text of | laborious work has issued from the press, for the the Greek New Testament,” 1854. These three | use of Subscribers only. It contains the Gospels of works I shall cite throughout the present chap- | St Matthew and St Mark. |
INTRODUCTION. lu
rule of common sense is to examine first what promises the most richly to reward our pains. Yet has not this been done? Which of the uncial codices of the Greek Testament not previously published in full, has escaped the unwearied zeal of Tischendorf on the continent, of Tregelles at home? I really know of none, except those printed in my present and former volume, and four Evange- listaria in England (Barocc. 202, Canonici Grzci, 85 and 92 in the Bodleian, and Wheeler 3 at Lincoln College), and perhaps a few abroad. Now respecting Evangelistaria and Lectionaries, Dr Davidson holds that * till the ancient codices are collated and applied, it were better not to meddle with them. They must have been oftener copied, and therefore are more liable to errors of transcription." I may question alike his fact, his inference and his conclusion on this point, yet at any rate we have here a reason, satisfactory to himself, why the whole process of collation should not be suspended till a few Evangelistaria shall be examined, hardly any of which date higher than the tenth century.
But the mass of juniors, he tells us, are scarcely needed, “because the uncials are numerous." On a first perusal I was fairly at a loss to account for such & statement from so well-informed a source. At length I came to recollect that “numerous,” like some others, is only a relative term, conveying to different minds widely different ideas. One person will think it a “long distance” from London to Lancashire; another uses the same expression when speaking of the space between this earth and 61 Cycni, some sixty-three billions of miles. We shall therefore best see Dr Davidson’s meaning when we come to simple numbers. In the Apocalypse the uncial MSS. are three: one of first-rate consequence, com- plete and well-known (A); another very ancient and well-known, but a mere heap of fragments (C); the third of late date, hastily collated, and now virtually inac- cessible (B). These, I conceive, are not so * numerous" as to tempt us to dispense with further information, when we fortunately have it within our reach. In the case of the Ácts and Epistles matters are not much better. In the Acts, three MSS. are very old (ABC); the last of them a fragment: two incomplete (DE) exceedingly precious, but not so early; one (F*) a fragment containing just seven verses; one (I) of 42 verses: two (GH) imperfect copies of the ninth cen- tury; in all nine. In the Catholic Epistles we find four entire MSS., one frag- ment. The list for the Pauline Epistles is nominally thirteen; from which deduct E a mere transcript of D, make allowance for the intimate connexion subsisting between F and G (see below, Chap. 11. 1,) and reckon several as mere fragments, three of but a few passages (F*IL): not one of the thirteen is complete.
Dr Davidson will probably tell us that he used the term * numerous" with reference to the uncial MSS. of the Gospels; if so the fact should be stated, lest we be induced to throw aside the cursive copies of other parts of the New Testament as if they might be “dispensed with." Yet I really know not that his case is materially strengthened even in the Gospels. True, the list of
1—2
lv INTRODUCTION.
uncials is formidable enough at a rapid glance. Tischendorf’s catalogue (N. T. 7th edition, 1856) extends to thirty-two: let us briefly analyse its contents, In the first place we notice ten which consist of only a few leaves, some of but a few verses (F'JNOR!TWY!0A): they are beyond all price as specimens of the state of the text at periods varying from the sixth to the tenth century, yet I doubt whether all put together contain as much matter as St Luke's Gospel. PQZ exhibit larger fragments, Z indeed a considerable portion of the single Gospel of St Matthew: these three may contain about as much as the sum of the other ten. The Nitrian palimpsest R consists of fragments of St Luke on 45 leaves: the two Bodleian MSS. I and A are considerable, and between them contain about as much matter as one complete copy (see Tischendorf. Anecdota Sacra et Profana, pp. 4—6). Then we must in fairness deduct six, which, being not earlier and some of them decidedly later than the tenth century (GHMSUX), are entitled to no more weight than many “junior copies" of the same age. This observation applies, though with diminished force to five (FKVIA) ascribed to the ninth, and even to three (ELA) of about the eighth century. There will then remain but the four primary authorities ABCD, of which B alone is complete, A and C being seriously mutilated. I cannot imagine that many will judge this apparatus criticus so comprehensive, as to render further investigation super- fluous.
Notwithstanding the sentiments on which I have commented, it were wrong to regard Dr Davidson as a willing advocate for the suppression of all manuscript evidence not written in uncial letters. I shall presently have occasion to confirm my own argument by statements of his respecting the importance of the cursive or later codices, quite as full as anything I could hope to say. The fact is that Davidson, himself no mean example of the dignity of intellectual toil, despairs of a thorough collation of all existing materials from the languid students of our age, “It is.sufficient for one man to collate well several important documents, whether they be versions, MSS., or patristic citations. It exhausts his patience and energy” (Davidson, p. 105). So discouraging a representation of energy and patience exhausted by a few slight efforts cannot, must not, be true of the younger school of Biblical critics in our two great Universities; I will leave Dr Dobbin, the editor of the Codex Montfortianus, to speak for that of Dublin. These men will not surely much longer suffer the manuscript treasures of their public libraries to lie neglected or unapplied. The very repulsiveness of this task, at its first aspect, is to the earnest student only one reason the more for prosecuting it with ever-growing interest ;
Et non sentitur SEDULITATE labor.
II. The reputation of Tischendorf is so firmly grounded on his editions of the famous Codices Ephraemi and Claromontanus, on his Monumenta Sacra . Inedita and other learned works, that his opinion on the great questions of
INTRODUCTION. v
sacred criticism cannot fail to be regarded with considerable interest. In his manual edition of the N. T. 1849 his practice must be regarded on the whole as adverse to me. His list of authorities in the Gospels is limited to the uncial MSS., and to ἃ few of the cursive whose variations from the common standard text are most conspicuous (e.g. 1, 13, 33, 69, 102, 131). Occasionally indeed he — estimates (very roughly of course) the number of later copies supposed to countenance a reading of his uncials, yet I nowhere perceive that he gives much weight to such testimony in the arrangement of his text. The edition of 1849, however, must be considered as quite superseded by. another (which, reckoning several little known in England, Tischendorf calls his seventh), now issuing in parts from the Leipsic Press. This, the latest fruits of his persevering toil, is far more comprehensive in plan and (experto credite) more accurate in execution than its predecessor. In compiling it he has freely availed himself of the labours of others in this field of Biblical research, has cited the cursive MSS. as much perhaps as is expedient in & volume intended for general use, and in exercising his judgment on the materials he has brought together, has produced a text (as Dr Wordsworth has observed before me) much more closely resembling the textus receptus than that he had formed before!. I cannot help believing this gradual and (as it would appear) almost unconscious approximation to the views I am advocating, into which more exact study and larger experience have led so eminent a scholar, to be no slight assurance that those views are founded in
reasonableness and truth?,
1 Thus, for example, Tischendorf's 7th edition, in %& Matthew alone, returns to the received read- ings he had rejected in 1849 in no less than 187 passages. The instances in which he abided by the common text in 1849, but subsequently deserta it, are 56 in St Matthew's Gospel, but about nine-tenths of them consistof Alexandrine forms (e. g. εἶδαν, εἶπαν, ἦλθαν &c.) which henow prefersto the common ones.
3 It has been said indeed (‘‘ Journal of Philolo- gy, Vol rv. March 1858, p. 207") that **the im- pression that Tischendorf is now beginning to entertain some respect for the textus receptus is quite unfounded. Many of his present readings accidentally coincide with the ‘received’ readings, but that is all. It is not that he prefers the bulk of late evidence to the weight of early evidence: but that he makes the worst or at least very bad evidence, if supported by a canon of probability, outweigh the best evidence standing alone." On a point of this kind there is nothing like coming to the test of facte. I select the third chapter of St Matthew partly for its brevity, partly because the loes of cod. A (the frst-rate authority which most resembles the later text) in this chapter, will so far
assist the learned reviewer's case. Exclusive of his constant use of » εφελκυστίκον and οὕτως (v. 15), Tischendorf in his edition of 1849 departs from the textus receptus 13 times: in his seventh edition he returns to it seven times out of the thirteen. Now one of these seven instances I think favourable to the reviewer: certainly there is considerable, per- haps even preponderating evidence (for versions can be relied on in such a variation) for adding ποτάμῳ to Ἰορδάνῃ in v. 6; Tischendorf now re- jects it, as if it were borrowed from Marc. i. 5. The other six passages seem fatal to the notion that internal evidence, not diplomatic authority, is the operating cause which is bringing Tischendorf's text 80 much nearer what we believe to be the true one. These passages are v. 2 καὶ reetored before λέγων ; v. 7 αὐτοῦ restored after βάπτισμα; v. 14 ᾿Ιωάννης restored ; v. 15 πρὸς αὐτὸν of the common text replaces αὐτῷ ; v. 16 xal βαπτισθεὶς replaces βαπτισθεὶς δέ; v. τό καὶ ia restored before ἀρχόμενον. In each of these texts Tischendorf in 1849 rejected the common reading on the slender testimony of a single uncial B, countenanced by one or more of the Egyptian and Latin versions or Fathers, and
vil INTRODUCTION.
Yet even in the Prolegomena to his edition of 1849 (no critical Introduction to his 7th edition has yet appeared) I find little from which I should withhold my assent. ‘ Textus” he observes “petendus est unicé ex antiquis testibus, et potissimum quidem e grecis codicibus, sed interpretationum patrumque testi- moniis minimé neglectis" (Proleg. p. xi). The drift of this self-evident proposition ᾿ appears from the next sentence: *Itaque omnis textüs nostri confirmatio ab ipsis testibus proficisci debebat, non a recept& quam dicunt editione." Very true: I for one see nothing in the history or sources of the received text to entitle it, of ttself, to peculiar deference. I esteem it so far as it represents the readings best supported by documentary evidence, and no further: if in my judgment the Elzevir text approaches nearer on the whole to the sacred autographs than that formed by Tischendorf, it is only because I believe that it is better attested to by the very witnesses to whom Tischendorf himself appeals; the MSS., the versions, the Primitive Fathers. I enquire not whether this general purity (for it is but general) arises from chance, or editorial skill, or (as some have piously thought) from Providential arrangement: I am content to deal with it as a fact. Perhaps Dean Alford’s plan is preferable (N. T. Proleg. p. 69, Vol. I. 1st edition), who, in difficult cases, where testimony seems evenly balanced, would give “the benefit of the doubt” to the Textus Receptus; but the practical difference between the two principles will be found, I imagine, very slight indeed.
And now recurs the question what we shall understand by * antiqui testes” in the case of Greek Manuscripts? In the first rank Tischendorf justly places those dating from the fourth to the ninth century; and among them, to the oldest he attributes the highest authority. ‘‘Heec auctoritas ut magnoperé augetur si interpretationum ac patrum accedunt testimonia, ita non superatur dissensione plurimorum vel etiam omnium codicum recentiorum, i.e. eorum qui a decimo seculo usque ad decimum sextum exarati bunt” (p. x11). If this canon is to extend only to cases wherein the most ancient witnesses in competent numbers unanimously support a variation from the common text, I do not conceive that any judicious critic would object to its temperate application: though he may reasonably suspect that where the earliest available evidence is thus overwhelming, a portion of the later manuscripts will always be found to accord with it. What we do resist is ἃ scheme, which, however guardedly proposed, shall exclude the cursive MSS. from all real influence in determining the sacred text, This is Dr Tregelles avowed principle: that it is not Tischendorf's (however much he may have once seemed to countenance it by his practice) plainly appears from his own distinct assertions: “codices post octavum vel nonum sseculum scriptos
by a very few cursive MSS., sometimes by none at | his steps, rather than from ‘‘an increasing ten- all! Surely it is because he hasseen theinsufficiency | dency to set private canons above the authority of of such evidence, that he has judiciously retraced | manuscripts, versions, and Fathers.”
INTRODUCTION. vil
negligendos aut parvi sestimandos non esse...... recentiorum codicum lectiones quas easdem antiquissimi interpretes ac patres testimonio suo confirment, antiqui- tatis commendatione minimé destitutas esse" (Proleg. p. x11). On this ground he praises the design of Reich, * preestantissimis codicibus minusculis denuo exami- nandis," declaring of it **ea perquam utilia fore arbitror et ad historiam et ap EMENDATIONEM TEXTUS (p. ΧΧΧΠΙ. not.).
III. I am unfeignedly anxious to present to the reader a clear and even forcible statement of the principlés of textual criticism maintained in Dr Tregelles' * Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Testament:" I assure him I do not criticise his book unread!, or reject his theory without patient examina- tion. I presume he would wish it to be enunciated in such terms as the following :
The genuine text of the Greek New Testament must be sought exclusively from the most ancient authorities, especially from the earliest uncial copies of the Greek, The paramount weight and importance of the last arises not from the accidental circumstance of their age, but from their agreement with the other independent and most ancient authorities still extant, viz. the oldest versions and citations by the fathers of the first four centuries.
To which proposition must be appended this corollary as a direct and neces- sary consequence :
‘‘The mass of recent documents [i.e. those written in cursive characters from the tenth century downwards] possess no determining voice, in a question as to what we should receive as genuine readings. We are able to take the few docu- ments whose evidence is proved to be trustworthy, and safely discard from present consideration the eighty-nine ninetieths, or whatever else the numerical proportion may be” (Tregelles, p. 138).
In the ordinary concerns of social life, one would form no favourable estimate of the impartiality of a judge (and such surely is the real position of a critical editor) who deemed it safe to discard unheard eighty-nine witnesses out of ninety that are tendered to him, unless indeed it were perfectly certain that the eighty- nine had no means of information, except what they derived from the ninetieth: on that supposition, but on that supposition alone, could the judge’s reputation for wisdom or fairness be upheld. That mere numbers should decide a question of sacred criticism never ought to have been asserted by any one; never has been asserted by a respectable scholar. Tischendorf himself (Proleg. p. xm.) cannot condemn such a dogma more emphatically than the upholders of the general integrity of the Elzevir text. But I must say that the counter-proposition, that
1'*«ILet me request any one who may wish to | &c." (Tregelles, Addenda, p. 2). A moderate re- understand the principles of textual criticism which | quest certainly, but I should hope it was hardly I believe to be true, to read what I have stated, | needed.
Vill INTRODUCTION.
numbers have “no determining voice,” is to my mind full as unreasonable, and rather more startling. I agree with Dr Davidson (p. 333) in holding it to be “an obvious and natural rule” that the reading of the majority is so far preferable. Not that a bare majority shall always prevail, but that numerical preponderance, especially where it is marked and constant, is an important element in the investigation of the genuine readings of Holy Scripture. For on what grounds shall we justify ourselves in putting this consideration wholly aside? Is the judge convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence of the eighty-nine is drawn : exclusively from that of the ninetieth? It has never I think been affirmed by any one (Dr Tregelles would not be sorry to affirm it, if he could with truth) that the mass of cursive documents are corrupt copies of the uncials still extant: the fact has scárcely been suspected in ἃ single instance, and certainly never proved. I will again avail myself of Davidson's words, not only because they admirably express my meaning, but because his general bias is not quite in favour of the views I am advocating. ** Ceteris paribus," he observes, “the reading of an ancient copy is more likely to be authentic than that of a modern one. But the reading of a more modern copy may be more ancient than the reading of an ancient one. A modern copy itself may have been derived not from an extant one more ancient, but from one still more ancient no longer in existence. And this was probably the case in not a few instances" (p. 101). No one can carefully examine the readings of cursive documents, as represented in any tolerable collation, with- out perceiving the high probability that Davidson's account of them is true. But it is not essential to our argument that the fact of their being derived from ancient sources now lost should be established, though internal evidence points strongly to their being so derived: it is enough that such an origin is possible, to make it at once unreasonable and unjust to shut them out from a *determining voice" (of course jointly with others) on questions of doubtful reading. I confess that Tregelles is only following up his premises to their legitimate conclusion in manfully declaring his purpose in this respect; but we are bound to scutinize with the utmost jealousy and distrust ἃ principle which involves consequences so extensive, and he must forgive me if I add, so “ perilous.”
It is agreed then on all hands that the antiquity of a document is only ἃ pre- sumption, a primá facie ground for expectation, that it will prove of great critical importance. ‘The oldest MSS.” writes Dr Davidson again, “bear traces of revision by arbitrary and injudicious critics. GOooD READINGS MAKE GOOD MANU- SCRIPTS" (p. 101). “It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again," insists Dr Tregelles, whose reviewers I suppose were δυσμαθέστεροι, * that the testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence (not mere assertion); and that the distinction is not between the ancient MSS. on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other,—but between the united evidence of the most ancient documents—MSS., versions, and early citations—
INTRODUCTION. 1X
together with that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other” (Tregelles, Addenda, p. 2). Very well: this immeasurable superiority claimed for the early uncials over all later authorities (so that the former shall be every thing in criticism, the latter absolutely nothing) rests not on an axiom intuitively true; it has to be proved by an induction of scattered facts; and we are bound to watch the process of proof with the greater care, from our previous knowledge that when once esta- blished it will inevitably lead us to conclusions which seem hardly consistent with even dealing towards a whole legion of honest and reputable witnesses.
Now Dr Tregelles produces no less than 8EVENTY-TWO passages from various parts of the New Testament (pp. 133—147), as ἃ kind of sample of some two or three thousand which he reckons to exist there, wherein * the more valuable ancient versions (or some of them) agree in a particular reading, or in which such a reading has distinct patristic testimony, and the mass of MSS. stand in opposition to such a lection, (while) there are certain copies which habitually uphold the older reading" (Tregelles, p. 148). Of course I cannot follow him step by step through this long and laboured catalogue; an adequate specimen taken without unfair selection will amply suffice to shew my opponents drift and purpose. I will therefore transcribe all the places he cites from the Gospel of St Mark (they amount to seven), making choice of that Gospel partly for its shortness, partly because I wish, in justice to Dr Tregelles, to discuss in pre- ference those texts which remain unmutilated in the four uncial codices of the first class (see above, vide supra, p. vi.); in the following list they all are complete, except C in Mark xiii. 14 alone. As Tregelles “for the sake of brevity” has laid before us these passages “without any attempt to state the balance of evidence” (p. 148), I have ventured to supply within brackets an omission which I cannot help considering a little unfortunate.
(1). “ Mar. iii. 29. Common text, αἰωνίου κρίσεως. Vulg. has, however, ‘reus erit eterni delicti; so too the Old Latin (a. b. c. e. #7. g'.l. Tregelles N. T., 1857], the Memph., Goth., Arm.; and this is the reading of Cyprian [bis, Treg. N. T.], Augustine, and Athanasius. Corresponding with this BLA, 33 (and one other MS. [28; add 2P*]), read αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος, and ΟἿ (ut videtur), D, 69 (and two others (13. 346]), have αἰωνίου ἁμαρτίας, ἃ perfectly cognate reading." (p. 141).
[But κρίσεως is found in AC** (whose primitive reading seems quite doubtful) EFGHKMSUVI' being all the other uncials that contain the passage. Of the
! Of the uncials cited for these texts B (Tre- ; as those under discussion, their testimony even gelles' favourite) is least accurately known. ACD | sub silentio in behalf of the received text may LA have been edited in full; EFGHEMSUXT | be fully relied on. In these seven texts, how- have been so repeatedly cullated (recently by | ever, they are expressly cited by Tischendorf's Tischendorf or Tregelles or both) that when they | seventh edition for the readings here ascribed to are not cited as supporting variations so marked | them.
9
Χ INTRODUCTION.
cursive copies all go with the received text, except the six named above, and three which have κολάσεως. The Peshito Syriac reads [1.9 judicii: thus also the Har- clean Syriac of the 7th century, the Athiopic (“in condemnatione"), the Codex Brixianus f. of the Italic (or Old Latin), the Codex Toletanus of the Vulgate, and any Fathers not named by Tregelles, many of whom must have cited this remarkable passage. ]
(2) “Mar. iv. 12. rà ἁμαρτήματα of the common text is omitted by Origen twice; by one MS. of the Old Latin [two b. i. in Treg. N. T.), the Memph., and Arm., with BCL, 1 (and some other MSS.)" (i.e. *22. 118. 209. 251. 8405 al” Scholz: rà παραπτώματα Theophyl and eight MSS.).
[τὰ ἁμαρτήματα is read in ADEFGHKMSUVA (hiat. T), all cursives not named above, Syrr. both Pesh. and Harc., Ethiopic, Gothic, Vulg., all Italic MSS. except two].
(3). “Mar. iv. 24. τοῖς ἀκούουσιν omitted by the Old Latin, Vulg., Memph,, #Eth., with BCDLA, and some other copies." [credentibus Καὶ Goth., Treg. N. T.].
[ Tischendorf, even in his seventh edition, adds G (Harl. 5684), but on refer- ence to the MS., I find he is wrong. Griesbach adds “item 13. 69 semel," yet 69 in this verse reads rois ἀκούουσιν, as do AEFGHKMSUV (Aiat. T), all other cursive MSS., both Syrr.].
(4). “Mar. x. 21. ἄρας τὸν σταυρὸν omitted by the Old Latin in most copies [b. c. f.f. g^" k. L. Treg. N. T., Vulg, Memph. (by Schwartze], (so too Clem. Alex. and Hil), with BCDA.” [L is here defective, and so for the first time deserts its allies: add to the list Scholz's 406].
[ἄρας τὸν σταυρὸν is read in AEFHKMSUVXT, the whole mass of cursive copies, the Harclean Syriac, Wilkins Memphitic and the Gothic. The words are placed before δεῦρο in G 1. 13. 69. 118. 124 and four other cursives; in Peshito Syr., /Eth., Arm., the Vercelli MS. a. of the Old Latin, and Irengus].
(9). “Mar. xii. 4. λιθοβολήσαντες omitted by Old Latin, Vulg., Memph ,, (Theb., Treg. N. T.], Arm., with BDLA, 1, 33 and four other copies." (i.e. 28. 91. 118. 299.]
[But λιθοβολήσαντες is found in ACEFGHKMSUVXT, all other cursive copies, both Syrr., Goth., £th.].
(6). “Mar. xii. 23. ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν om. some copies of Old Latin [b (ut vid ). (c). (k). Treg. N. T., Memph., Syr., (i.e. Peshito; Treg. N. T. adds Theb. £th,] with BCDLA, 33."
[ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν is read in AEFGHKMSUVYXT, all cursives but one (13. 69. 346 alio ordine), Vulg., a. ff. g?. i. of Old Latin, Harclean Syr., Goth., Arm.].
(7). * Mar. xiii. 14. rà ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου om. most copies of Old Latin (a. ff. g'. only in Treg. N. T., where he adds Theb.], Vulg., Memph , Arm., also Au- gustine expressly, with BDL.” [Scholz adds “ nec attingunt Victor et Theophylact."]
[The words are read in AEFGHKMSUVXTA, all cursives (with some varia- tion in my y and eight others), both Syrr., £th., c. k. of Old Latin].
INTRODUCTION. X1
I do not think the reader will desire more than these specimens, transcribed as they are consecutively from Dr Tregelles' list without the possibility of undue selection : I fully believe him that they may be increased twenty-fold. It is time to offer a few remarks on the facts that have been alleged by each of us. Meanwhile I must beg that the design of my learned opponent in producing his examples be carefully borne in mind. He does not so much aim at shewing that the read- ings of Codex B and its adherents are preferable to those of the received text (though this he implies throughout), ag at demonstrating that the united testi- monies of early uncials, primitive versions, and ecclesiastical authors of the first four centuries form together such a mass of evidence as will overbear the voice of the vast majority of witnesses of all ages and countries. We may grant that his favourite documents are entitled to great weight in the process of critical investigation, and this I admit fully and without reserve: we might even prefer many of their readings to those of the received text, which on the whole I am not quite disposed to do: and yet we must demur as firmly as ever to the claim of paramount and exclusive authority he sets up for them. With these preliminary observations I pass on to an analysis of the state of evidence in the passages Dr Tregelles has brought to our notice.
(1). First then it is obvious that the uncial documents, even the earliest of them, are much divided in every place he has cited. I hardly know why the Alexandrine MS. (A) has come to be considered a little younger than the Codex Vaticanus (B); we have free access to and minute knowledge of the one; through the jealousy of the Papal librarians our acquaintance with the other is still very imperfect!; much doubt hangs over many of its readings; it seems barely certain
! Since writing the above I have examined Cardinal Mai's long-expected edition of the Va- ticanus (5 Tom. Roma 1857) the text of which was ten years passing through the press (1828— 38), and was then kept back from publication till within the last few months. I regret that I can- not even now modify my statement of the pre- cariousness of our knowledge of this great docu- ment: I must needs &dd my voice to the loud chorus of disappointment this work has called forth throughout Europe. It is impossible to study Vercellone's letter to the reader, prefixed to the first volume, without seeing the strange incompetency both of Mai and of himself, for the task they had undertaken: in fact, Vercellone's frank admission of the great Cardinal's inaccuracy would be amusing if it were not most vexatious. Finding his sheets full of errors and misrepresen- tations of the Codex Vaticanus (sume of them inserted from printed books!), Mai tries to get rid of them as well as he can, sometimes by can-
celling a few leaves, sometimes by manual core rections made in each copy; while he reserves the mass for a table of errata, to be placed at the end of each volume. In this unpromising state was the work found by Vercellone after Mai's death in 1854, when, anxious to decorate the Car- dinals memory ‘‘nov& usque gloriá atque splen- didiore coroná" (Tom. I. p. 111), he drew up the tables of errata projected by his predecessor, and at length submitted this deplorable performance to the judgment of Biblical scholars. His lists of errata are obviously most imperfect ; as regards orthography he only professes to give us *'selec- tiora," for Mai, it seems, did not care much about such points; at any rate it was not worth while to delay publication on their account: and so ‘‘reliqua que supererunt eruditis castiganda permit- timus ; immo ut summá axp:Beg castigentur opta- mus" (ἰδ. p. xiii). Add to all this that the lacunse throughout the MS. are supplied from later sources ; that even accidental omissions and errors of the
2—2
xii INTRODUCTION.
whether its accents and breathings are primd or secundá manu!. We will adopt however the usual opinion about them: no competent critic places A later than the fifth, or B earlier than the fourth century’, Now ín each of these seven places A sides with the Elzevir text against B. Is it an argument in favour of B that its readings are ancient? The same plea might be entered for those of A. And their divergencies, it will be noted, are not merely accidental exceptions to a general coincidence, but perpetual, almost systematic. While I confess freely the great importance of B, I see not why its testimony ought, in the nature of things, to be received in preference to that of A. I cannot frame a reason why the one should be listened to more deferentially than the other.
(2). In the next rank, yet decidedly below A or B, stand the palimpsest frag- ment C (Codex Ephreemi) and the Codex Bezse or D. This latter is generally considered much the least weighty of the four great MSS. of the Gospels (see for instance Alford, N.T. Proleg. on D.): and that not so much on account of its Jater date (perhaps about the middle of the sixth century), as from the violent corrections and strange interpolations wherewith it abounds. “Its singularly corrupt text,” observes Davidson, “in connexion with its great antiquity, is a curious ‘problem, which cannot easily be solved" (p. 288). Now in the seven passages under consideration C accords with B in four cases, with A once; once its reading is doubtful, once its text has perished. Codex D agrees with B five times, much resembles it once, and once sides with A. Thus these documents
of the second class favour B rather than A, C however less decidedly than D.
pen are corrected in the text, though noted in the margin; that the breathings, accents, and ει subscriptum are accommodated to the modern fashion ; and that a slight Preface of a few pages by Mai supplies the place of the full Prolegomena once promised and so urgently required.
1 On this point however Vercellone’s testimony should be heard. After correcting Birch’s state- ment that the breathings and accents are primd manu, he adds, ‘“‘etenim amanuensis ille, qui cunctas totius codicis litteras, vetustate palles- centes, atramento satis venuste, servati vetere form&, renovavit, idem accentus etiam spiritusque imposuit, qui nulli fuerant a primá manu ; ut ille codicis particule ostendunt, quas certis de causis (id est vel quia repetitas in codice vel ab eo impro- batas) non attigit. Rei hujus veritatem codicis spectatores ipai per se deprehendent.” (Cod. Vati- can. Tom. v. p. 499.) I presume it is for this reason that while the facsimile of one column, Mark i, r—9, prefixed to Tom. v. of Mai's edition con- tains no breathings or accents, they are represented in the splendid plate of the three columns of the
first surviving page (commencing Gen. xlvi 28 wodw) prefixed to Tom. I.
2 I find no traces in Mai's Codex Vaticanus of the absurd opinion once imputed to him, that this MS. dates as far back as the second century; Ver- cellone acquieaces in the date usually assigned to it, that of the fourth or early in the fifth century, but refera to Hug for the proof.
3 Dr Tregelles, indeed, in partial reference to Codex D, is good enough to say, ‘Some people rest much on some one incorrect reading of a MS., and then express a great deal of wonder that such a MS. could be highly valued by critics. "The expo- sure of such excessive ignorance as this might be well dealt with by one who knows Greek MSS. as well as Mr Scrivener" (p. 137 note). Thus appealed to I will reply, that, putting aside the case of mere errors of the scribe, I do think that the admitted corruptions and deliberate interpolations which we all recognize in the Codex Beze, have a natural tendency to detract from the credibility of ite testi- mony in more doubtful cases.
INTRODUCTION. ΧΙ
(3). When we descend to uncials of the third rank, from the eighth century downwards, the case is entirely reversed. One of them indeed (L of the eighth or ninth century) edited by Tischendorf (Monumenta sacr. ined. pp. 57—-399) is here and elsewhere constantly with B: A also (Codex Sangallensis of the ninth century, which will be spoken of in Chapter 11.) supports B five times, A only twice! ; while all the rest extant (EFGHKMSU and X where it is unmutilated) unani- mously support A. Some of these are as ancient as L, several quite as valuable as A.
(4). On coming down from uncial to cursive MSS. the preponderance is enor- mous. Dr Tregelles does not object to the rough estimate of ninety to one; and those few copies which often maintain the readings of BL are by no means stedfast in their allegiance. Yet even here the resemblance to A or B or to each other is but general. The materials accumulated in the present volume and elsewhere shew isolated readings of the most recent codices, even of those which approach nearest to the Elzevir edition, for which no ancient authority can be produced except the Codex Vaticanus. No one who has at all studied the cursive MSS. can fail to be struck with the individual character impressed on almost every one of them, It is rare that we can find grounds for saying of one manuscript that it is a transcript of some other now remaining. The fancy which was once taken up, that there existed a standard Constantinopolitan text, to which all copies written within the limits of that Patriarchate were conformed, has been “swept away at once and for ever” (Tregelles, p. 180) by a closer examination of the copies themselves, Surely then it ill becomes us absolutely to reject as unworthy of serious discussion, the evidence of witnesses (whose mutual variations vouch for their independence and integrity) because their tendency on the whole is to uphold the authority of one out of the two most ancient documents against the other.
(5). One of the arguments on which Dr Tregelles lays most stress is the accordance of the oldest versions with Codex B rather than with A. So far as the Latin versions are concerned the passages he has alleged must be admitted to prove the correctness of his assertion. The Vulgate agrees with A but twice, with B five times. The Old Latin translations (for the term Italic it seems is obsolete), though in six instances some of them countenance A, give a clear majority for B. I do not like to speak of the Coptic or Armenian translations, as I am, totally ignorant of the languages wherein they are written: Tregelles, I perceive, labours under the same disadvantage (p. 171), and will be as reluctant
1 Observe, however, that ‘“‘The text of St Mark's | selection of the passages in St Mark’s Gospel is Gospel is that which especially gives this MS. a | peculiarly favourable to Dr Tregelles, so far as A claim to be distinguished from the mass of the later | is concerned. Elsewhere its readings are much uncial copies." (Introductory Notice to Tregelles’ | nearer the (extus receptus.
N. T., 1857, p. iv.); which intimates that our
XIV INTRODUCTION.
as I am to dogmatise about matters on which we are both disqualified from pro- nouncing a trustworthy opinion. Certainly these versions incline powerfully to the Latin, if we may rely on the common representation of them, and one of the editors of the Armenian (Zohrab) denies the correctness of the suspicion revived by Tischendorf, “ tate multo seriori [than its origin in the fourth or fifth cen- tury| armenos codices passim ad latinam versionem correctos esse, virorum doctorum opinio fert" (Proleg. p. xxvii).
It is time to turn to the Queen of the primitive versions, the graceful and perspicuous Peshito Syriac. Here, at any rate, there is no ambiguity as to the preference bestowed on Codex A: it is supported by the Syriac in six cases out of the seven. Nor is this the result of mere accident in the Gospel of St Mark: no one who has studied its readings will question that a like proportion is steadily maintained throughout the New Testament. Here then is a venerable transla- tion, assigned by eminent scholars to the first century of our era, undoubtedly not later than the second, which habitually upholds the readings of one of the two oldest uncial copies, of the later uncials, and of the vast majority in cursive characters. Our conclusion shall now be drawn, mutatis mutandis, in the words of Tregelles, when he sums up the results of his induction of the seventy-two passages I have so often alluded to. “Here then is a sample of very many passages, in which, by the testimony of the most ancient version, that such a reading was current in very early times, the fact is proved indubitably; so that even if no existing MS. supported such readings, they would possess a strong claim on our attention: and such facts might have made us doubt, whether the old translators were not in possession of better copies than those that have been transmitted to us. Such facts so proved might lead to the inquiry, whether there are not some MSS. which accord with these ancient readings; and when examination shews that such copies actually exist (nay that they are the many in contrast to the few), it may be regarded as a demonstrated point that such MSS. deserve peculiar attention" (Tregelles, p. 147)... But here I pause; it is enough that I claim for Codex À and its numerous companions * peculiar atten- tion” by reason of their striking conformity with the Peshito Syriac. I ask not, I have no right to ask, that Codex B and its scanty roll of allies, strengthened as they are by the Latin, perhaps by other versions, should be overlooked in forming an estimate of the merits of conflicting readings. I am content to lay myself open to the poet's humorous reproof,
νήπιοι, οὐδὲ ἴσασιν ὅσῳ πλέον ἥμισυ παντός.
How is this divergency of the Peshito version from the text of Codex B explained by Tregelles? He feels of course the pressure of the argument against him, and meets it, if not successfully, with even more than his wonted boldness, The translation degenerates in his hands into “the version commonly printed as the Peshito" (p. 10). Now let us mark the precise nature of the demand here
INTRODUCTION. XV
made on our faith by Dr Tregelles. He would persuade us that the whole Eastern Church, distracted as it has been and split into hostile sections for the space of 1400 years, Orthodox and Jacobite, Nestorian and Maronite alike, those that could agree about nothing else, have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order to substitute in their monastic libraries and liturgical services another and a spurious version in the room of the Peshito, that sole surviving monument of the first ages of the Gospel in Syria! Nay more, that this wretched forgery has deceived Orientalists profound as Michaelis and Lowth, has passed without suspicion through the ordeal of searching criticism, to which every branch of sacred literature has been subjected during the last half-century ! We will require solid reasons indeed before we surrender ourselves to an hypothesis as novel as it appears violently improbable.
And what is the foundation on which our opponent rests his startling con- jecture? The reader is aware that besides the Peshito, several other Syriac versions, some grounded upon it, and therefore implying its previous existence and popularity (e.g. the Philoxenian, executed A.D. 508, and Cardinal Wiseman's Karkaphensian) others seemingly independent of it (e.g. Adler’s Jerusalem Syriac, and a palimpsest fragment lately discovered by Tischendorf) have been more or less applied to the criticism of the New Testament. About the year 1847 Canon Cureton, in his most fruitful researches among the MSS. purchased for the British Museum from the Nitrian monasteries, met with extensive fragments of the Gospels, which Tregelles has collated, and found to contain "altogether ancient readings," and thus to be *an important witness to the ancient text" (p. 161). As this MS. assigned to the fifth century, is still unpublished, we can only say at present that it affords us “AN HITHERTO UNKNOWN VERSION ;" certainly not “the version commonly printed as the Peshito" with mere
various readings!. To this version has been given the appellation of the
!lAg this sheet is going to press (July 1858) Dr Cureton's ‘‘ Remains of ἃ very antient recen- sion of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto un- known in Europe,” has at length appeared. The Syriac text had been printed in 1848, but was doabtiess withheld by the learned editor in the hope of finding leisure to write Prolegomena more full, and possibly containing more definite conclusions, than those with which he has favoured us. It would ill become me to express a hasty judgment respecting theories on which so eminent a scholar has bestowed thought and time and much labour. He will naturally expect Biblical critics to hesitate before they implicitly admit, for instance, the persuasion which he hardly likes to embody in words, that we have in these precious Syriac frag- ments, at least to a great extent (Preface, p. xciii),
the very Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gospel, 80 long supposed to have been lost, that even its existence has been questioned. But topics like this are sure to be warmly debated by abler pens than mine: I will confine myself to those points that concern my argument, the relation these frag- ments bear to the Peshito. And here I would say in all humble deference (for my knowledge of Syriac, though of long standing, is not extensive) that my own hurried comparison of the Curetonian and Peshito texts would have led me to take them so far for quite separate versions. Even Dr Tre- gelles, who, through the editor's kindness, has been enabled to use the text for years, and whose bias is very strong, can only venture to say “‘the dif- ferences are great; and yet it happens not un- frequently that such coincidences of words and
xvi INTRODUCTION. Curetonian Syriac, and long may it bear that honoured name: but for regarding it as the true Peshito, in the room of that commonly so known, I perceive at present no cause whatever except the strong exigency of Dr Tregelles' case.
Yet has not the Peshito Syriac been suspected by previous writers of exhibit- ing & corrupt or modernised text ? Undoubtedly the reconciliation of the Maronites with the see of Rome, and the channels through which its earlier editions were conveyed to us, induced certain critics to hazard a conjecture that this version, like the Armenian, had been tampered with, in order to bring it into closer con- formity with the Latin Vulgate. This, however, is a change in precisely the opposite direction to that which Tregelles’ hypothesis demands: his complaint against the Peshito is not its accordance with the Latin, but its consent with Codex A and the junior MSS. against it. I vouch not for the correctness of this surmise as regards the Armenian; its injustice towards the Peshito is demonstrated by the evidence of that old MS, Rich 7157 in the British Museum, of the eighth century, ἃ period long anterior to that when a ** fedus cum Syris" was possible on the part of the admirers of the Vulgate. This precious document has been collated throughout by Tregelles; together with several others of high antiquity in the Museum, it has been carefully examined by Dr Cureton, by Mr Ellis, and two German scholars (Bloomfield, Preface to N. T., ninth edition, p. viii, note). The reports of all concur to the same effect: these venerable MSS. exhibit a text, singularly resembling that of the printed editions; which last were consequently drawn from purer and more ancient sources than, reasoning from the analogy of the Greek text, the warmest advocates of the Peshito had been led to anticipate.
(6). We have little to say about citations from the Fathers, That the Latin ecclesiastical writers should accord with the Latin versions is nothing strange: perhaps some of them could not read, none of them used familiarly the Greek original. As witnesses for the readings of the Italic or Vulgate they are of course valuable: unless in the very rare instances where they expressly appeal to the Greek, their influence upon it is but indirect and precarious, As regards the Greek’ Fathers I am bound to state, that no branch of Biblical criticism has been
wish that Dr Cureton had fully investigated the subject ; he might have removed the difficulties at least of those who love trutb, and are ready to em- brace it wherever they shall find it. As it is, we can but say with Tregelles, ‘‘Such a point as this can only be properly investigated after the publi-
renderings are found (and that too, at times, through a great part of a passage) as to shew that they can hardly be wholly independent” (Tregelles, Horne's Introd. p. 268). To the same effect also Dr Cureton speaks: ‘‘It seems to be scarcely possible that the Syriac text published by Wid-
manstad, which, throughout these pages, I have called the Peshito, could be altogether a different version from this. It would take up too much space to institute here a comparison of passages to establish this fact, which, indeed, any one may easily do for himself” (Preface, p. Ixx). I heartily
cation of this version shall have given sufficient time to scholars to pursue a thorough investigation” (Tregellee, ubi supra). In the mean while neither he nor I are at liberty to assume the truth of that hypothesis which may happen to harmonise beat with our preconceived opinions,
INTRODUCTION. xvil
so utterly neglected as the application of their citations to the discussion of various readings; indeed I know almost nothing that has been seriously attempted with respect to it, except Griesbach's examination of the quotations of Origen in his Symbole Critice. The whole question, however, is so replete with difficulties, that Bishop Fell (N. T. Oxon. 1675) thought the bare allusion to them sufficient to absolve him from entering upon it at all. The ancient Fathers were better theologians than critics; they often quoted loosely, often: from meniory ; what they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists: their testimony therefore can be implicitly trusted, even as to the MSS. which lay before them, only in the comparatively few places where the course of their argument, or the current of their exposition, renders it manifest what reading they support. At present we have many intimations in our critical editions that this or that ecclesiastical author countenances a variation from the Textus Receptus, but few cases, very few indeed, are recorded in which they agree with tt: the latter point being confessedly no less essential to our accurate acquaintance with the state of the evidence than the former. Any enlarged discussion on this head of our argument must at any rate be postponed till we possess more reliable information on the facts it involves: most thankful should I be to any student who has leisure and disposition to enter upon this wide yet almost unoccupied field. Meantime I am constrained to admit that many examples have been established by Griesbach and his successors, wherein Origen agrees with Codices BL against Codex A and the received text, one or both. I will not dissemble, I strive not to evade, the force of such early testimony where it is unambiguous and express: let such readings be received with ** peculiar attention," let them never be rejected without grave and sufficient reason. Yet the support given to B or L by Origen is very far from being uniform or “habitual.” While I can well understand the importance of his confirmation where he countenances the readings they exhibit, I fail altogether in apprehending what service he can do them, where he is either silent or
positively hostile!,
Those who have followed me through this prolonged investigation (which I knew not how to abridge without sacrificing perspicuity to conciseness) will readily anticipate my reply to Dr Tregelles' *statement of his case," comprehended in the following emphatic words: “It is claimed that the united testimony of versions, fathers, and the oldest MSS. should be preferred to that of the mass of modern
3 e.g. Origen sides with the received text or with | lectoris ad fastidium. It may tend to shew the A against B, Matth. xxi. 29 cited by Tregelles | precariousness of patristic testimony if I add that (p- 107), and in the course of the next few chapters | in five of the above-named passages Origen's au- in xxv. 27; 29; xxvi 48; 53; xxvii. 3; 11; 54 | thority may be cited on doth sides. kis; xxviii. 15; 18. I could multiply references
xvlil INTRODUCTION.
copies; and farther, that the character of the few ancient MSS. which agree with versions and fathers, must be such ( from that very circumstance) as to make their general evidence the more trustworthy" (p. 141). Unquestionably, I rejoin, your claim is reasonable, it is irresistible. If you shew us all, or nearly all, the uncials you prize so deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text which is recommended by all the best versions and most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so unanimous on the other side. But are we not discussing a purely abstract proposition? Do we ever find the “united” testimony of the ancients drawing us one way, that of the juniors another? I will not assert that such instances may not occur, though at this moment I can hardly remember one: it is enough to say that principles broad as those laid down by Tregelles must be designed to meet the rule, not the exception. In the seven texts we have been reviewing, in the sixty-five that remain on his list, in the yet more numerous cases he tells us he has passed over, the uncial MSS. are not unequally divided; or where there is a preponderance, it is not often in our adversary’s favour. The elder authorities being thus at variance, common sense seems to dictate an appeal to those later authorities, respecting which one thing is clear, that they were mot copied immediately from the uncials stil extant. Such later codices thus become the representatives of others that have perished, as old, and (to borrow Davidson's suggestion, p. viii) not improbably more old than any now remaining. These views appear so reasonable and sober, that they have approved themselves to the judgment even of Dr Tregelles: for he does not. by any means disdain the aid of the few cursive copies (e. g. 1. 33. 69. &c.) which *preserve an ancient text," whereby of course is implied one coinciding with his preconceived opinion of what an ancient text ought to be!.
Perhaps I shall be expected to say a few words respecting the scheme devised by Bentley for settling the sacred text on a firmer basis, since both Tregeles and his precursor Lachmann (AN. T. Proleg. Vol. 1. p. xxx) have sheltered their practice of recurring exclusively to the most ancient extant docu- ments beneath the shadow of that great name. We shall all agree on one point, that no authority, however imposing, can supply the place of argument in enquiries of this kind; nor do I scruple to confess that were I disposed to swear allegiance to any earthly teacher, it would be to that illustrious scholar,
1 Dean Alford had constructed the text of his | mirable frankness, ‘‘was, I do not hesitate to first volume of the Greek Testament (1st edition) | confess, a y'eat mistake. It proceeded on altogether on nearly the same plan as Tregelles would, and | too high an estimate of the most ancient existing thoroughly was he dissatisfied with the result. | MSS., and too low an one of the importance of "The adoption of that text,” he writes with ad- | internal evidence." (Δ΄. 7’. Vol. τι. Proleg. p. 58.)
INTRODUCTION. | ΧΙΧ
whose learning and genius shed a bright ray across the darkness of his evil generation. It is painful to say of the most highly gifted man that ever devoted himself to the study of Biblical criticism, that his leading principle was taken up hastily and on precarious grounds; yet if the fact be so, why need we hesitate to avow it? Bentley's theory, as most of my readers will remember, was built on the idea, that the oldest MSS. of the Greek original and of Jerome's Latin version, resemble each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by means of this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth century, “so that there shall not be twenty words, or even particles, difference!” “By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope's [Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephens's [1550], I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under nine hundred years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better." Thus wrote Bentley to Archbishop Wake in 1716: the tone of his * Proposals,” in 1720, after considerable progress had been made in the work of collation, is not materially less confident. Yet to those who have calmly examined the subject, the wonder is not the closeness of agreement between the Greek and Latin Codices, but that a man of so vast erudition and ability should have imagined that he perceived it, to any thing approaching the extent the lowest sense of his words demands. Accordingly when his collations came to be examined, and compared, and weighed, keen indeed must have been the disappointment of our English Aristarchus. With characteristic fearlessness he had been at no trouble to select his materials (at least I trace no indication of such choice in his surviving papers), and thus the truth would burst upon him all the sooner, that the theory on which he had staked a noble reputation, in the face of watchful enemies, must either be abandoned or extensively modified. We can well understand the struggle which silently agitated that proud spirit. Had the subject of his labours been Terence or Milton, it were easy to conjecture the course he would have adopted: if MSS. refused to support his system, they must have been forced to yield to it. But Bentley, with all his faults of temper, was an honest and a pious man; he dared not make the text of Holy Scripture the victim of his sportive ingenuity; and so, soon after the year 1721, we come to hear less and less of his projected Greek Testament. Though he lived till 1742, it does not appear that he ever made serious progress in arranging the stores collected by himself and his coadjutors. As I have turned over his papers in the Library of Trinity College, with a heart saddened by the spectacle of so much labour lost, I could not persuade myself that the wretched disserflions which embittered his declining days had, of them- selves, power enough over Bentley's mind to break off in the midst & work that he had once regarded as his best passport to undying fame.
3—2 >
XX INTRODUCTION.
From the facts we have been discussing I feel entitled to draw two or three practical inferences.
(a). That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether MSS., versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence given by them all.
(b). That where there is a real agreement between all the documents prior to the tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be rejected unheard, is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported by strong internal evidence!, can hardly be adopted.
(c). That in the far more numerous cases where the most ancient docu- ments are at variance with each other, the later or cursive copies are of great importance, as the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as early, possibly even earlier, than any now extant?,
I do not lay down these propositions as any new discovery of my own, but as being (even the second of them) the principles on which all reasonable defenders of the T'extus Receptus have upheld its GENERAL INTEGRITY.
IV. 1 have a good hope that the foregoing investigation of the laws of Comparative Criticism will have convinced an impartial reader, that the cursive or junior copies of the Greek New Testament have, in their proper place and due subordination, a real and appreciable influence in questions relating to doubtful readings. If I have succeeded thus far, it results that the time and pains I have bestowed on studying them have not been wasted: the collations I have accumulated cannot fail to be of some service to the Biblical critic, even though he may think I have a little exaggerated their value and importance. I am not so sanguine as to the degree of popular acceptance my views may obtain, nor (without affecting absolute indifference on the subject) am I by any means so anxious on this head. I have always thought that the researches and labours of the scholar—of the theological scholar above all others—are
1 If I have hitherto said nothing on the im- | strained into a summary neglect of more recent portant head of internal evidence, it is from no | witnesses, as necessarily offering nothing worthy wish to disparage its temperate and legitimate use. | of notice:” finely adding, ‘‘The critic should not Yet how difficult it is to hinder its degenerating, | suffer himself to be encumbered by prepossessions even in skilful hands, into vague and arbitrary | or assumptions, nor bind himeelf to the routine of conjecture ! a mechanical method of procedure. If he allows
3 Even Mr Green, from whom I fear I differ | himself to be thua warped and trammelled, instead widely on some of the topics discussed in this | of ever maintaining the free employment of a chapter, does not shrink from saying, ''In 8 re- | watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he abandons view of authorities special regard will reasonably | his duty and mars his work" (Course of Developed be paid to antiquity; but this must not be over- | Criticism, Intrcduction, p. x.). |
INTRODUCTION. ΧΧῚ
their own highest and purest reward’. Let me plead guilty to having read with sensations akin to scorn, the manuscript note appended by Ceesar de Missy (a person who might have known better) to the copy of Hearne’s scarce edition of the Codex Laudianus (published in 1715), now preserved in the British Museum. To Hearne’s miserable list of just forty-one subscribers to his book, De Missy subjoins the sarcastic comment “ Aprés cela, Docteur, va pdlir sur la Bible!” Yet why should he not have grown pale in the study of God's Word? Why not have handed down to happier times ἃ treasure of sacred learning which the princes and prelates of George the First's reign (that nadir-point of public virtue and intellectual cultivation in England) were too slothful to ap- preciate, too negligent even to despise? The pursuits of Scriptural criticism are so quiet, so laborious, that they can have few charms for the votary of fame, or the courtier of preferment: they always have been, perhaps they always must be, the choice employment mainly of those, who, feeling conscious (it may be) of having but one talent committed to their keeping, seek nothing 80 earnestly as TO USE THAT ONE TALENT WELL.
1 I should have wished to add some noble senti- ὀ ὀ face, p. xx.) on this point, but that I trust they are ments of Dr Dobbin (Codez Monifortianus, Pre- | known to my readers, as they well deserve to be.
CHAPTER II.
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS COLLATED BY F. H. SCRIVENER.
Tux following contributions to the criticism of the Greek Testament are now submitted to the Biblical student,
I. A transcript of the uncial CopEx AveIEkNsIS Greco-Latinus oF ST Paur's EPisTLES. The importance of this venerable document, no less than its countless variations from the printed text in both languages, seems to make a full publica- tion of its contents very advisable. No pains or diligence has been spared to render the copy here exhibited a faithful representation of the original manu- script.
II. A full and exact collation of eight manuscripts of the Gospels (three being Evangelistaria in uncial letters), of fifteen containing the Acts and Catholic Epistles, of fifteen copies of St Paul's Epistles, and thirteen of the Apocalypse, few of which have been previously used for critical purposes.
I have set down the variations of these fifty-one documents from the standard text (Elzevir, 1624) with ἃ minuteness not before deemed necessary by others, or indeed by myself in my * Collation of Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels." Not only have I noted the various readings strictly so called, but every peculiarity of grammatical inflexion or breathing, every erasure or error of the pen, every remarkable change, whether of accent or punctuation, will be found recorded in these pages. In adopting this plan, I have acted not so much on my own judgment, as the earnest desire of several scholars, who have wished my labours to present them with as true an image as possible of the original codices. Un- doubtedly the real value of our materials, the degree of care exercised by the respective scribes, together with many interesting and significant peculiarities of each document, may thus be preserved for the curious inquirer: nor in consulting a book of reference like the present can any one be seriously incommoded by what he may think an error of excess on my part. A portion of my task whose usefulness is less open to dispute is my anxiety to state, in the case of every important variation, not only which of my authorities differ from the received text, but which of them agree with it.
I proceed to lay before the reader, as clearly and briefly as I may, some account of the manuscripts I have collated, beginning with that whose transcript covers so many of the following pages.
INTRODUCTION. ——— xxlil
I. The Copex AuciENsIS is a Greek and Latin Manuscript of St Paul's Epistles, written in uncial letters, probably of the ninth century, deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (5. 17. 1), to the Master and Fellows of which society I am deeply indebted, as well for the munificent aid they have afforded me in the publication of this volume, as for their liberal permission to use this and other precious documents at my own residence. The Codex Augiensis is written on 136 quarto leaves of fine vellum, 9 inches long by 7} broad, and has a rude binding in wood, such as was common in Germany and the Low Countries some centuries ago: on the leathern back are stamped the initials of one of its late owners (G. M. W.). Each page contains 28 lines and is divided into two columns, wherein the Latin version is set alongside of the Greek text, the Latin column being always placed outside. This copy com- mences, Rom. iii. 19, yo Aeye, and the Greek ends, Philem. v. 20, ἐν xpe. There also occur the following hiatus in the Greek; 1 Corinth. iii. 8 to v. 16, ome εν vu»: ibid. vi. 7 to the end of v. 14: and Coloss. ii. 1, after λαοδικια to v. 8, xogpov', In all these places after Rom. iii. 19, the Latin version is complete, being carried on to the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews; but the very same hiatus are found in the Greek text and Latin version of the ConEx BoERNERIANUS (Matthai, 1791), although this latter document contains portions of the Epistle to the Romans before the place where the Codex Augiensis begins.
The recent history of our manuscript; may be traced by means of the inscrip- tions and notes at its beginning and end, which I have copied below, p. 272, and need not here repeat. It was first the property of the monastery whence it derives its name, that of Augia Major, or Augia Dives, Reichenau (rich meadow) on 8 fertile island in the lower part of Lake Constance in Baden; not Augia Rheni, Rheinau (meadow of the Rhine) on an island near the cataract of Schaff- hansen, as Michaelis and others state (Reeves' edition of Adamnan's “ Life of St Columba," Pref. p. xxii): Bentley's note * Monasterium Augiae, in Belgis, ubi institutus est Goddeschalchus" seems to point to Orbais in the diocese of Soissons and modern Department of the Marne, some thirty miles east of Paris. If Wet. stein be right in supplying * Concilii" after ** Basiliensis" [a.p. 1431] in the earliest inscription, p. 272, the book must have belonged to that monastery in the fifteenth century; whence it came into the possession of G. M. Wepfer, of Schaffhausen, and then of L. Ch. Mieg, who permitted Wetstein to examine it. Wetstein induced Bentley to purchase this Codex at Heidelberg in 1718, the German bookseller parting with it at cost price (250 Dutch florins) in considera- tion for the fame and learning of the prince of English scholars?. Bentley, as
1 Eight leaves of the Codex Augiensis, which | 3 Or rather perhaps as Bentley states the case eught to follow fol. 55, have been placed by the | when writing to Wetstein at the time (Bentley Cor-
binder after fol. 102. | respondence, p. 541), “οὗ beneficia a me partim
XXlV INTRODUCTION.
will be seen from his manuscript notes, formed a high estimate of the Codex Augiensis, and used it for his projected edition of the Greek Testament. J have compared his collation (consisting of the Greek text only) with my own tran. Script, and extracted (infra, p. 284) the few notes interspersed with it from the margin of his copy of the Oxford Greek Testament 1675, now preserved with his other papers and books in Trinity College Library (B. 17. 8). The first published collation of our manuscript was that of Wetstein, in whose notation it is marked F of the Pauline Epistles; but as this was easily seen to be very imperfect, it was again examined by Tischendorf in 1842, and by Dr Tregelles in 1845, for their editions of the Greek Testament. The result of Tischendorf's labours appears in his manual N. T. of 1849, but it is obviously impossible in so small a volume to do anything like justice to such a document as this: indeed I may fairly apply to his case the language of Matthei respecting the kindred Codex Boerneri- anus; * Etenim nec Kusterus nec Wetstenius satis accuraté omnia hujus Codicis singularia notaverant, nec vero etiam, nisi totum transcribere voluissent, potuerant. Plura enim prorsus singularia nullus inter Codices N. T. habet, nisi fortasse Evangeliorum et Actuum Bezz seu Cantabrigiensis" (Praef. Cod. Boern. p. πι|.)}}. I should add that Tischendorf was the first to pay attention to the Latin trans- lation in F (denoted by f), remarkable and in some measure perplexing as it is. ‘Primus contuli et passim citavi" is his statement (Nov. Test. Proleg. p. LXxxiL); yet his citations are comparatively few (no less than eight varia- tions being omitted in Rom. viii.), and convey no adequate representation of its peculiar character. I bave reason to know that this defect will be supplied in his seventh edition.
In estimating the age and country of this manuscript we are scarcely left to conjecture. The style of writing both in its Latin and Greek columns, its manifest connexion with the Codex Boernerianus, and consequently with the Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels (A) published in lithograph facsimile by Rettig (Turici, 1836) ; no less than the extraneous matter it contains, written in the same hand as the sacred text, all seem to point distinctly to the West of Europe, and the middle of the ninth century.
This foreign matter consists of a Latin Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews (infra, p. 252), the only Argument in the Codex Augiensis, and a kind of Epilogue to the same Epistle (pp. 268—272), having however but little reference to it. Both the Prologue and Epilogue are found in the works of Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died αν. 856, and is justly termed by Dean Waddington (History of the Church, p. 259, first edition)
accepta, partim adhuc sperata:" yet who would not , tinet commemorare." This was in 1791, yet the gladly impute their courtesy to the higher motive! | Cod. Augiensis was then at Trinity College, having
1 “Nam de Augiensi," Matthei strangely | been placed there in 1787, after the death of adds, ''quia ubi nunc lateat, ignoratur, non δ. Richard Bentley the nephew.
INTRODUCTION. XAV
“the most profound theologian of the age.” The Prologue is prefixed to that prelate’s Commentary on the Hebrews (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, Paris, 1851; Rabani Opera, Tom. vi. p. 711); the Epilogue is annexed to Rabanus’ Treatise * De Modo Penitentie,” comprising the twenty-third and concluding chapter of that work, with the title “ Dicta Assatis Prnopai” (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, p. 1329); yet, as in the case of the Codex Augiensis, it has no special connection with the preceding matter, only that it was manifestly familiar to Rabanus, who has employed its sentiments, and sometimes its very words, throughout his own Treatise’. Now when we consider that both the Prologue and Epilogue are found in the volumes of Rabanus, it need not materially modify our estimate of the date of the Codex Augiensis were we to learn that one or both of them has been traced separately to an earlier source. The Prologue is read almost verbatim, in the Codex Amiatinus edited by Tischendorf (1850, 1854), the most venerable existing MS. of the Latin Vulgate, whose date is the sixth century: while a marginal note has been affixed by a modern hand to the Epilogue in our MS. (fol. 139, p. 2)?, directing our attention to Cumianus, an Irish writer of the middle of the seventh century. On comparing the passage cited (Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, Lugduni 1677, Tom. xm. p. 42) with our Postscript, the resem- blance between them appears so slight and general that it is hard to believe that the writer of the note could have ever read both pieces throughout: in the few opening sentences alone is there any real similarity. There seems, therefore, at present no reason for disturbing the general opinion which has assigned the date of our Manuscript to the next generation after Charlemagne.
We are led to much the same conclusion when we regard the Codex Augiensis in connexion with the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus: I name them together, for no one that has read Rettig's elaborate Prolegomena to the former (Cap. 1v. pp. 18—23) will hesitate to consider them as portions of one and the same document, The close affinity subsisting between the Codices Augiensis
1 The Codex Augiensis should be used for cor- recting the text of Rabanus: thus, both it and the Cod. Amiatinus supply an important sentence in the Argument to the Hebrews, and it confirms Migne's conjecture ‘‘elemosinarum,” fol. 140, p. 1, col 1, 1l. 6. After '' jam non recordabor," fol. 141, p. 1, col, 2, l. 1, there is no resemblance between our MS. and the ‘‘ Dicta Pinophi," either in the | points out to mo that ''Fota" or “the Long" words or sense. For this Abbot Pinophus I have was the sobriquet of Cumianus or Commin (nat.
minit Origenes Homil. 11. in Levit." A later
|
| searched in vain every index of mediaeval litera- | A.D. 592; Cave, Histor. Literar. Tom. I. p. 584,
scribe adds, *'imo potius conveniunt iis que Cu- mianus habet in l de Poenitentiarum mensura: qui auctor vixit an 640. et iis que extant B. Patr. T. xir p. 42. For habet in Tischendorf reads Rabani, for habet Mr Hort (in Tregelles’ Horne, p. 198 note) reads Fata or Fota, and obligingly
ture I could meet with. I must leave him to , Oxon. 1740). I believe, however, that when he
some one who may be more fortunate. shail next consult the MS., he will find my read- 2 I subjoin the whole note, the cramped hand- | ing of the word correct. I have placed an as-
writing of which has perplexed more readers than | terisk on p. 268, at the place where this mar-
one: ''respondent sxc [sequentia!] quadantenus | ginal note begins.
variis illis remittendi peccata modis, quorum me-
Xxvl INTRODUCTION.
and Boernerianus has indeed no parallel in this branch of literature, for the Codex Sangermanensis of St Paul's Epistles (E) is nothing but a bad copy of the great Codex Claromontanus (D), and having as such no critical value whatever, ought long since to have been expunged from .the list of authorities. No suspicion of this kind can be reasonably entertained in the present case. The Latin versions in the two copies are essentially different, and though the circum- stance that the same hiatus are met with in the Greek text of each, and their intimate correspondence even in errors of the scribe, abundantly prove that they are derived from the same Greek prototype (“ ejusdem veteris exemplaris apo- grapho," as Bentley expresses it, infra, p. 284), yet the supposition that the one was immediately derived from the other, will be found quite irreconcileable with ascertained phenomena. I have made an accurate collation of the Codex Augi- ensis with Matthsi's edition of the Codex Boernerianus, which was lately ascer- tained by Bóttiger to be very exact, and have placed its results at the foot of each page in my transcript in the following pages. Hence it appears that the two documents vary from each other in 1984 places; whereof 579 are mere blunders of the pen; 968 ittacisms, or changes of one vowel into another!; 166 relate to a similar interchange of consonants; 71 to grammatical or ortho- graphical forms; while the real various readings amount to 200, of which 32 arise from the omission or insertion of the article. Elsewhere the Greek texts of these manuscripts are identical, coinciding in the minutest points.
The 166 instances of interchange of consonants are chiefly corrections in the Codex Boernerianus of anomalies found in the Codex Augiensis; yet many remain common to both, from which might be drawn up a catalogue to the full as curious as that of Rettig in his Prolegomena to the Codex Sangallensis, and much of the same character. A few examples will suffice for a thousand, and it is quite evident that the scribe who adopted them had a most imperfect acquaintance with Greek. Thus A and e are perpetually confused in F; e.g. a»Ópemos, Gal. iii. 15; v. 3; Eph. vi. 6; Phil ii. 7; Col. iii. 22: but αθελῴος Phil. ii. 25; ii. 1; 13; 17; iv. 1; 21; Coloss. i. 1; 2; 1 Thess. iv. 10, bis; 18; v. 1 p.m.; 4 p.m.; 12 p.m.; 1 Tim. iv. 6 p.m.; v. 1; 2; αληδιαν, 1 Tim. iv. 3 p.m.: ἀγωνιζομεδα, ibid. v. 10 p.m.; παραδεκην, 2 Tim. i. 12: λυδαδὴν (pro ανθαδη), Tit. i.7. So N and ni, rovravrioy, Gal. ii. 7: συνυνεκριθησαν, ibid. v. 13: λυνειται, Ephes. iv. 30: πρενει, v. 3: mepwarire, ibid. v. 8: especially xovos (pro xomos), 2 Cor. x. 15; xi. 23; 27, passim. Thus also T and e are interchanged, ἐνειχεσται, 2 Cor. xi. 4: amodoyoupera, Xii. 19 p.m.: καθαρτιζεσθαι, xiii. 11: ἀνθεστην, Gal. ii. 11. Similarly with ¢ and £ | Rom. vii. 11 has εὔγπατησεν both in F and G; but Phil. iii. 8 ἐξημειωθην: see also F in Col. i. 20; iii, 13; 1 Thess. v. 3; 2 Thess. i. 3;
1 In both MSS. the vowels are interchanged | assert with Tregelles (Horne, p. 198), that the as much as in any copy I know, none perhaps so | writer of F '*used them without discrimination. frequently as o and w: yet I would not quite | The interchange of e and » is nearly as frequent.
INTRODUCTION. XXVIli
1 Tim. i. 6; Tit. i. 2; ii. 9. H and N are constantly interchanged in G, and some- times in F, e.g. Eph. i. 17; iii. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 13. The confusion of μ and », noted by Matthzi in G, is also found in F, e.g. Rom. xv. 26; 1 Cor. i. 9; as is the more natural error of A for A (1 Cor. iii. 19), A for A (Tit. i. 7), A for 4 (2 Cor. xii. 6). The decided Latinism 0 for P (e.g. 1 Tim. ii. 1) and vice versd is very frequent: σρερμα, Rom. ix. 7: παραρτωματι, Xi. 11: ἀγαρητοι, 1 Cor. x. 14 p.m.: but πληποῴορεσον, 2 Tim. iv. 5. Mutations of π and 8 (1 Tim. iv. 14), of « and x (especially in exOpos and exépa, e.g. Rom. v. 10; viii. 7; xii. 20), of £ and x (Rom. xi. 14, G; l Cor. vi. 2, F; 2 Cor. iii. 18, F; 1 Tim. i. 15) of VX for YX (σπλανχνα, Philem. vv. 7; 12) constantly occur, and need not here be further cited.
There are no signs of the ordinary breathings and accents in this manuscript. Codex F occasionally, and G more often places a straight line nearly horizontal over the initial vowel of a word, which may be designed for the aspirate, but is found in some few places where the vowel takes the lenis (ἴδιον, 1 Cor. vi. 18; vii. 4; 37; wea, Phil. ii. 6; see also 1 Tim. iv. 15). This mark is of some im- portance from the circumstance that both in F and G it is placed over OC in 1 Tim. iii. 16, for which various reading in the place of OC these codices are well known to be the chief, I had almost said the only unequivocal witnesses. Yet I do not believe that the line was intended to denote that ÓC was the familiar abbreviation for eos, for not only is there not the faintest trace of such a line within the O as shall make it become 9’, but the line is placed over too many initial and aspirated omicrons to render it probable that anything more was intended here (1 Thess. i. 9 F G; 1 Tim. iii. 1 G; iv. 14 G; 15 FG; vi. 15 bis FG). Another peculiarity of these codices is the strange and sometimes indeed the absurd manner in which the words are separated from each other. The continuous mode of writing, with no space or division between the words, which prevailed in the elder Greek uncial copies, was by this time laid aside, and the scribe of the Codex Augiensis seems to have intended to place a middle point or stop (:) after the last letter of each word he wrote. These points I have faithfully retained in my transcript, and though the penman neglects them in some passages (about fol. 12 and elsewhere they almost disappear for a while), yet on the whole they are found pretty uniformly in all parts of the MS. Parts of the same word, originally separated, are often linked (p.m. as it would seem) by ἃ curve (.), the point once between them being partially or wholly erased. In the Codex Boernerianus few such stops are found, but an interval is left between the several words much in the fashion of modern writing. Now the point I would draw attention to is this: that while the mode in which the words
! Of course I speak of the Codex Augiensis | contained in this volume. The facsimile of this from close and repeated examination, and the | passage from the Codex Doernerianus is given in reader will judge for himself by the photograph | Matthwi's Greek Testament, Vol. I. p. 4.
4—2
xxvlil INTRODUCTION.
are divided in each copy displays much ignorance on the part of the penman, there is no striking resemblance in the actual blunders: the two documents therefore were derived separately from some early codex, in which there was probably ho interval between the words; and consequently in those places where F and G agree, they must not be estimated as two distinct authorities, but as one; the surviving representatives of a manuscript now lost, perhaps a century or two older than themselves.
This is true as regards the Greek text: their respective Latin versions are quite independent and even more interesting than the Greek to a Biblical critic. * Codex Augiensis latinam interpretationem eamque veterem vulgatam adscriptam habet, Boernerianus vero greecis superscriptam eamque veterem italam," is Tischendorf's decision (Proleg. N. T. p. xxi). Tregelles again terms the Latin version of F a very good copy of that of Jerome, *far superior to that generally current" (Tregelles’ Horne, p. 198). I am not sure whether Dr Davidson has closely examined this subject, as his description of this copy is not quite free from error, yet I conceive his view of the version to be more correct, when he regards it as “patched and mended so as to be a mixture of the Old Latin and Jerome's" (Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Vol. 11.). But in fact the internal history of the Latin Vulgate translation, and its relation to the Italic or old Latin, under the various forms wherein the latter has been preserved to us, remain yet to be investigated, nor is this the place to venture on so large a field of inquiry. The Latin portion of the Codex Augiensis (called f by Tischendorf) will I believe prove very useful to the scholar who shall undertake the thorough examination of this question: for the present it shall suffice to offer ἃ few general remarks.
Our version then will be found to approximate much nearer to the Clementine Vulgate, or to the best MSS. of Jerome's version, such as the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis, in those parts of the manuscript where the Greek is lost: indeed to differ from one or more of them only in affording some good various readings. There is wider divergency in other places, yet even there it very much eonsists of readings assimilated to those of the Greek text in the parallel columns, or of changes in the order of words, which are thus made to approach to that of the original, a tendency too natural under the circumstances to excite surprise. Sometimes, when the variation in order is more extensive than usual, marks are placed over the Greek words, referring them to the corresponding Latin (e.g. Rom. xi. 22). In some parts of this MS. (e.g. 1 Cor. x.) the divergences of the Latin version in our copy from the Vulgate are considerable : its renderings approaching nearer to those of the Italic MSS. In many passages, however, the Latin reading agrees with the printed Vulgate against the Greek (e.g. Rom. xii. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 2; 24; xiv. 18; xv. 51; 2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 13; v. 3; 19; xi. 28; Gal. i. 6 p.m.; v. 20; Ephes. vi. 19; Phil. ii. 11; iii. 8; 17; 20; 2 Tim. i. 9; iv. 22): while in some instances it departs from the Greek and present Vulgate text jointly (e. g.
INTRODUCTION. ΧΧΙΧ
Rom. ix. 4; 1 Cor. x. 1; 29; xv. 23; Eph. iii, 11 ; Phil. iii. 7; 1 Tim. v. 1; 2 Tim. i. 15 bis); and often sides with the Greek against the Vulgate (e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 20; ix. 24; x. 2; 19; Gal. v. 22; et passim).
Throughout the wbole MS. many Latin words will be seen placed over the Greek, probably by a later!, certainly by an ancient hand, a large portion of which, viz. 86 cases out of the whole 106, are derived from the interlinear version of the Codex Boernerianus?: of the remainder, one rendering * waltet" 1 Cor. vii. 4 is in German, which was doubtless the native language of this scribe. Either therefore a later hand must have corrected the Cod. Augiensis by its kindred copy (which from other improvements in the Greek may be deemed not impossible), or the interlinear Latin in both documents was taken from their common prototype, which in that case must have exhibited the old Italic and not Jerome's revised translation. The Latin version in F is somewhat carelessly written, at least in parts (e.g. foll. 49, 50). in my copy all the original errors of the pen.
I have thought it my duty to retain
I would not positively assert that the Codex Augiensis is the work of a single scribe: certainly when the misplaced leaves 56— 63 are seen in the later part of the MS. after fol. 102, the contrast in style of writing is rather striking. Yet those who are most conversant with paleeography will often feel the most diffident in pronouncing judgment on this point, so greatly does the hand change in the course of a long task; and so much is it influenced by the prospect of an abund- ance or scarcity of vellum or paper. Yet in a case like that before us, where the same document was faithfully copied at the same time and place, the question respecting the identity of the copyist is hardly worth discussing?.
Wetstein, I believe, was the first to speak of the Anglo-Saxon form of the Latin characters (N. T. Proleg. Tom. rm. 8), but I perceive no real difference between the style of this MS. and of many of the same date which abound in public libraries (e. g. Bodleian, Douce, 322). Hence I would rather acquiesce in the statement of the late accomplished John Wordsworth (infra, p.272) : ** This MS. is not written in Anglo-Saxon characters, as has been described, but in the renovated minuscule of the Caroline period." While the Greek portion is executed in a neat but rather rude uncial character, the Latin is in a cursive band, the intervals between the words well marked, and the whole appearance
one of singular elegance and clearness.
! pota. illum, Rom. xii. 20, and perhaps some other words, are clearly p. m.
3 From whicb, I presume, h was inserted be- fore νποκρισει, Fol. 118, p. 2, l. 18.
! IT am quite willing to acquiesce in Dr Tre- gelles’ statement, in his edition of Horne's /ntro- durtion, Vol. 11. p. 189: “‘ If different parts of the Codex Augiensis are compared, it may seem as if
The reader will observe from my copy
it had been written by several hands from the variety in the character of the Greek ; but if the leaves are looked at consecutively (and not in the order in which some of them are now transposed) [vid. supra, p. xxiii, note r.], it will be seen that the changes are so gradual as to indicate the same hand having become more practised (or more wearied) in tracing Greek letters.”
ΧΧΧ INTRODUCTION.
that prepositions, &c. are often joined closely with the following word. Here again a few of the consonants are repeatedly interchanged, b with p!, d with t, c with s, x with ch (1 Cor. xii. 31), and p with r in xps or xpe, beth which forms perpetually occur, the latter perhaps the more frequently. The letter r has often the shape of f, and twice (Rom. ix. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 17) r is used where Γ᾽ is plainly meant. On the other hand, a few Latin letters and forms have crept into the Greek text, as in Gal. v. 24; 1 Tim. iv. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 4 p.m.; iv. 1. Indeed v, u and y are much confounded: the genitive « for ov occurs 2 Cor. ii. 15; v. 10; 1 Tim. iv. 6; Philem. 9 p.m.: « for the pl. nom. οι, 1 Cor. ix. 5; xv. 48; 2 Thess. iii. 8: «c for os, 1 Cor. xvi. 16: k is read in karissimus, but not (I think) elsewhere.
The abbreviations or contractions in the Greek text are confined to the words, Geos, Kuptos, ἰησους, χριστος, Trarnp, πνευμα, and their oblique cases ; these are common to most uncial copies.. The Codex Augiensis however (thus resem- bling the Cod. Boernerianus) is peculiar in reading «v, ww, xpv, xp», although the more usual forms w, ἐν; xe, x» are often met with. It also sometimes reads 8 for ov. All these peculiarities I have, of course, studiously retained.
The Latin version has many more contractions, though these are so unequally distributed that on many pages (especially near the beginning) there are scarce any. The page we represent in photograph exhibits an average num- ber. Most of them will be found in other MSS. of about the same date, but since I have not exhibited them in my transcript except for special reasons, I have been the more careful to draw up the following complete list of them.
Both in the middle and end of a word — over a letter denotes m: over m it stands for en (e. g. am), over t or v for er (e.g. talit), over the last written
1 Since Reichenau, like St Gall and other neighbouring foundations, was much frequented in the ninth century by Irish monks and pilgrims, the Codex Augiensis has been thought to have been written by a scribe of that nation. I note however a considerable difference both in style of writing
sources, those orthographical peculiarities which he considers to characterise Irish MSS. of about the ninth century (Preface, p. xvi). I believe that his list would have been more useful had he excluded mere errors of the pen, and made it rather more select : some of his forms, e.g. -is for -es, c and t
and in neatness between the Latin of this MS., and the rude coarse hand of the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus, which strikingly resemble the interlined copy of the Lord's Prayer appended to the Reichenau MS. of the Life of St Columba, founder of Hy [Icolmkill] by Adamnan, and pub- lished with it in 1857 for the Irish Archzolovical Society by Dr Reeves, the Celtic scholar, to whom we were indebted ten years ago for the interpreta- tion of the Jrish stanzas at the foot of fol. 23 of the Codex Boernerianus. The learned editor has also laboriously collected from this MS. of Adam- nan (which he assigns to the eighth century), from the Book of Armagh (A.D. 807) and other kindred
interchanged, adinpletus for adimpletus, arecommon to all ages and MSS. Yet not a few of his ex- amples occur in the Codex Augiensis, e. g. 6 for p; p for b (prespiter) ; f for ph; t ford; habunde; eclesia ; oboedientia ; and especially the coherence of the preposition to the word it governs, so con- stant in our MS. Dr Reeves (Preface, pp. xx. xxi.) incidentally states that the capricious sub-division of words, of which we see so much in the Greek of the Codex Augiensis, is a marked peculiarity of old Irish writing. But in our Latin version (f) we find nothing of this kind, nor am I on the whole inclined to impute it to an Irish scribe.
INTRODUCTION.
ΧΧΧῚ
of a verb for the terminations it, at, or unt. The mark ; above the itten letter of a verb is for ur; the termination us is often represented apostrophe (e.g. man’), rarely by ἃ (Hebr. xiii. 4), u* or αὐ, or even r the apostrophe. The mark » seen on ll. 18 and 27 of the photographed
3 for the ending um of the genitive plural; b is for the termination bis; rb; for bus final. A comma under e (l. 17 photograph) is for ae diph- and though it is often found under e in celum, yet that word when written is always spelt celum not celum: so also penitentia, pp. 268, 269. What nt by the comma over e (which I retain whenever it is found) I know A kind of flourished tail appended to À, m, or n stands for i (e. g. À);
P . . . are often written N, N ; & is sometimes written small below the line
onnected with the other letters by a species of flourish, as a/, h,,
, ha’.
the subjoined list of ABRIDGED WORDS the appended reference shews that rm occurs only in the passages cited:
ebr. vii. 21) .................... eternum
ΗΝ aliquid or aliquod. BIS ..«.Ὁ νον νοννσενο κεν οννννε trn apostolus
(au& Ephes. vi. 21) ............... autem
NMENDEMMMMMMMMMMMEMMMHMMT con prepos. | Cor. iv. 5), dni &c.......... Dominus c. lo, dm ............. enm Deus óc. claae, eclam......... ...... .. ecclesia &c
jr. xii. 20; xiii. 17)................-. enim. eeestes ese esesst estes sess esent epistolis "It. LT) .eee———4HHHMI episcopum
decceccececeece reset ipe se e es nane n ergo.
ΩΣ est. CONE .....eeRe esse, esset, essent. 1 joined with other letters), or 7 ...... et. Eph. vi. 19) eee evangelii. frem, fres, fribus ............... frater &c. ΜΝ gloria &c ge, gram, gras MEM gratia &c (Hebr. vii. 22) .............-- hierusalem. ths (ih 2 Thess. ii. 8), ihu, ihm.Jesus óc. ü (1 Cor. 111, 7) ee incrementum. FUÉ eene reete in
irl, isrl ...... ΝΞ... Israhel. kmi (Eph. v. 1; Phil. ii. 12) ......... carissimi. micda, miserda, miae, miam ... misericordia &c. ms (Hebr. x. 38) .................. ΠΝ meus. D eese annie non (ne p. 270, 1. 271) nr, nra, nrm, nrorum, nris ............ noster &c numqd or numqd ...................sss. numquid. nc (Hebr. ix. 24) .....0ἁὁννννννννν να σε νν σεν σενον nune obsecrat (Eph. vi. 18) ............... obsecratione. omis, oms, ome, omi, oma ............ omnis &c. | IEEE per. p’ (only in Hebr. and Postscript) ......... post. p (even joined with other letters)... pre or pre. pbros (once in Postscript) ........... presbyteros. P mu (Eph. iv.9) ...................ssee primum. p (1. 20 photograph) .................... esee pro gd, qd or q'd, qu'd .........0ἁἀἐενννν εν ενέόννον quid, quid ΝΠ ΉΉῊΉῊΝΝ P quidem Q eene nennen nnne rentre nennen que Q ennemi nnnnt enun nnn qua or quam qui* ΟΣ qa we. cccecstctecseesseseeneeeseneeseecees quia q', q's or quis, α΄, q* ......... qui, quis, quo, qua.
pugnas, 1 Tim, vi. 4 ; habitans, ib. 16; hobeam, 2 Tim. i. 3 ; habitavit, ib. 5 ; criminatores, iii. 3,
'XXxli INTRODUCTION. qd or qu'd ................ (heseceratesds tenete quod. | simil (1 Cor. vii, 4) ...................- similiter. quo, qm, quom ..........eeeeee quoniam. | spe, spm, SPU «cce .. Spiritus Se. Q 4; 4΄ eee eem nemen QUÉ. | g cesses eene nennen esaet inne sunt. sclm, sacla (scl gen. 1 Cor. ii. 6) &c. seculum óc. n ed X EOS GUN om πταπ ams &e. nanctuis be | . δι ΟΝ , 5 v? (ἢ 1 Cor. xi. 15).............. enne wero &cdm OF secdm ........Ὁ ees νννννενννννενν secundum. | _ uL uu e f, or 3d es sed. | VT, Vestr, vrae, vrum, vrs &c. ......... vester óc. ΜΉΝ sicut. | xpc or xps, xpi, xpo, xpm ...... Christus &c.
The liturgical matter, numbers of κεφαλαια, marginal annotations, &c. of the Codex Boernerianus are totally wanting in the Codex Augiensis, which contains, however, a few marks at the foot of the second pages of folios 95, 111, 119, 127, and of the first page of 113?. The stops in F are the full point (-) between the Greek words, and a note of interrogation ? often employed in the Latin, . where the colon also prevails. The other chief marks are the horizontal line discussed above (p. xxvii.), double or single points or commas over . and v, a large
^
comma, and a kind of circumflex ^ sometimes placed over & Greek vowel or diphthong (usually « or «), on no regular principle that I can make out. The sign 7 or 77, which perplexed Matthei in the Codex Boernerianus, is rarely The titles and initial lines of each epistle, as also the first letter of each κεφαλαιον, are in rubric and secundá manu, though many of the last are still wanting, letters being placed in the margin (often p.m.) to guide the rubrician, and a few are placed erro- neously, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 1; 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1; iii. 1. No trace exists in F of that strange announcement with which G concludes, Upos λαουδακησας apyera ἐπιστολη, Which raises our curiosity as if only to baulk it. Some writers have observed that F resembles the Codex Beze in adopting the abbreviations XP5» qp, &c. instead of the more usual forms χε, ts, &c. But, as I intimated above, the latter occur in this manuscript scarcely less often than in the former: see 1 Cor. viij. 6 and many other places. Both in the Greek and Latin texts I have often hesitated whether a letter somewhat larger than the rest should be printed as a capital; and on this minute point my judgment has probably been sometimes at fault.
I had purposed to lay before the student a selection from the remarkable readings and extraordinary grammatical inflexions which abound in this Codex, but in plain truth they are innumerable, and, at the same time, of such
found in F, nor can I throw any light upon it.
127 repetit.
1 Matthei Cod. Boerner. p. tot, describes ἃ similar abbreviation in that MS. as t for aut: yet both in the Cod. Augiensis (e. g. fol. 102, p. 2) and in his own facsimile of the Cod. Boerner. I Tim. i. 3, the letter is clearly ὦ for vel.
3 I do not understand pa on fol. 113, or on fol.
The numerals cy on fol. 95, ἐδ on fol. 1 II, «e on fol. 119, and «c on fol. 127, occur at in- tervals of eight leaves, and shew that the MS. consisted originally of 143 leaves, of which 8 are misplaced after fol. 102, and the first seven (pro- bably including a title-leaf) lost.
{
INTRODUCTION. xxxlli
& character that they will be sure to arrest the interest and reward the best attention of every one into whose hands this volume is likely to fall.
As the Codex Augiensis exhibits throughout many traces of erasures and corrections, the reader will please, while using it, to make constant reference to the ANNoTATIONES EpitToris (infra, pp. 273—284), in which these alterations are carefully recorded. I only hope my notes may prove serviceable to others, in some proportion to the pains and anxiety I have expended on them. But no one versed in these studies is ignorant how much doubt and uncertainty often exists, as to whether a change has been introduced by the first penman, or by some later hand!, I have arranged these corrections into three classes, those primd manu, those secundá manu, and those again recenti manu, accord- ing as I conceive them to have been made by the original scribe, by a second yet ancient corrector (AND TO HIM I IMPUTE THE GREAT MASS OF THESE CHANGES), or by & recent critic, whose judgment should have no weight whatever. Alterations of the last kind are easily detected, but for the others I am sensible that another eye will often decide differently from mine. I have taken no notice of a mala seges of Latin annotations scribbled over the earlier leaves of this Codex by some one who must have been profoundly unconscious of its value; from the similarity of handwriting I fear the culprit is Mieg, one of the former possessors of this priceless treasure. Several places are also disfigured by grotesque sketches in ink, such as often offend the reverential student of Biblical MSS. I am inclined to think, however, that they are least frequently found in copies of the Holy Gospels?.
My transcript of Cod. F has been compared with the original six times, before it was submitted to the reader. For the photograph copy of the page containing the important variation in 1 Tim, iii. 16, I am indebted to the skill and Christian kindness of my friend and neighbour, the Rev. R. F. B. Rickards, Vicar of Constantine.
II. 1. I proceed to describe the eight copies of the Gospels which have been collated for this volume.
(i) Tro. Corr. Cantas. B. x. 17. This manuscript and the next but one belong to the Library of Trinity College, and although they are not in the list of Bentley MSS., since they never passed into the younger Richard Bentley's posses- sion, are said in the general catalogue to have been “ brought from Mount Athos,
1 ** Passim difficile dictu est utrum emendatio | evil habit I have met with occurs in the Bodleian ad ipsum auctorem an manum ejus squalem, an ad | MS. Canonici Grzci 110 of the Acts and Epistles, correctorem posteriorem sit referenda," is Tischen- | wherein a poor priest is portrayed in a humor- dorfs admission as regards the Codex Amiatinus | ous and triumphant attitude, pointing to 1 Tim. v. (Proleg. p. XXXII. 1850). 19, ἃ text which had doubtless proved of some use
$ One of the least repulsive examples of this | to him when in difficulties.
5
XXXIV INTRODUCTION.
purchased by Dr Bentley, and bequeathed by him to the College.” Unques- tionably they are both paged and the modern chapters noted by his hand. My attention was first drawn to them by Mr Field, the editor of Chrysostom’s Homilies, and I have found them both well worthy of the labour bestowed upon them. This copy is on vellum, quarto, on 317 leaves (exclusive of 6 leaves of paper at the beginning) with 20 lines in a page, written in a neat set style, and in good condition, though the ink has faded in parts. I should assign it to the 13th century. The binder has happily lettered it “ Hymni in dies festos." The paper leaves contain Liturgical matter and an ὑποθεσις to St Matthew (the other Gospels have none) in a good hand, though somewhat more recent than that of the MS. itself Here also, and on the last page of vellum we have an illegible scrawl in modern Greek, seemingly about the owner, one Sylvester. The vellum MS. contains κεφαλαια majora before each Gospel, and (foll 311—317) the ordinary γνωσις vov ευαγγελ. rov ὁλου emavrov, including the Saints' Days. On the ample margin of this fine copy are found the numbers of the Ammonian sections and capitals to each (but no Eusebian Canons, or Epistola ad Carpianum or Eusebian tables); ἀρχη, τέλος constantly in the text; the titles of the κεφαλαια majora and beginnings of lessons at the top and foot of each page: all these in bright red.
As Codex i presents us with a pretty fair specimen of the character of such itacisms as prevail in MSS. of this date, I have formed a list of them, stating how often each occurs. We meet with ὦ for o, 109 times; o for e, 105; ει for ἢν 81; 9 for εἰ, 78; « for ει, 35; ει for b 36; e for αι. 41; αι for €, 35; e for 7, 11; η for e, but twice; ἡ for ς, 84 times (with morys always); « for η, 76; εἰ for οι, 4; ot for e, once; « for v, 5 times; v for «, 4; v for o, 4; οἱ for v, once; v for », 14 times; 7 for v, 3; « for v, once; v for «, 4 times; o: for ε, 7; « for ox twice; οἱ for η, 5 times; » for οἱ, twice; o for οἱ, once; o for ov, 4 times; ov for o, 4: total in the four Gospels 759 itacisms. The » εφελκυστικον is read 171 times (chiefly with ειπεν), but is so unequally distributed that there are only nine after Luke viii. 29. No : ascript is met with, but . subscript is as often inserted as omitted (28.times in Matth. i—iv.), not rarely where it has no place, e.g. μεγαλῃ, Matth. vii. 27, κεφαλῃ, ibid. xiv. 11, and in 15 other passages.
The breathings in i are ἃ little irregular, though much less so than in some other copies: we often find ὄχλος, ὁλιγος, οἷδα, ὁδοντων, ὅστεων, alrew, &c. and verbs whose initial letter is ἡ improperly aspirated: on the other hand, dpra(o, érepos, ératpos, óAos, εἰστηκει &c. The accents are somewhat inaccurate, and occasionally neglected, especially in δια or πρὸς before articles and nouns; yet verbs compounded with prepositions frequently have both parts of the compound accented. I have noted ten cases where the circumflex is thrown upon the ante-penultima, e.g. οἶδατε, Matth. xxv. 13. Of grammatical and orthographical peculiarities this MS. has no great number; the following list is I believe pretty complete: ἀποσταλμενους
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
Matth. xxiii. 37; Luc. xiii. 34; λέλαμψ, Marc. iv. 37; παρελθηναι, vi. 485 peo (for -e») ix. 34; xii. 91; παρεδωκησαν, xv. 10; ἐμπαροσθε, Luc. v. 19 p.m.; ἐσιωπουν, vi. 9; διαμερεσμενοι, Xii, 52; κοπριαν (with some editions), xiii, 8; θυγατέραν, $bid. 16; θυρα (accus.) ibid. 25 bis; cape, xv. 8; aporpiovvra, xvii. 7; εκαθερισθησαν, ibid. 14; xnpa (accus.), xviii. 5; μασθοι, xxiii. 20; γαλλιλαια, xxiii. quinquies ; κριμαν, xxiv. 205 πολλος, Johan. vii. 12; δοξασθη, xv. 8. In the two earlier Gospels we usually find ῥαμβι, BapaBas. We mostly read ode, always I think d8paap, otras, uas, οὐχ. Other forms which frequently occur are éopaxa, διατοῦτο, κατιδίαν, διαπαντὸς, dpa (for dpa), ἐξενων- jue», ὡσαὕῦτως, ὅτ᾽ ἂν, ἐπ᾿ dy, A few proper names in r are followed by the apo- strophe, e.g. ra(aper, ἔλισαβετ᾽ : » is occasionally rejected so as to generate the hiatus, e.g. Johan. xiii. 26, and 6 other places.
Of various readings Codex i supplies a large variety, and is somewhat partial to glosses: it will occasionally be found to accord with the received text, in passages where few MSS. support it. Though not negligently written, it exhibits at least 16 omissions from the ὁμοιοτελευτον: ἡμεῖς and ὑμεις are confounded in about 25 places. A reviser’s hand has been somewhat busy with this document, and a few corrections are very late. The rubric portions are not quite contem- porary with the MS., for some letters are erased that they may be rewritten in red ink. On the last page of the vellum, after the Synaxarion, or table of lessons, we read the following rubro:
Tov δακτύλοις Ὕραψαντα, τον κεκτήμενον TOV αναγινωσκοντα μετ᾽ eviaBeras Φφυλαττε τοὺς τρεις ἡ τριας τρισολβιως.
I subjoin a list of a few principal readings of Cod. i. which will be seen to be in frequent agreement with the Codex Leicestrensis, to be described hereafter, and with Codd. cgpy and sometimes | of my “ Collations of the Gospels.” . Matth. vii. 14 p.m. (Elzev.); x. 36; xiii. 10; 14 (c); 15; 17 (y); xix. 28; xx. 23; xxvii. 6; Marc. iv. 21; 29; 38; v. 9: 15; vi. 29; vii. 4; 8; 13; 15; 20; xii. 29; xiv. 33; 44 (cy); Luc. i. 23; 59; iii. 23 (stops); v. 6; 36; vi. 7 (Elzev.); vii. 4 (g); 42; viii, 50; x. 2; 22; 36 (Elzev.); xvii. 26; 27 (g); xix. 8 (6); 21; xxii. 10; 65; Johan. i. 27; v. 12; 16; vi. 1; xvii, 11; 13 (p); xviii, 5 (y); 40 (g); xix. 21; 41 (y); xx. 26 (c); 31.
(vy)). Canras. Mu. 6. 9 is a copy of the whole Greek Testament except the Apocalypse, and belongs to the University of Cambridge; it was lent me for collation from the Public Library through the kind offices of the Vice- Chancellor for the years 1856—8, the Rev. Dr Philpott, Master of St Catharine's College.
1 As Ihave elsewhere designated by v the | in these places distinguished the Cambridge MS. readings of one of the Lambeth MSS. (1180) in | by the notation v. Marc. i. 1—-iv. 16 ; Johan. vii..53—viii. 11; I have | 5—2
XXXVI INTRODUCTION.
It was doubtless once the property of Dr More, Bishop of Ely, for it was pre- sented to the University by George I. in 1715, with the other books of that prelate; a royal gift which provoked one of the wittiest epigrams in our language. It is written on 294 leaves of vellum (foll. 233, 234, and 235, 236 being misplaced by the binder) in small quarto (7 inches by 5}), each page containing 28 lines in a minute, clear, neat and regular hand, of the 12th or 13th century. This copy is numbered by Scholz, 440 in the Gospels, 111 in the Acts, 221 in St Paul, but he collated only six chapters, and those so hastily, that out of 101 various readings they contain, he has neglected 34 and misstated 4.
While engaged on the Epistles I soon detected the identity of this MS. with 61 of Griesbach, the unknown English copy indicated by Hal., whose readings that critic transcribed from the margin of Mill’s own copy of his Greek Testa- ment preserved in the Bodleian, and published for the first 17 chapters of St Matthew and all the Epistles in his Symbole Critice, Tom. 1. pp. 247—304. Whether these readings had been collected by Mill or Hearne, they must not be regarded as a complete collation, since full three variations out of every four are passed by unnoticed. On comparing the result of my own labours with the readings exhibited by Griesbach, and consulting the original MS. wherever we differed, I find that Hal. or 61 agrees with CantaB. Min. 6. 9 in about a thousand passages, and (excluding a few obvious misprints in the Symbole Critice) differs from it only in 24!, most of which may be fairly imputed to the circuitous route by which the extracts from Hal. have come round to us. No one will question that the two authorities are identical who shall weigh the many strange readings wherein they stand quite alone, or compare them at Matth. xii. 82; 1 Cor. vii. 35 (where a is mistaken by the collator for ev); 1 Tim. i. 10. These instances (to which many might be added) are quite decisive.
The Eusebian canons in rubric cover the first nine pages, but the Epistola ad Carpianum is wanting. Three pages which follow and eight others throughout the MS., originally left blank, are scribbled over with tables of Church lessons in ἃ recent hand, There are no tables of κεφαλαια majora before the several books, ‘but each κεφαλαιον and its contents are written in bright red at the head of their proper pages. In the Gospels the Ammonian sections (but no references to the Eusebian Canons) are placed in the margin in red, and throughout the MS. the beginnings, endings and initial words of the Church lessons are fully given rubro, sometimes indeed the initial words have crept into the body of the text in black ink: to each lesson is prefixed a rubric capital. There is no preliminary matter except ὑποθεσεις to the Catholic and first eight Pauline Epistles; after the Acts,
11 subjoin a list of these texte, that 61 may no | xvii. 25 ; Rom. vii. 23; 1 Cor. vii. 35; 2 Cor. i. 6; iii. longer be falsely cited for readings it does not con- ; 6; 7; Gal. i. 21; Eph. v. 19 ; Phil. iv. 12; 1 Thees, tain ; in each case the true reading is given in the | 1. 9; 1 Tim. i. 8; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 1; Heb. ii. 8 ; following pages: Matth. i. 4; ii. 3; v. 28; vii. 22; ^ 9[1]; vi.9 ; vii. 2; xi. 8; 1 Johan. v. 20; Jud. e. 1.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVI
1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and before the Romans large blank squares are ruled in red, apparently to receive subscriptions. The hands of two separate correctors can be traced both in the text and margin; the one being the original scribe or else the person who wrote the rubric portions, the other much later: a few changes were made by the recent hand which wrote the ecclesiastical tables: the modern chapters are noted and the leaves numbered by a yet later writer, whom I believe to be Bentley. Not fewer than 28 instances of omission by dpocoreXevroy occur, some of them extensive; on the whole the accents and ' breathings are accurately represented: only that there is a tendency to throw them somewhat out of place. We find « subscriptum twice in Matth. v. 39: . ascriptum Luc. ii. 25; Johan. xii. 12: nowhere else. Ν εφελκυστικον occurs before a consonant 98 times: but is wanting before a vowel 30 times. The itacisms are not particularly numerous; I count 445 in all, chiefly of the ordinary character; e.g. o interchanged with o, 7 with εἰ and ει, « with a. <A large portion of these is met with in the last 22 leaves (comprising 2 Thess. to Hebrews) the text of which is quite different from that of other parts of the volume, either because the scribe had grown careless, or was copying from a different exemplar. On these leaves are found several remarkable readings, for which there exists no other authority than Griesbach’s 61 Act. and Paul: e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 9; 16; Hebr. iv. 8; ix. 9?; 28?; x. 3: see also 1 Cor. xv. 11; Eph. iii. 8. The mixed character of its text attracted Scholz's attention, as he observes that in the Gospels it is “ex familia utrique conflatum." In fact, without exhibiting such perpetual and conspicuous variations as are found in the Cod. Leicestrensis and a few others, it abounds in readings either peculiar to itself or attested only by a few of the most ancient documents: this is especially true for St Luke’s Gospel, the Acts and the last six Pauline Epistles. In Johan. vii. 58—viii. 11, and some other places it closely resembles the MS. I shall presently denote w: it often supports the Cod. Leices- trensis, and eg of my previous collations. Throughout the Acts and Epistles it is very much with our b (Lambeth 1183) in passages where they stand quite alone.
Few unusual forms, either of orthography or inflexion, are met with in this document: we read however χειραν, Matth. xii. 10; dav, Act. xiv. 12; ἐσυραν, ibid. v. 19; ψυχω, 2 Cor. xi. 27. The reduplication is sometimes lost, Johan. xi. 52; Act. xi. 11; Hebr. ix. 6; xi. 5: sometimes the augment, Luc. iii. 18; vii, 32; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 12; 17; 2 Tim.i.16. The punctuation often differs from that of the printed books, but the scribe has been too negligent in this respect to deserve much attention where he is unsupported (e. g. ; and * are frequently put for each other): I have noted such peculiarities as seemed of any importance. This MS., though a beauti- ful specimen of caligraphy, contains an unusual proportion of contractions, some of them rather uncommon; yet all may be read with certainty after a little practice: η and » almost interchange their shapes. The colophon merely consists of the words σωσον με ks ὁ Os pov - σῶσον με xs rubro on the last page. Far in the margin
xxxvii INTRODUCTION.
on fol. 151, p. 2, we read, ἅγιος ὁ 6; in ἃ later hand. Occasionally, though not often, citations from Scripture &c. are indicated by rubric marks in the margin; The last few leaves are dirty and somewhat damaged. Here, as elsewhere, we meet with d8paap, οὕτως uniformly, darn, ἡλιας, ópapa, ópwov, ópxos, dpa, ὦτα mostly, but ὅταν, ὧδε more frequently than dàe, ὅτ᾽ ἄν. We see uy, but only joined with o or used interrogatively ; sometimes ó μὲν, ὁ de, τέ, é£, d, οὐ. No one who shall attentively examine the readings of this MS. will hesitate to regard it as one ! of the most important of its date, and to deem it well worthy of the minute examination to which I have subjected it.
(w). Trin. Corr. Canras. B. x. 16, the remaining manuscript of Bentley's collection, contains, like the last, the whole New Testament, with the ordinary exception of the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles as usual following the Acts. It is written on thick oriental paper, in small quarto, on 363 leaves, containing 28 lines on a page. Its date is fixed by a note at the end of St John's Gospel: aim ἡ βιβλος ἡγουν ro ἁγιον ευαγγελιον, ópows καὶ 6 armocrolos εγραφησαν «v ve ope Tw ἁγιω σινα, evÜa povons οιδὲν [sic] τὴν ἁγιαν βατον καὶ εδεξατο ro» vopovy' eypadnoay δὲ εν erg swxd, δια xepos epgov ἅμαρτωλον taxwBov ἱερομοναχου (cetera eraduntur). Though written so late as a. "Ὁ. 1316 [6824 of the Greek era], it was doubtless copied from one of those more antient volumes, wherewith the region of Mount Sinai abounded, as it is rich in various readings of high value. Mr Field, in an obliging communication, notices its frequent resemblance to the Codex Cyprius (K of the Gospels), on which Scholz, and more recently Tischendorf and Tregelles, have bestowed so much pains: but in the other parts of the N. T. also, it will be found in company with the best authorities, and with the Lambeth MSS. acd. The Liturgical matter in this document is pretty copious. The table of Eusebian canons, the ὑπόθεσις and κεφαλαια majora to St Matthew seem to be lost, for the margin of every page in the Gospels contains the numbers of the Eu- sebian canons, in their proper place under the Ammonian sections : while the three later Gospels have the larger κεφαλαια prefixed to them in rubric, and references are made to them in the margin throughout. The beginnings, endings and proper days for the Church lessons are given at the top and foot of each page in rubric. This copy is in fair condition, being only a little torn about Hebr. xi. 18; 32, 33, and portions of the first six leaves of the Acts being restored in a late hand, which I have indicated by k; see especially Acts vii. 48—60. Otherwise the whole MS. seems written by one scribe (in no very elegant style), only that in the Acts and Epistles the words are much abridged, I suppose because paper was running short (vd. supra, p. xxix). A second hand has been busy throughout the volume; the. erasures are numerous, and many curious glosses are found in the margin, together with some variations otherwise well vouched for; so that it is clear the corrector derived them from a good source. The itacisms of this MS. are much fewer than those of Cod. i, the instances of » εφελκυστικον far more
INTRODUCTION. ΧΧΧΙΧ
‘frequent (in ese» almost uniform) in the Gospels, but much more rare afterwards. In the Gospels « ascript occurs 67 times (mostly with the article), « subscript but thrice in the whole MS. A remarkable feature of w is the capricious, or at least unusual arrangement of its breathings, in this respect much resembling the Parham Evangelistarium (P) hereafter to be described: the irregularities of i being nothing in comparison. The penman seems to aspirate all initial etas with verbs, most omicrons and omegas: e. g. ἦν (imperf.) often, ἦλθον, ἥκουσα, ἥκολουθει : 80 ὀφθαλμος, énavros, dy, αΐγιαλος, airew, airia, ἤδη, alyurros, ὀφειλω, αὗριον, érawos, ὄκτω, ὅξισω, ὄχλος, ὄνομα, ὄψε, ὀψομαιΐ, &c. but mostly ὠδε, εἰστηκει, ἐνεκεν, oirwes. When aword begins with p, he puts the aspirate over the first vowel, as ρήματα : he reads βρααμ, lraax, ἥλιας, the last two not uniformly. As in Cod. i, the accents are not very correct ; sometimes they are placed over each part of a compound word, some-
times the preposition and noun are treated as one word. We often have ido», ἐπ᾿ ἂν, ores (for ofrw): in Matth. ix. 35 v and 8 are confounded (θεραπεβων): so Acts iv. 36 sec, man. &c. The hiatus is not rare, e.g. Matth. xvii. 23, and 14 other places. Grammatical peculiarities are not many: such are «ma», Matth. xvi. 14; Johan. vii 20; 52: avradaypa, Matth. xvi. 26; Marc. viii. 37: συνκαθημενος, Marc. xiv. 54: «ππροεφητευσεν, Luc. i. 67: ἀριθμηνται, xii. 7: τὴν Óvpa, Johan. xviii. 16: εὑροιαν,. Act. 1rii. 27; avadocarres, xxiii. 33; ἥμερα (accus.), xxvi. 7: eura, tbid. 15; Hebr. iii. 10: sexrobe, Hebr. ix. 4: ἀντεκατεστητε, xii. 4. The augment is omitted in Act. xiii. 14; 1v. 14; xxiii. 14; 1 Pet.i. 10. This copy contains its share of dpowredevra, of which I have noted 14 examples: for peculiarities in punctuation see (among others) Matth. x. 42; Act. v. 39; xvi 12; Jac. v.3; Jud.v.20; Rom. vi. 10; rii 4: 1 Cor.v.1; Gal. iii. 6; iv. 10; 16; Eph. vi. 6; 19; Phil. i. 4; ii. 28; 1 Thess. v. 25; Hebr.iii. 10. The celebrated passage Johan. v. 4 is marked with an obelus in the margin rubro, as in dk among my “Collations,” the uncials $4 &c. Besides much foreign matter of an ordinary character before the three later Gospels (lists of κεφαλαια majora, prefaces of Cosmas Indicopleustes, rude iambic verses &c.), foll. 161—175 contain exdrcyadw των ὃ ευαγγελιστων..ὁμοιως καὶ τον asocToÀAow, including συναξαριον rov ὅλου émavrov (fol 166). The Acts have no preface, but on fol 219 is spodcyos των καθολικων εἐπιστολων, each of which and all the Pauline Epistles have ὑποθέσεις prefixed. Fol. 338, p. 2 to fol. 363 consist of supplementary matter. (1) Lives of the Apostles, pp. 5. (2) Another εκλογαδιν των X εναγγελιστων.. τελείουν e» ro. μηνολογιω pp. 14. (3) συναξαριον συν bw apxopevoy exo paves σεπτεμβριον pp. 7. (4) The omitted or lost preliminary matter to St Matthew, κεφαλαια majora, iambic lines, preface of Cosmas &c. (5) On the same leaf 350, a Life of St James, Bishep of Jerusalem, liturgical tables, canonical questions, ὑποθεσις της βιβλου rev πραξεων (fol. 355), prayers and miscellaneous
1 In Matth. xxiii. 21, 23, we find dusve, but | that it is vain to look for consistency: thus in ὅμεσας, though ὁμοσας had been giyen in v. 20, so | Luc. vi. 41, ὀφϑαλμω and ὀφθάλμω both occur.
xl INTRODUCTION.
pieces, to fol. 363, where the MS. concludes abruptly, being mutilated at the end. '
In the following passages Cod. w will often be found to agree not only with the Codex Cyprius (K), but with several of the best of the MSS. I have before collated, in their most singular readings, e.g. cegy and especially op. Matth. ix. 4 (D); xv. 32 (K); xviii. 35 (BDKL); xxiii. 25 semel cum de, semel cum BDL. Elzev.; xxvii. 34 (BDK) ; Marc. v. 10; xii. 22 (c); xv. 47 (ABCDo); xvi. 2 (D); 19 p. m. (CK); Luc.i. 2 p. m. (Ko); 39 (AKo) ; 65 (AKo); ii. 42 (ABKo); vii. 25 (Ὁ Κρ) ; viii. 24 (Kp); x. 16 (AKp); xxiv. 43 (K); Johan. ii. 12 (Kp); v.4 (K); 25 (K); vi. 5; ix. 8; xi. 12 (Kop); xii 15; xvii. 4 (ABC); 8 (p); xix. 17 (z) ; xx. 16 (BDL); xxi. 11 (ABCp). In the Acts and Epistles it often resembles acd : unusual readings are Act. iii. 26; iv. 16; 22; 31; v. 5 (ABD); 30; 36 (DE); 37 (E); vi. 2; 15; xii. 25 (B) ; xiii. 16; xiv. 19; xvii. 16 (ABEa); 34; xviii. 6; xx. 7 (ABEa); 8; xxi. 2 (a); xxii. 23; xxiii. 23; xxv. 11; 13 (c) ; Jac. iii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 22; 24; ii. 24; iii. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 22; iii. 5 (h); Jud. vv. 12; 23; 24; 25 (ABC); Rom. vii. 16; viii. 28; 27; ix. 31; xii. 3; xiii. 3; xv. 29; 30; 1 Cor. vii. 28; x. 19; xi. 25; xiv. 35; xv. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (D); 16; iv. 14; v. 5; 21; xi. 26; xii. 20; xiii. 13 secund. man. ; Gal. iii. 14 (DFG); Eph. ii. 11; iii. 4; iv. 32; Phil. ii. 23; Coloss. i. 26; 1 Thess. iv. 5 (Syriac); 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 1 (FG); 1 Tim. i. 2; ii. 2; iii. 1: 2 Tim. iii, 3; iv. 17 (FG); Tit. i. 6; 12; ii. 10; Philem. v. 6; Hebr. vi. 14; ix. 14; 15 (1); 19; 25; x. 1; 10 (cum Elzev.); xi 29; xiii. 11; 12: not a few of which are found in no other document, so far as I know.
(L). Copex Leicestrensis. This famous and most valuable document is the property of the Corporation of Leicester, which kindly allowed me to remove it from the Public Library for full examination at my own house, where for several months I bestowed upon it the labour its weight and interest imperatively required. It is one of the very few Codices which contain the whole New Tes- tament (the others in England being the great Codex Alexandrinus, two ** Addi- tional MSS.,” 11837 and 17469 in the British Museum, and Canonici Greci 34 in the Bodleian), in large folio, 142 inches long by 10 broad, on 212 complete leaves, followed by one fragment, besides which the margins of foll. 77; 86, and the upper corner of fol. 201, are cut and mutilated. This copy is written on 91 leaves of vellum, and 122 of coarse paper, not *temeré permixtis" as Wetstein States, but arranged pretty regularly in series of two vellum followed by three paper leaves, evidently from previous calculation how far the more costly material would hold out. The paper is so bad that four of the leaves would bear the writing only on one side. There are 38 lines on every page; the instrument employed seems to have been a reed rather than a pen, and the style of writing is very singular, yet certainly neither elegant nor remarkably perspicuous. The smooth and rough breathings are often very hard to distinguish, and « is usually placed in a recumbent posture, so much resembling a that it is not easy to say at
f D — venae Lary Son 06, ^92 wa? MOLE I7 gto Duovm HI» pedo eo pert AO Mg 22 ev m 2 ad
, —9 P Denke nre pim quae atid er 20 o» 00 hag 9-0 Ste Ab6q M8 aw cadre tt t 0-009
XXXIV INTRODUCTION.
purchased by Dr Bentley, and bequeathed by him to the College." Unques- tionably they are both paged and the modern chapters noted by his hand. My attention was first drawn to them by Mr Field, the editor of Chrysostom’s Homilies, and I have found them both well worthy of the labour bestowed upon them. This copy is on vellum, quarto, on 317 leaves (exclusive of 6 leaves of paper at the beginning) with 20 lines in a page, written in a neat set style, and in good condition, though the ink has faded in parts. I should assign it to the 13th century. The binder has happily lettered it “ Hymni in dies festos." The paper leaves contain Liturgical matter and an ὑποθεσις to St Matthew (the other Gospels have none) in a good hand, though somewhat more recent than that of the MS. itself. Here also, and on the last page of vellum we have an illegible scrawl in modern Greek, seemingly about the owner, one Sylvester. The vellum MS. contains xepadaa majora before each Gospel, and (foll 311—317) the ordinary γνωσις rov evayyeA. Tov ὅλου emavrov, including the Saints’ Days. On the ample margin of this fine copy are found the numbers of the Ammonian sections and capitals to each (but no Eusebian Canons, or Epistola ad Carpianum or Eusebian tables); ἀρχη, τέλος constantly in the text; the titles of the xepadaa majora and beginnings of lessons at the top and foot of each page: all these in bright red.
As Codex i presents us with ἃ pretty fair specimen of the character of such itacisms as prevail in MSS. of this date, I have formed a list of them, stating how often each occurs, We meet with o for o, 109 times; o for o, 105; εἰ for 5, 81; η for «, 78; «for ει, 35; εἰ for ει, 36; e for a, 41; a for e, 35; e for s, 11; η for e, but twice; η for «, 84 times (with πιστης always); « for η, 76; εἰ for οι, 4; οἱ for εἰ, once; « for v, 5 times; v for « 4; v for οι, 4; οἱ for v, once; v for 5, 14 times; » for v, 8; «for v, once; v for εἰ, 4 times; o for ε, 7; « for o, twice; os for η, 5 times; η for o, twice; o for o, once; «e for ov, 4 times; ov for o, 4: total in the four Gospels 759 itacisms. The » εφελκυστικον is read 171 times (chiefly with eurey), but is so unequally distributed that there are only nine after Luke viii. 29. No ε ascript is met with, but « subscript is as often inserted as omitted (28 times in Matth. i—iv.), not rarely where it has no place, e.g. μεγαλῃ, Matth. vii. 27, κεφαλῃ, ibid. xiv. 11, and in 15 other passages.
The breathings in i are a little irregular, though much less so than in some other copies: we often find ὄχλος, ὁλιγος, οἷδα, ὁδοντων, ὅστεων, aireo, &c. and verbs whose initial letter is ἡ improperly aspirated: on the other hand, dpra(o, érepos, éraipos, óXos, εἰστηκει &c. The accents are somewhat inaccurate, and occasionally neglected, especially in δια or προς before articles and nouns; yet verbs compounded with prepositions frequently have both parts of the compound accented. I have noted ten cases where the circumflex is thrown upon the ante-penultima, e.g. οἶδατε, Matth. xxv. 18. Of grammatical and orthographical peculiarities this MS. has no great number; the following list is I believe pretty complete: arograApevous
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
Matth. xxiii. 37; Luc. xiii. 34; λελαμψ, Marc. iv. 37; παρελθηναι, vi. 485 peo (for -e») ix. 34; xii. 91; παρεδωκησαν, xv. 10; ἐμπροσθε, Luc. v. 19 p.m.; ἐσιωπουν, vi. 9; διαμερισμενοι, Xii. 52; κοπριαν (with some editions), xiii. 8; Óvyarepay, ibid. 16; θυρα (accus.) ibid. 25 bis; cape, xv. 8; ἀροτριουντα, xvii. 7; εκαθερισθησαν, ibid. 14; xnpa (accus.), xviii. 5; μασθοι, xxiii. 29; γαλλιλαια, xxiii. quinquies ; κριμαν, xxiv. 20 ; πολλος; Johan. vii. 12; δοξασθη, xv. 8. In the two earlier Gospels we usually find ῥαμβι, BapaBas. We mostly read ode, always I think βρααμ, οὕτως, uas, οὐχ. Other forms which frequently occur are éopaxa, διατοῦτο, κατιδίαν, διαπαντὸς, dpa (for ἄρα), ἐξενων- ὕμων, ecaUres, ὅτ᾽ ἂν, ἐπ᾿ ἂν. A few proper names in r are followed by the apo- strophe, e.g. ra(aper, éucafler : » 18 occasionally rejected so as to generate the hiatus, e.g. Johan. xiii. 26, and 6 other places.
Of various readings Codex i supplies a large variety, and is somewhat partial to glosses: it will occasionally be found to accord with the received text, in passages where few MSS. support it. Though not negligently written, it exhibits at least 16 omissions from the ὁμοιοτελευτον: ἡμεις and vpes are confounded in about 25 places. A reviser’s hand has been somewhat busy with this document, and a few corrections are very late. The rubric portions are not quite contem- porary with the MS., for some letters are erased that they may be rewritten in red ink, On the last page of the vellum, after the Synaxarion, or table of lessons, we read the following rubro:
Tov δακτυλοις γὙραψαντα, Tov κεκτήμενον Tov αναγινωσκοντα μετ᾽ ευλαβειας φυλαττε τοὺς τρεις ἡ τριας τρισολβιως.
I subjoin a list of a few principal readings of Cod. i. which will be seen to be in frequent agreement with the Codex Leicestrensis, to be described hereafter, and with Codd. cgpy and sometimes | of my * Collations of the Gospels.” Matth. vii. 14 p.m. (Elzev.); x. 36; xiii. 10; 14 (c); 15; 17 (y); xix. 28; xx. 23; xxvii. 6; Marc. iv. 21; 29; 38; v. 95; 15; vi. 29; vii. 4; 8; 13; 15; 20; xii. 29; xiv. 33; 44 (cy); Luc. i. 23; 59; iii. 23 (stops); v. 6; 36; vi. 7 (Elzev.); vii. 4 (g); 42; viii. 50; x. 2; 22; 36 (Elzev.); xvii. 26; 27 (g); xix. 8 (g); 21; xxii. 10; 65; Johan. i. 27; v. 12; 16; vi. 1; xvii, 11; 13 (p); xviii. 5 (y); 40 (5); xix. 21; 41 (y); xx. 26 (c); 31.
(v)). Cantas. Mu. 6. 9 is a copy of the whole Greek Testament except the Apocalypse, and belongs to the University of Cambridge; it was lent me for collation from the Public Library through the kind offices of the Vice-Chancellor for the years 1856—8, the Rev. Dr Philpott, Master of St Catharine’s College.
1 As I'have elsewhere designated by v the | in these places distinguished the Cambridge MS. readings of one of the Lambeth MSS. (1180) in | by the notation v. Marc. i. 1—iv. 16 ; Johan. vii..53—viii. 11; I have 5—2
XXXVl INTRODUCTION.
It was doubtless once the property of Dr More, Bishop of Ely, for it was pre- sented to the University by George I. in 1715, with the other books of that prelate; a royal gift which provoked one of the wittiest epigrams in our language. It is written on 294 leaves of vellum (foll. 233, 234, and 235, 236 being misplaced by the binder) in small quarto (7 inches by 51), each page containing 28 lines in a minute, clear, neat and regular hand, of the 12th or 13th century. This copy is numbered by Scholz, 440 in the Gospels, 111 in the Acts, 221 in St Paul, but he collated only six chapters, and those so hastily, that out of 101 various readings they contain, he has neglected 34 and misstated 4.
While engaged on the Epistles I soon detected the identity of this MS. with 61 of Griesbach, the unknown English copy indicated by Hal., whose readings that critic transcribed from the margin of Mill's own copy of his Greek Testa- ment preserved in the Bodleian, and published for the first 17 chapters of St Matthew and all the Epistles in his Symbole Critice, Tom. 1. pp. 247—304. Whether these readings had been collected by Mill or Hearne, they must not be regarded as a complete collation, since full three variations out of every four are passed by unnoticed. On comparing the result of my own labours with the readings exhibited by Griesbach, and consulting the original MS. wherever we differed, I find that Hal. or 61 agrees with CaNxTAB. Mm. 6. 9 in about a thousand passages, and (excluding a few obvious misprints in the Symbole Critice) differs from it only in 24!, most of which may be fairly imputed to the circuitous route by which the extracts from Hal. have come round to us. No one will question that the two authorities are identical who shall weigh the many strange readings wherein they stand quite alone, or compare them at Matth. xii, 32; 1 Cor. vii. 35 (where a is mistaken by the collator for ev); 1 Tim. i. 10. These instances (to which many might be added) are quite decisive.
The Eusebian canons in rubric cover the first nine pages, but the Epistola ad Carpianum is wanting. Three pages which follow and eight others throughout the MS., originally left blank, are scribbled over with tables of Church lessons in a recent hand. There are no tables of κεφαλαια majora before the several books, but each κεφαλαιον and its contents are written in bright red at the head of their proper pages. In the Gospels the Ammonian sections (but no references to the Eusebian Canons) are placed in the margin in red, and throughout the MS. the beginnings, endings and initial words of the Church lessons are fully given rubro, sometimes indeed the initial words have crept into the body of the text in black ink: to each lesson is prefixed ἃ rubric capital. "There is no preliminary matter except ὑποθεσεις to the Catholic and first eight Pauline Epistles; after the Acts,
! T subjoin a list of these texte, that 61 may no | xvii. 35; Rom. vii. 23; 1 Cor. vii. 35; 2 Cor. i.6; iii. longer be falsely cited for readings it does not con- | 6; 7; Gal. i. 21; Eph. v. 19; Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Thess. tain ; in each case the true reading is given in the | 1. 9; 1 Tim. i. 8; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 1; Heb. ii. 8; following pages: Matth. i. 4; ii. 3; v. 28 ; vii. 22; | 9 [1]; vi.9 ; vii. 2; xi. 8; 1 Johan. v. 20; Jud. v. 1.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVI
1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and before the Romans large blank squares are ruled in red, apparently to receive subscriptions. The hands of two separate correctors can be traced both in the text and margin; the one being the original scribe or else the person who wrote the rubric portions, the other much later: a few changes were made by the recent hand which wrote the ecclesiastical tables: the modern chapters are noted and the leaves numbered by a yet later writer, whom I believe to be Bentley. Not fewer than 28 instances of omission by ὁμοιοτελευτον occur, some of them extensive; on the whole the accents and ' breathings are accurately represented: only that there is a tendency to throw them somewhat out of place. We find « subscriptum twice in Matth. v. 39: . ascriptum Luc. ii. 25; Johan. xii. 12: nowhere else. Ν εφελκυστικον occurs before a consonant 98 times: but is wanting before a vowel 30 times. The itacisms are not particularly numerous; I count 445 in all, chiefly of the ordinary character; e.g. o interchanged with o, 7 with εἰ and ει, « with a. A large portion of these is met with in the last 22 leaves (comprising 2 Thess. to Hebrews) the text of which is quite different from that of other parts of the volume, either because the scribe had grown careless, or was copying from a different exemplar. On these leaves are found several remarkable readings, for which there exists no other authority than Griesbach's 61 Act. and Paul: e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 9; 16; Hebr. iv. 8; ix. 9?; 28?; x. 3: see also 1 Cor. xv. 11; Eph. iii. 8. The mixed character of its text attracted Scholz's attention, as he observes that in the Gospels it is “ex familia utráque conflatum." In fact, without exhibiting such perpetual and conspicuous variations as are found in the Cod. Leicestrensis and a few others, it abounds in readings either peculiar to itself or attested only by a few of the most ancient documents: this is especially true for St Luke's Gospel, the Acts and the last six Pauline Epistles. In Johan. vii. 53—viii. 11, and some other places it closely resembles the MS. I shall presently denote w: it often supports the Cod. Leices- trensis, and eg of my previous collations. Throughout the Acts and Epistles it is very much with our b (Lambeth 1183) in passages where they stand quite alone.
Few unusual forms, either of orthography or inflexion, are met with in this document: we read however xepa», Matth. xii. 10; διαν, Act. xiv. 12; ἐσυραν, ibid. v. 19; ψυχω, 2 Cor. xi. 27. The reduplication is sometimes lost, Johan. xi. 52; Act. xi. 11; Hebr. ix. 6; xi. 5: sometimes the augment, Luc. iii. 18; vii. 32; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 12; 17; 2 Tim.i.16. The punctuation often differs from that of the printed books, but the scribe has been too negligent in this respect to deserve much attention where he is unsupported (e. g. ; and * are frequently put for each other): I have noted such peculiarities as seemed of any importance. This MS., though a beauti- ful specimen of caligraphy, contains an unusual proportion of contractions, some of them rather uncommon; yet all may be read with certainty after a little practice: 3 and » almost interchange their shapes. The colophon merely consists of the words cecor pe xs ὁ Os pov - σωσον με «s rubro on the last page. Far in the margin
XXXVI INTRODUCTION.
on fol. 151, p. 2, we read, ἅγιος ὁ 6s in a later hand. Occasionally, though not |
often, citations from Scripture &c. are indicated by rubric marks in the margin; The last few leaves are dirty and somewhat damaged. Here, as elsewhere, we meet with d8paap, οὕτως uniformly, ἕστη, ἥλιας, ópapa, ὀριων, ópxos, dpa, ὦτα mostly, but ὅταν, ὧδε more frequently than ode, ὅτ᾽ dv. We see μὴ, but only joined with ον or used interrogatively ; sometimes ó μὲν, ὁ 8e, τέ, é£, ἐν, οὐχ. No one who shall attentively examine the readings of this MS. will hesitate to regard it as one of the most important of its date, and to deem it well worthy of the minute examination to which I have subjected it.
(w). Trin. Corr. Cantas, B. x. 16, the remaining manuscript of Bentley's collection, contains, like the last, the whole New Testament, with the ordinary exception of the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles as usual following the Acts. It is written on thick oriental paper, in small quarto, on 363 leaves, containing 28 lines on a page. Its date is fixed by a note at the end of St John’s Gospel: airy ἡ βιβλος ἡγουν ro ἅγιον evayyeAtov, ὅμοιως καὶ 6 αποστολος εγραφησαν ev τω oper Te
dy. σινα, ενθα μωυσης odev [sic] την ἅγιαν Barov καὶ εδεξατο rov νομον᾽ εγραφησαν
δὲ e» ern κωκδ, δια χειρος ἐμου ἁμαρτωλου ιακωβου ἱερομοναχου (cetera eraduntur). Though written so late as a.p. 1316 [6824 of the Greek era], it was doubtless copied from one of those more antient volumes, wherewith the region of Mount Sinai abounded, as it is rich in various readings of high value. Mr Field, in an obliging communication, notices its frequent resemblance to the Codex Cyprius (K of the Gospels), on which Scholz, and more recently Tischendorf and Tregelles, have bestowed so much pains: ‘but in the other parts of the N. T. also, it will be found in company with the best authorities, and with the Lambeth MSS. acd. The Liturgical matter in this document is pretty copious. The table of Eusebian canons, the timodecis and κεφαλαια majora to St Matthew seem to be lost, for the margin of every page in the Gospels contains the numbers of the Eu- sebian canons, in their proper place under the Ammonian sections: while the three later Gospels have the larger κεφαλαια prefixed to them in rubric, and references are made to them in the margin throughout. The beginnings, endings and proper days for the Church lessons are given at the top and foot of each page in rubric. This copy is in fair condition, being only a little torn about Hebr. xi. 18; 32, 33, and portions of the first six leaves of the Acts being restored in a late hand, which I have indicated by k; see especially Acts vii. 48—60. Otherwise the whole MS. seems written by one scribe (in no very elegant style), only that in the Acts and Epistles the words are much abridged, I suppose because paper was running short (tid. supra, p. xxix). A second hand has been busy throughout the volume; the. erasures are numerous, and many curious glosses are found in the margin, together with some variations otherwise well vouched for; so that it is clear the corrector derived them from a good source. The itacisms of this MS. are much fewer than those of Cod. i, the instances of » εφελκυστικον far more
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
‘frequent (in ee» almost uniform) in the Gospels, but much more rare afterwards. In the Gospels « ascript occurs 67 times (mostly with the article), « subscript but thrice in the whole MS. A remarkable feature of w is the capricious, or at least unusual arrangement of its breathings, in this respect much resembling the Parham Evangelistarium (P) hereafter to be described: the irregularities of i being nothing in comparison. The penman seems to aspirate all initial etas with verbs, most omicrons and omegas : e. g. ἦν (imperf.) often, ἦλθον, ἥκουσα, ἥκολουθει : 80 ὀῴφθαλμος, émavros, ὧν, αἵγιαλος, airew, alria, ἤδη, alyunros, ὀφειλω, αὗριον, ἕπαινος, ὄκτω, ómwre, ὄχλος, ὄνομα, ὄψε, ὀψομαιῖ, &c. but mostly ὠδε, εἰστηκει, évexey, olrwes, When a word begins with p, he puts the aspirate over the first vowel, as ρήματα : he reads dBpaap, ἴσαακ, ἥλιας, the last two not uniformly. As in Cod. i, the accents are not very correct ; sometimes they are placed over each part of a compound word, some- times the preposition and noun are treated as one word. We often have cdo», ἐπ᾿ ἂν, οὕτως (for obire): in Matth. ix. 35 v and 8 are confounded (θεραπεβων): so Acts iv. 96 sec. man. ὅς. The hiatus is not rare, e.g. Matth. xvii. 23, and 14 other places. Grammatical peculiarities are not many: such are ema», Matth. xvi. 14; Johan. vii. 20; 52: ἀνταλαγμα, Matth. xvi. 26; Marc. viii. 37: συνκαθημενος, Marc. xiv. 54: ἐπροεφητευσεν, Luc. i. 67: ἀριθμηνται, xii. 7: rg» θυρα, Johan. xviii. 16: εὕροιαν,. Act. xvii. 27 ; ἀναδοσαντες, xxiii. 88 : ἡμερα (accus.), xxvi. 7: «wa, ibid. 15; Hebr. iii. 10: παντοθε, Hebr. ix. 4: ἀντεκατεστητε, xii. 4. The augment is omitted in Act. xiii. 14; xv. 14; xxiii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 10. This copy contains its share of dpowredevra, of which I have noted 14 examples: for peculiarities in punctuation see (among others) Matth. x. 42; Act. v. 399; xvi. 12; Jac. v.3; Jud. v. 20; Rom. vi. 10; xiii. 4; 1 Cor. v. 1; Gal. iii. 6; iv. 10; 16; Eph. vi. 6; 19; Phil i. 4; ii. 28; l Thess. v. 25; Hebr.iii. 10. The celebrated passage Johan. v. 4 is marked with an obelus in the margin rubro, as in dk among my “Collations,” the uncials S a &c. Besides much foreign matter of an ordinary character before the three later Gospels (lists of κεφαλαια majora, prefaces of Cosmas Indicopleustes, rude iambic verses &c.), foll. 161—175 contain exdoyadw rov 3 evayyeAtorwr...dpoiws και rov ἀποστολου, including συναξαριον του ὅλου émavrov (fol 166). The Acts have no preface, but on fol 219 is προλογος των καθολικων επιστολων, each of which and all the Pauline Epistles have ὑποθέσεις prefixed. Fol. 333, p. 2 to fol. 363 consist of supplementary matter. (1) Lives of the Apostles, pp. 5. (2) Another εκλογαδιν των & ἐναγγελιστων.. τελείουν ἐν te μηνολογιω pp. 14. (3) συναξαριον συν Be ἀρχομενον exo paves σεπτεμβριον pp. 7. (4) The omitted or lost preliminary matter to St Matthew, κεφαλαια majora, iambic lines, preface of Cosmas &c. (5) On the same leaf 350, a Life of St James, Bishep of Jerusalem, liturgical tables, canonical questions, ὑποθεσις της βιβλου re» πραξεων (fol. 355), prayers and miscellaneous
1 In Matth. xxiii. 21, 23, we find ὀμγυει, but | that it is vain to look for consistency: thus in ὁμοσας, though ὁμοσας δὰ been giyen in v. 20, so | Luc. vi. 41, ὀφθαλμω and ὀφθάλμω both occur,
xl INTRODUCTION.
pieces, to fol. 363, where the MS. concludes abruptly, being mutilated at the end,
|
In the following passages Cod. w will often be found to agree not only with the -
Codex Cyprius (K), but with several of the best of the MSS. I have before collated, in their most singular readings, e.g. cegy and especially op. Matth. ix. 4 (D); xv. 32 (K); xviii. 35 (BDKL); xxiii. 25 semel cum de, semel cum BDL. Elzev.; xxvii. 34 (BDK); Marc. v. 10; xii. 22 (c) ; xv. 47 (ABCDo); xvi. 2 (D); 19 p. m. (CK); Luc.i. 2 p. m. (Ko); 39 (AKo); 65 (AKo); ii. 42 (ABKo); vii. 25 (DKp) ; viii. 24 (Kp); x. 16 (AKp); xxiv. 43 (K); Johan. ii. 12 (Kp); v. 4 (K); 25 (K); vi. 5; ix. 8; xi. 12 (Kop); xii. 15; xvii. 4 (ABC); 8 (p); xix. 17 (2); xx. 16 (BDL); xxi. 11 (ABCp). In the Acts and Epistles it often resembles acd : unusual readings are Act. iii. 26; iv. 16; 22; 31; v. 5 (ABD); 30; 36 (DE); 37 (E); vi. 2; 15; xii. 25 (B) ; xiii. 16; xiv. 19; xvii. 16 (ABEa) ; 34; xviii, 6; xx. 7 (ABEa); 8; xxi.2 (a); xxii. 23; xxiii. 23; xxv. 11; 13 (c); Jac. iii. 8; iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 22; 24; ii. 24; iii. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 22; iii. ὅ (h); Jud. ev. 12; 23; 24; 25 (ABC); Rom. vii. 16; viii. 28; 27; ix. 31; xii. 3; xiii, 3 ; xv. 29; 30; 1 Cor. vii. 28; x. 19; xi. 25; xiv. 35; xv. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 9 (D); 16; iv. 14; v. 5; 21; xi. 26; xii. 20; xiii. 13 secund. man. ; Gal. iii, 14 (DFG); Eph. ii. 11; iii. 4; iv. 32; Phil. ii. 23; Coloss. i. 26; 1 Thess. iv. 5 (Syriac); 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii. 1(FG); 1 Tim. i. 2; ii. 2; iii. 1: 2 Tim. iii. 3; iv. 17 (FG); Tit. i. 6; 12; ii. 10; Philem. v. 6; Hebr. vi. 14; ix. 14; 15 (1); 19; 25; x. 1; 10 (cum Elzev.) ; xi. 29; xiii. 11; 12: not a few of which are found in no other document, so far as I know.
(L). Copex Lgicestrensis, This famous and most valuable document is the property of the Corporation of Leicester, which kindly allowed me to remove it from the Public Library for full examination at my own house, where for several months I bestowed upon it the labour its weight and interest imperatively required. It is one of the very few Codices which contain the whole New Tes- tament (the others in England being the great Codex Alexandrinus, two ** Addi- tional MSS.,” 11837 and 17469 in the British Museum, and Canonici Greci 34 in the Bodleian), in large folio, 142 inches long by 10 broad, on 212 complete leaves, followed by one fragment, besides which the margins of foll. 77; 86, and the upper corner of fol. 201, are cut and mutilated. This copy is written on 91 leaves of vellum, and 122 of coarse paper, not *temeré permixtis" as Wetstein states, but arranged pretty regularly in series of two vellum followed by three paper leaves, evidently from previous calculation how far the more costly material would hold out. The paper is so bad that four of the leaves would bear the writing only on one side. There are 38 lines on every page; the instrument employed seems to have been a reed rather than a pen, and the style of writing is very singular, yet certainly neither elegant nor remarkably perspicuous. The
smooth and rough breathings are often very hard to distinguish, and « is usually
placed in a recumbent posture, so much resembling a that it is not easy to say at
INTRODUCTION. xli
all times which was meant!, An eminent medizval scholar to whom I shewed the MS., remarked that the letters were formed much like the earliest Greek typ. used in Italy towards the end of the 15th century. No one who has inspected the Codex Leicestrensis has estimated its age as earlier than the 14th century, but in this, as in so many other instances, the antiquity of the actual volume has nothing to do with its critical importance. It commences Matth. xviii. 15, σου και avrov μονου: after Acts x. 45, moro, we read in the same line, with absolutely no break, ουρανοθεν, xiv. 17, the intervening matter, upwards of three chapters, being wholly omitted: the mutilation on fol. 201 has destroyed portions of 2 Johan. vv. 1—5; 3 Johan. vv. 5—10; after Jud. v. 7, xa ai, one leaf is lost, containing the rest of St Jude, and perhaps a preface to the Apocalypse. Mill and Wetstein state that the MS. ended Apoc. xx. 15, xa: πυρος, and give its various readings up to that point, which I have copied and digested. There must then have been 214 leaves, the last of which is quite gone, but about one third of fol. 213 is yet legible, and its variations have been recorded in my collation: the last complete leaf (212) ends with ἐστρηνιασεν, Apoc. xviii. 7; the fragment, fol. 213, terminates with καὶ των αδελῴων cov rev exor ibid, xix. 10.
At the top of the first page this Codex exhibits in a beautiful hand the words Ειμε ἵλερμου Xapxov, then in a later hund * Thomas Hayne.” The book is now well bound, and on the cover in very recent gold letters we read, * Town Library, Leicester, the gift of Mr Thomas Hayne, 1640," under the Town arms. William Chark was one of the former owners of the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, and is supposed to have lived in the reign of Elizabeth (see Dobbin’s Codex Montfortianus, Introduction, p. 7); some of the later changes in the Cod. Leices- trensis were made by him, chiefly however in the margin: I suppose he obtained the book from one of the dissolved monasterics. Wetstein, I believe on John Jackson's authority, states that Thomas Hayne, M.A. of Trussington in Leicester- shire, gave the volume to the Leicester Library in 1660. A collation of the MS. was first published by Mill; Cesar de Missy in 1748 lent to Wetstein a much more accurate one made by John Jackson and William Tiffin, which he used for his great edition of the Greek Testament; since that period nothing further has been published on the subject which has not been servilely borrowed from Mill and Wetstein. Yet nothing can be more unsatisfactory than their representation of this important document. Not to mention instances in which the various rcad- ings exhibited in Cod. Leicestrensis are passed over by both these editors (for they are innumerable), I have made out a list of more than 300 places in which the actual reading is falsely cited by Mill alone, by Wetstein alone, and very
1 Thus, for instance, this MS. is cited as read- | Matth. xxvi. 51; where I must think a was mcant ing ἐχθῆναι, Marc. vi. 27, by Dobbin and Tregelles, | by the scribe: see also Marc. xiii. 9; xiv. 15; Luc. and by Tregelles ἀπέκτεινεν, ibid. xil. $; ἐπέσπασε | xvil. 24; Johan. i. 28; vl. 70; xi. 56.
6
xh INTRODUCTION.
often by both. When Matthei met with some such instances in another MS., he breaks forth against these illustrious critics in the exclamation, “ Quee diligentia? quee fides?” (Cod. Boerner. p. 107): I must be allowed to rejoin to him, Eheu! quam temer? in nosmet legem sancimus iniquam! The task of a collator calls for vigilance so perpetual, powers of observation so minute and unflagging, that -although I have the fullest confidence both in the “ diligentia" and “fides” of Mattheei, I doubt not he will be found as peccable as the rest of us, whenever his work shall come to be tested. I have avoided therefore, as much as possible, such invidious annotations as “malé Millius,” “falso Wetsteinius,” requesting the reader once for all to bear in mind, that I have anxiously verified all passages wherein I differ from my predecessors: occasionally however, chiefly when this copy agrees with the received text against the testimony of the editors, I have expressly notified the fact,
Unpublished collations of this MS. are (1) one by Carte, which I am in- formed! used to be kept at Leicester with the Codex, but has now disappeared ; at least it could not be found when I was there. If two leaves of the MS. have been destroyed within & century, we need not be surprised at any other loss: but their treasure is now valued by the Corporation, which is justly proud of possess- ing it: (2) a collation of Jo. Jackson (not identical, it would seem, with that lent to Wetstein) contained in his copy of Mill's N.T., now in Jesus College Library, Cambridge. The kindness of the Rev. Dr Corrie, the Master of that College, gave me access to this collation, which I compared with those of Mill and Wetstein in that part of the Apocalypse which, though extant in Jackson's time, is now lost (see the result at the end of this volume): (3) another by Dr Tregelles for his N.T., the fruits of which are not yet fully published; I did not know that he had collated the book, till I had publickly pledged myself to undertake the task: nor can he possibly in an edition of the N.T. lay before the reader all the characteristic variations of such a document as this’: (4) ἃ selection of some thousands of readings made by Dr Dobbin when arrang- ing his edition of the * Codex Montfortianus," which that gentleman most cor- siderately put at my disposal. His extracts enabled me severely to test my own accuracy, and as our judgment sometimes differs respecting the actual reading, I have in such cases set down his testimony as well as my own. He will be pleased to learn that Dr Barrett’s statement, to which he alludes (Introd. p. 23) without vouching for it, *In Apocalypsi tam fideliter [Codex Montfortianus] in textu exprimit Leicestrensem, ut vix unquam discrepent" is too strongly asserted :
1 In 1845, by Mr Combe, the bookseller there. | most cheerfully bear testimony to his great accu-
* I have now (1858) compared Dr Treyelles’ | racy. I have noted a few places in which we collation of this MS. with my own, so far as he | differ as to what the scribe intended to write, and has published it (Matth. xviii. 15—Mark xvi. 20). | have corrected two or three of his looser citations Although mine is of necessity much the fuller, I | by simply inserting (sic).
INTRODUCTION. xlii
e.g. there are seven variations between the two MSS. in Cap. 1., fourteen in Cap. vrir.!
The Codex Leicestrensis contains the list of κεφαλαια majora (without corre- sponding numerals in the margin of the text) before the three later Gospels, but with so extensive variations that I have adopted the unusual course of presenting them to the curious reader (infra, p. xlvi) ; besides these there is no Liturgical matter whatever, no divisions into sections, or Eusebian canons, or notes about Lessons, except a marginal mark or two, as at Mark vii. 6, and a few words, which are often illegible, scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf. The Pauline Epistles immediately follow the fourth Gospel, and have no $moóeces except the Προλογος to the Hebrews, ἡ δὲ προς éSpacous x. τ. X. (Kuster's Mill, p. 519, col. 2, vid infra, p. xlvii). Between the Hebrews and Acts of the Apostles are five pages of foreign matter. (1) An exposition of the Creed and statement of the errors condemned by the seven general Councils, ending with the second of Nice: (2) the ordinary Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact description of the limits of the Five Patriarchates. The opening chapters of the Acts have rubric capitals and breaks of line at the beginning of each κεφαλαιον, but these disappear after Cap. vi. and there is nothing like them elsewhere. The remarkable titles of the Gospels attracted Mill's notice (Proleg. 67); those of the other books are short and simple. ΑΒ I never saw the Cod. Montfortianus, I cannot confirm Dr Dobbin's opinion, * The titles to the sacred books, in pale red ink, are by the same person who added those of the Codex Montfortii, none of these portions of either MS. being by the transcribers of the text" (Introd. p. 24). Such a notion would not have occurred to me on viewing the Cod. Leicestrensis only; but I distrust myself on a point like this.
We cannot praise the care of the scribe in copying this MS. . Many words occur which are only begun, broken off perhaps after the first syllable, and I have counted the large number of 74 omissions from ὁμοιοτέλευτον and the like causes. Yet the accents are represented with much accuracy, and the breathings (if indistinct at times) are regular; "we have dBpaap, ὧδε, obro often ; yet some- times alps, aópv» and ópaua once: the acute accent is much used where the grave is commonly written by others. The vowels: and v have mostly a single dot over them; other peculiarities of this Codex are ré sometimes, ἰοῦδας, διατοῦτο, ἀπάρτι, ἀπαρχῆς, κατιδιαν (feré), ἐξευωνυμων, ἀραβων, μέλλει (pro μέλει: 80 εμελλεν Acts xviii. 17), φιλιξ semper, οὐθεν, μηθεν, ηυδοκησα, αἀνθρωποπαρεσκοι, κεντηριων (Mark xv. ter), γίγνομαι in the Acts, eyxaxew (pro exxaxew), ow (pro mew). The » εφελκυστικον is much used with ewe» and ἐστιν, and in cases where emphasis is
1 So that we can hardly resort to the Cod. | Cod. Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse Montfort., as Tregelles suggests (Horne’s Intro- | which are defective in the latter MS. duction, Vol. 1. p. 216), for the readings of the
6—2
xliv INTRODUCTION.
meant or where there is & pause in the sense. Yet in Johan. ix. 30 and 16 other places an hiatus arises from the absence of ». Respecting « ascript I cannot speak decidedly: in seven places I have noted what may be ,, but is more probably a rude stop (e.g. Acts v. 25) ; « subscript is clearly read in six places (e.g. Matth. xxvii. 28), two of them being with verbs (Rom. ii. 3); else- where it is not found. This copy is remarkable for always writing :jcovs at full length up to Johan. xxi. 15, where we meet with ἐς, and in 41 other places 19 of which are in the Acts: thus too ἱερουσαλημ is usually unabridged. Of itacisms I count 1129 throughout the Codex, viz. o pro «, 190; e pro o, 126; n pro e, 93; εἰ pro s, 104; « pro «e, 77; εἰ pro « 62; 7 pros 87; « pro s, 46; e pro a, 73; a pro e, 72; e pro y, 24; ἡ pro e, 20; v pro ἡ (rare elsewhere), 27; n pro v, 28; ov pro o, 13; e pro ov, 16; οἱ pros, 3; « pro οι, 3; ov pro η, Act. vii. 59; ἡ pro ev, Luc. xii. 10; v pros 15; « pro v, 14; v pron 6; pro e, 1; pro οι, 4; pro et, 3; ot pro v, 4; pro ἢ, 9; o pro ov, 3; ἢ pro οι, 8; α pro n Apoc. xiii. 17: which list may be compared with the analysis of Cod. i, supra, p. xxxiv. We have also 0 for τ, Marc. x. 40; Luc. xi. 7. The following are the unusual grammatical forms: ἡλθατε Matth. xxv. 36; eura» ibid. xxvi. 35; Luc. xx. 2; εξηλθατε Matth. xxvi. 55; Marc. xiv. 48; Luc. vii. 24; 25; 26; xxii. 52; εἰσηλθατε ibid. xi. 52; ἀνεπεσαν Johan. vi. 10; emereca» Rom, xv. 3; ἐπεσαν 1 Cor. x. 8; emeca Act. xxii. 7; ἐξείλατο Act. vii. 10; ἐπαθατε Gal. iii. 4; mapayevapevos Luc. xiv. 21; Hebr. ix. 11; εὕραμενος Hebr. ix. 12; γεναμενης Act. ii. 6. So accusatives in -a» for -a, νυκταν Luc. ii. 37; θυγατεραν xiii. 16; χειραν Johan. vii. 30; caxpay Eph. vi. 12; Óvarepay Apoc. i. 11; (cf. ii. 18, 24). The gender is sometimes altered: thus λιμος fem. Luc. iv. 25; ojpvs masc. ibid. 20; vocos masc. ibid. 40. Verbs in ae or ow are formed as those in -ew, ἐπηρωτουν Luc. iii. 10; xx. 27; emeripov» xviii. 15; eroApouy XX. 40; npwrovy Johan. iv. 31; εἐμβριμουμενος xi. 38; κινει Marc. vii. 20; 23; cape. Luc. xv. 8; μαστιγει Hebr. xii. 6; and the contrary, ayavaxrwvres Marc. xiv. 4. Irregularities in verbs in -pe are αφιουσι Marc. iv. 36; rido» x. 10; περιτιθουσιν xv. 17; συνετιθοντο Johan. ix. 22; επιτιθε 1 Tim. v. 22; επιτιθειναι Act. xv. 10; αποδω- ons Luc. xii. 59; διδοασιν Apoc. xvii. 13. I note also ueya masc. Matth. xxvii. 60; μεγαν neut. Luc. xiv. 16; μεγαλη accus. Act. ii. 20; ἐχαρην 3rd pers. Johan. viii. 56; ἥκασιν Marc. viii. 8; exxexopgroca» Luc. xxi. 21; εκαθερισε Act. x. 15; κατασκευασμενον Luc. i. 17; Hebr. ix. 6; συγγενευσι Marc. vi. 4; Luc. ii. 44 (v); δραγχμας xv. 8; ἐμπροσθε Johan. i. 30. In the Apocalypse we always read ιδον except in xvii. 3; εφιδεν Luc. i. 25. I add ανηγγελαν Act. xiv. 27; παραγγελειν Act. xv. 5 (sic v. 27; xvi. 17; 21); ἀπαγγελλῶ fut. Hebr. ii. 12; ἀνηγγελλη 1 Pet. i. 12; εξεχεθην Tit. iii. 6; ἀνεπίλημπτον 1 Tim. iii. 2. The augment is omitted Luc. x. 34 and 22 other passages; but we have a double augment in ἡπηντησαν Johan. iv. 51; avrexareornre Hebr. xii. 4.
The wide variations of this document from the received editions are well known, and it is a favourite authority with those who wish to base the sacred
INTRODUCTION, xlv
text upon what Scholtz would have us call the Alexandrine family of MSS. Mill (who did not particularly value it) first observed its striking affinity with the Codex Bezze; perhaps the result of my collation is to diminish that resemblance, though not materially. Wetstein compares it with Paris 6 (13), Hensler with Havn. 3 (44 Evst.) of the Gospels: add too the uncial U, and note how much it coincides with the great cursive 1 (e. g. in the space of a few verses, Marc. xii. 14; 19; 20; 32; 34; xiv. 1, &c.). In the Acts and Epistles it approaches much nearer to the received text: in parts quite as much as our Cod. k for example, which (as well as ad) it is much like. "Though totally destitute of Liturgical matter, many of its various readings may easily