Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament

Index II. — Passages of the New Testament Referred to

Note.—Passages treated in the Critical Notes are not entered here.

Matthew.

i. 2,......165

i. 3,......165

i. 11,......166

i. 16,......99

i. 25,......166

iii. 15,......166

v. 3, 4,......166

v. 10,......204

v. 22,......167

vi. 8,......192

viii. 9,......52

ix. 18,......37

x. 33,......150

xiii. 17,......203

xvi. 23,......37

xviii. 20,......143

xix. 17,......239

xx. 28 f.,......216

Mark.

i. 11,......52

viii. 38,......150

ix. 7,......52

x. 40,......37

xiii. 22,......239

xvi. 8,......67, 142

Luke.

i. 35,......201

i. 46-55,......3

i. 68-79,......3

ii. 7,......166

iii. 27,......242

vi. 4 f.,......64

ix. 26,......150

xi. 2,......64, 87

xiii. 7, 8,......193

xvi. 12,......211

xvi. 19,......342

xvii. 10,......237

xx. 30,......241

xxi. 30,......211

xxii. 52,......226

xxiii. 53,......64, 136

xxiv. 4, 5, 11, 13,......120

xxiv. 26,......211

xxiv. 51-53,......230, 245

John.

i. 14,......201

i. 28,......203

ii. 20,......203

iii. 6,......205

v. 8,......198

vi. 47,......245

vi. 71,......242

vii. 39,......245

vii. 53,......142, 177

xvi. 13,......124

xix. 14,......30

xix. 34,......227

Acts.

i. 5,......136

iii. 14,......170

iv. 6,......243

iv. 12,......237

vi. 8,......245

xii. 10,......64

xv. 15,......170

xv. 20, 29,......136, 206, 232

xvi. 10,......136

xviii. 24,......242

xix. 1,......242

xxi. 25,......232

xxiii. 25 f.,......9

xxiv. 19 f.,......9

Romans.

v. 14,......205

xv. 31-33,......179

1 Corinthians.

ii. 9,......148

x. 9,......152

xii. 28,......37

xv. 29,......204

2 Corinthians.

x. 15,......168 n.

Galatians.

ii. 11,......37

iii. 1,......186

iv. 3,......77

Colossians.

i. 16,......204

ii. 16,......169

ii. 18,......168

1 Thessalonians.

ii. 15,......211

1 Timothy.

ii. 5,......52

iii. 16,......37

2 Timothy.

ii. 17,......77

iv. 13,......36

Hebrews.

i. 9,......52

James.

iii. 1,......168

v. 7,......245

2 Peter.

i. 4,......240

ii. 15,......243

1 John.

iv. 3,......152

v. 7,......4, 86

2 John.

12,......36

3 John.

13,......36

Apocalypse.

v. 1,......43 n.

viii. 13,......101

xvii. 4,......4 n.

xvii. 8,......4 n.

xviii. 17,......168

xxii. 21,......157

ΘΕΩ ΔΟΞΑ.

Footnotes

1. See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete’s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, just published.

2. They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August.

3. Mary’s Hymn, Luke i. 46-55; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.

4. “Nec eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis.”

5. At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens and even hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London. To this day the word ἀκαθάρτητος is printed in their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though there is no such word in the Greek language as ἀκαθάρτης, meaning uncleanness. In the concluding verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future ἀφαιρήσει for ἀφελεῖ. We find also constructions like οὐκ ἔστι, καίπερ ἐστίν, in c. xvii. 8, where, however, the accentuation ἐστίν makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed ἔστιν. Every college lad knows that καίπερ is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at once that καὶ πάρεστι is the correct reading. [Cf. Mark xv. 6, where the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between ὃν παρῃτοῦντο and ὅνπερ ᾒτοῦντο (ΟΝΠΑΡΗΤΟΥΝΤΟ.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has adopted the reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known MS. are to be found, e.g. in 1 Pet. ii. 6 (καὶ περιέχει) and in 2 Cor. i. 6. Luther, who used Erasmus’s second edition of 1519, followed him in saying of the Beast, “that is not although it is.” This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first impression of the Revised Version of Luther’s Bible issued by the Conference of German Evangelical Churches, and only removed in their last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc. xvii. 8 was copied into the English Authorised Version of 1611 (“is not and yet is”) but was corrected by the Revisers of 1884 (“is not and shall come”).

6. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

7. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

8. Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in Schaff’s Companion.

9. Copies of the Parisian Polyglot now cost about £6.

10. Facsimile in Schaffs’s Companion.

11. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

12. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

13. Facsimile of the second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in Schaff’s Companion.

14. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

15. Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in Schaff’s Companion.

16. Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion.

17. Van Ess’s edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of these gives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and Griesbach. But the other omits the names together with the Notanda on the back of the title-page, so that the reader is left in the dark as to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., in the margin. Most copies omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope’s sanction of the editions of Erasmus and Ximenes.

18. Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, i. 652; Einleitung, i. 153.

19. From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 29 (1887), 453.

20. The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s “Tabellen zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht über die Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897. Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).

21. See e.g. Plate I.

22. See e.g. Plate X.

23. See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, Göttinger gelehrte Nachrichten, 1898, i. 98-112.

24. TiGr., pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 47.

25. To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium. Εὐαγγελιστάριον means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1900, p. 448, and now Gregory, Textkritik, i. p. 334 f.)

26. Nat. Hist., xiii. 11.

27. Egitto, 2nd ed., p. 125.

28. Vide Th. Mommsen, Das Diokletianische Edikt über die Warenpreise (Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in Megalopolis, see W. Loring, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1890, 299; also, Revue Archéologique, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268.

29. Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of litera and διφθέρα, see M. Bréal, Rev. des Et. grecques, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and Rev. Crit., 1892, 13. In Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the διφθεράλοιφος.

30. Cf. Codex D, Mark i. 6.

31. Cf. Victor Schultze, Rolle und Codex, in the Greifswalder Studien, Gütersloh, 1895, p. 149 ff.

32. Vide C. R. Gregory, Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs, Académie des Inscriptions, Aug. 1885; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff.

33. E.g. in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts.

34. Vide G. Ebers, Kaiser Hadrian: also The Writing Material of Antiquity, by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893; and especially Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de Montfaucon, Dissertation sur la plante appelée Papyrus, sur le papier d’Égypte, etc. Memoires de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the shores of Lake Trasimene: see The Papyrus in Europe, in the Academy, 19th Mar. 1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, pa being the article in Egyptian; see his Mitteilungen, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing the y long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is—papýrus, not pápyrus. Cf. Juvenal, iv. 24; vii. 101; Mart. iii. 2; viii. 44; x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, Met. xv. 753; Trist. iii. 10, 27.

35. See U. Wilcken, Recto oder Verso, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.

36. Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must take καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγισμένον, according to Grotius and Zahn. On ὀπισθόγραφον, cf. Lucian, Vitarum Auctio, 9; Pliny, 3, 5; a tergo Juvenal, 1, 6; in aversa charta, Martial, 8, 22.

37. Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.

38. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 26-54.

39. Hiller von Gaertringen, Berl. Sitz.-Ber., 21st July 1898.

40. See Wilcken, Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland. Heft lxxxvi. p. 234; also the Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 26.

41. Cf. Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “postea publica monumenta plumbeis voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.”

42. Jüdisches Literaturblatt, 1889, 10.

43. Cf. the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in 1844:—
ἐγὼ χρυσόθρονος Ἶσις...
ἀφαλέων Ἔρμανος ἀπόκρυφα σύμβολα δέλτων
εὑρόμενα γραφίδεσσιν ἅ τ’ ἔξυσε πᾶσι χαράξας
φρικαλέον μύσταις ἱερὸν λόγον....

44. See Nestle, Bengel, p. 105.

45. Zeitschrift für das Humanistische Gymnasium, 1896, p. 27.

46. O. Hoffmann, Griechische Dialekte, i. 107.

47. Probably pens of the first quality—μονογόνατοι.

48. Harris, Last Words of Baruch, vi. 17, p. 56.

49. Vide Harnack, T. und U., ii. 5, p. 68.

50. Socin, Arabic Grammar, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12.

51. ZdmG., xliii. 547.

52. Konstantin Oikonomos, περὶ τῶν ό ἑρμηνευτῶν, Bk. iv. p. 975.

53. Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff.

54. Vide Harnack in the ThLz., 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5.

55. Ed. Feige, p. 53.

56. Divin. Lect., c. xv.

57. Sächs. Sitz.-Ber. (1889), xi. 4, 369.

58. Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that τινὲς δι’ αἰσχροκέρδειαν βιβλίων τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἐμπορευόμενοι ἀπήλειφον, and he requests σημείωσαι ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς βιβλιοκαπήλους τοὺς ἀπαλείφοντας τῶν θείων γραφῶν.

59. On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, Canon, c. ii. p. 426; Bible in the Church, c. vi. p. 155 ff.; Zahn, Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, i. 64. Zahn combats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointing out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been εὐμετακόμιστα, and moreover that Constantine speaks of σωμάτια, which does not mean codices but something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intended to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns in which it was written. “The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to 400 volumes.” According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to 200 of these. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 118, n. 2.

60. For the order of the books in א, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, Appendix B, “Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, א, D, Amiat.)”; Hist. of the Canon, Appendix D, “Catalogues of Books of the Bible during the first eight Centuries.”

61. Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different conjecture in the Literarisches Centralblatt, 1897, n. 49

62. Vide Wordsworth and White, Epilogus, p. 737, De Sectionibus Ammonianis in Evangeliis.

63. Ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Παμφίλου· ὅπερ ἀντίγραφον πρὸς τῷ τέλει ὑποσημείωσίς τις ἰδιόχειρος αὐτοῦ ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως· μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη πρὸς τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ Ὠριγένους· Ἀντωνῖνος ἀντέβαλεν· Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα.

64. This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes Κλήμεντος Ἐπιστολαὶ δύο among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles of James and Jude. See Westcott, Canon, Appendix D. iii. a.

65. On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sections respectively, see Kenyon in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 149.

66. For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, Canon, App. D. xiv., p. 554; Bible in the Church, p. 159 ff.; Preuschen’s Analecta, pp. 144 ff.; Burgess, Festal Letters of Athanasius translated from the Syriac, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. Schmidt in the Nachrichten mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to be the original form of the Letter.

67. E.g. ΑΠΕϹΤΑΛΚΕΝ, 122b, 4.

68. An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from 1st September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. See Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.

69. See Scrivener, 1. p. 160, under Λ. This minuscule seems to be omitted from Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185.

70.

“To Rome to come, to Rome to come,
Much of trouble, little of profit,
The thing thou seekest here,
If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not”; etc., etc.

See Scrivener, i. 180.

71. Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff.

72. Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν... ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.

73. Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1.

74. See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397.

75. Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, p. 2 f.

76. Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 40.

77. See Blass’s Praefatio to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897), and compare Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 144; Hoskier, above, p. 5; below, p. 211.

78. Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as early as in Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D. Einleitung, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26.

79. On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49^evl (a Lectionary of the tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the Mother of God τοῦ βροντοχίου by Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes of Lacedæmon, in 1312) the lection εἰς τὰς ἔξω ἐκκλησίας ended with this verse (15) and the words attached to it, “And so saying He cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words ἐν ὑπομονῇ (v. 15).

80. On the “Livre d’Évangiles réputé avoir appartenu à S. Jean Chrysostome,” cf. Ch. Graux, in the Revue de Philologie, Avril 1887.

81. Cf. Eusebius, Demons. Evan., iii. 7, 15, βάρβαροι καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφὰς πατρίοις χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ φωνῇ μετελάμβανον. Zahn, GK. i. 33; Theoph., v. 64; Laud. Const., xvii. 9.

82. The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year 110. He was in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings, Bible Dictionary, ii. p. 697.

83. See below, p. 213, n. 3.

84. The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf, 1708-9.

85. The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and Aquila. Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C. Conybeare (Oxford, 1898; Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series, Part VIII.). See Notice in the Lit. Cbl., 1899, No. 5, col. 154 f.

86. Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the year 312 B.C.

87. Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates.

88. I. H. Hall, Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version, 1883.

89. The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, and the Pauline Epistles in 1803.

90. In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as Syr^p(osterior) or as Syr^whit(e). It would be better to use the symbol Syr^po(lycarp) for the first version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Syr^tho(mas) for Thomas of Harkel’s recension of 616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows:—Syr^a is the Curetonian; Syr^b is the Peshitto; Syr^c is the Harklean, of which again Syr^ct is the text, Syr^cm the margin, Syr^c* sub asterisco; Syr^d is the Jerusalem Syriac; while Syr^bodl is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate the Philoxenian (Tischendorf’s Syr^bodl) by Syr², and the Harklean by Syr³; for the Gospels he would employ Syr^c, Syr^s, Syr^h; Syr¹, therefore, is the Peshitto.

91. Land, in the Anecdota Syriaca, iv., 1875; Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai, 1890; Gwilliam, in the Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, i. 5, 1893; ix. 1896; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, vi.

92. See F. Bulié, Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus? in the Festschrift für Otto Benndorf. Vienna, 1898. Also La patrie de S. Jerome in Analecta Bollandiana, xviii. 3.

93. Einleitung, ii. 195.

94. Epilogus ad Evangelia, p. 656.

95. No. 71; 164 in Jerome’s letters.

96. No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).

97. Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, De vi quam antiquissimae versiones quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV. habent (Merseburg, 1824). See v. Dobschütz, ThLz., 1897, 135.

98. Photolithographed by Clédat from a MS. at Lyons.

99. J. Heidenreich, Der neutestamentliche Text bei Cyprian verglichen mit dem Vulgatatext. Eine textkritische Untersuchung zu den h. Schriften des Neuen Testamentes. Bamberg, 1900.

100. This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that Tertullian made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, De sermone Tertullianeo Quaestiones Selectae (1897), p. 6 (de Graecismis Tertulliani) says, “Permultas enim (constructiones) T. mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue studuit, vel ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua utebatur.” And to this he adds, “Quam multa vocabula graeca in Tertullianeum sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii libro cum impigritate conscripto, qui inscribitur, Itala und Vulgata, ed. sec., p. 238.” The Itala is cited for sciant quia (p. 18), absque (p. 44), and for the use of the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer refers to Rönsch, p. 415, and adds, “ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur, quamquam in universum vitat.” Cf. Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.

101. Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1) απορεισθαι and διαπορεισθαι (or διαπορειν), (2) περι τουτου and περι αυτου, (3) ιδου and και ιδου, (4) ανδρες δυο and δυο ανδρες, (5) επεστησαν and παρειστηκεισαν, (7) εν εσθητι αστραπτουση (or λαμπρα) and εν εσθησεσιν αστραπτουσαις (or λευκαις), (8) εμφοβων (or εν φοβω) δε γενομενων και κλινουσων and ενφοβοι δε γενομεναι εκλειναν, (9) τα προσωπα and το προσωπον (αυτων); in verse 11, (10) ενωπιον αυτων and its omission; in verse 13, (14) εξηκοντα and εκατον εξηκοντα, (15) ᾗ ονομα and ονοματι, (16) Εμμαους and ουλαμμαους. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are found only in D. In the case of (15) the very same variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in the two recensions represented by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

102. 1889, 91, 93, 95, 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W.

103. On the Epilogus to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see especially S. Berger in the Revue Critique, 1889, pp. 141-144; and on the whole, Burkitt, The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus, in the Journal of Theological Studies, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp. 129-134.

104. Compare E. Maugenot, Les manuscrits grecs des évangiles employés par Saint Jerôme, in the Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, January 1900.

105. The New Testament is contained in vol. iii. The copy I use has the date 1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at the end, p. 1115, which says, “E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.” Romæ, 1713-19, in TiGr., p. 1350, is a misprint. The imprimaturs of the first volume are dated 1737. The work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now cost from £15 to £25.

106. The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος.

107. The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word.

108. On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the Journal of Theological Studies, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff.

109. Westcott, Canon, Part II., chapter ii., § 1 sub finem.

110. H. Hyvernat, Un fragment inédit de la version sahidique du Nouveau Testament (Ephes. i. 6-ii. 8b). Revue Biblique, April 1900, pp. 248-253. The fragment is of the eighth or ninth century.

111. See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum and Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70.

112. The dates of Ulfilas’ birth and death are uncertain. He certainly lived till autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given as 310-380 or 318-388. According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was that of Antioch, De Encaeniis, 341.

113. Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning.

114. Celsus’s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable fragments are embedded in Origen’s Reply. See Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xxiii., (Clark, Edin.).

115. Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He quotes Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.

116. Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the year 1111, the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his edition of the Apostolic Constitutions. Further examples of the untrustworthiness of manuscripts and printed editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section.

117. See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.

118. On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.

119. Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. ii. 7.

120. Ibid., Part II., c. i. 1.; c. ii. 4.

121. Ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed to Ambrose. In recent times Dom G. Morin has raised the question whether the writer may not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in the papacy of Damasus. He was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and afterwards returned to his former faith. See Dom G. Morin, L’Ambrosiaster et le juif converti Isaac, contemporain du pape Damase, in the Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature religieuses, iv. 2 (1899), 112. This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole of Ambrosiaster will be brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a very old manuscript from Monte Cassino. Morin believes that the text of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is “fortement retouché, dont on a éliminé la plupart des traits vraiment intéressants” (ibid., p. 121).

122. This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his writings stand as he wrote them.

123. Called 2^pe by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort, and 565 in TiGr. Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in 1885, with a collation of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable cursive, as appears from what is said of it in W-H: “The most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the Gospels is 81, a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2^pe by Tischendorf, as standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large ancient element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient readings are numerous enough to be of real importance.” See above, under Codex N, p. 68.

124. The First Part has been issued: A Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell, 1899). See notice by Gwilliam in The Critical Review, May 1900. In this work Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.

125. In the Expository Times for October 1897, p. 13 ff., I have called attention to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah lii. 5) is given with remarkable similarity in the Apostolic Constitutions, with its original (i. 10, iii. 5, vii. 204), in Ignatius (Ad Trallianos, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.). Similar things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, e.g., in Mark i. 2, where a quotation from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between the heading, “In the prophet Isaiah,” and the words taken from that book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul, which has led to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many quotations from Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M. Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Texts and Studies, v. 5, Cambridge, 1899.

126. See below, Appendix II., Ἀντίγραφα.

127. Vide infra, Appendix I.

128. Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.

129. I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of Augustine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant (De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 14, 21, where the saying about the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, is also found). Or if not these words, then those of our Lord himself, γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to the work of the “lower” criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also vindicated the right of Biblical criticism with these same words. Epiphanius, Haeres., xliv. 2 (Zahn, GK., i. 175).

130. The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is given in Westcott’s Canon of the N. T., Appendix C, where also see the section on the Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found also in Preuschen’s Analecta, Kürzere Texte... pp. 129-137 (the eighth number of G. Krüger’s Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen-und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, Freib. and Leipzig, 1893).

131. Quoted in Westcott, Canon, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn’s Einleitung, ii. 179.

132. Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled “Indiculum Veteris et Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.” It was first made known from a MS. at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to the year 365 (see also Jülicher, Einleitung, p. 336) the words of W.-W. may be repeated here: “S. Berger tamen aliter sentit, rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. Concordant enim numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, e.g. in libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum, Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus est” (p. 736).

133. Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, Canon, Appendix D, p. 563.

134. Translated into French, Prairies d’or, i. 123: one volume into English by Sprenger, 1841; Sayous, Jésus Christ d’après Mohammed, p. 34.

135. See Zahn, Einl., ii. 176; GK., ii. 364-375, 1014.

136. See Addenda, p. xvi.

137. The numbers are as follows:—

	-ν-	-νν-
Matthew,	2	24
John,	7	17
Luke,	27	1
Mark,	2	24
Acts,	21	2

See Blass, Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior, p. vi. f., Philology of the Gospels, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected with the help of Harris. See also Expository Times, Nov. 1897, p. 92 f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W., Epilogus, 776.

138. Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und die kleinasiastischen Presbyter (Berlin, 1894).

139. Expositor, Dec. 1894.

140. Einleitung, ii. 221.

141. See Coxe’s Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 1854.

142. On cata or kata in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable phrase cata tempus, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of secundum tempus in the other manuscripts.

143. See Field, Hexapla, i. p. lxxii.

144. The order, πραεῖς... πτωχοί... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

145. To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add Clement, Hom. η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

146. Codex D and Syr^sin also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

147. See Urt., 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

148. See also Linwood, Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873.

149. On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

150. The converse occurs in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 15, in the address of Polycarp’s Martyrium. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s Chronologie der altchristl. Lit., i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2. Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15 between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., v. 15, 23.

151. The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: “It is now agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he quotes from Roberts (Words of the New Testament): “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field... simply because there is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, where Ephes. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12; Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Krüger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of Koetschau’s Origen in the L. Cbl., No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament? As clever suggestions maybe noted ἐκολάφισαν for the hapax legomenon ἐκεφαλίωσαν, Mark xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and λανθάνουσι for μανθάνουσι, 1 Tim. v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (Revue Biblique, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against “prêter de l’esprit à l’Esprit Saint.”

152. Compare my conjecture of מִפַתְרֹם for מִתְרַפֵם, Ps. lxviii. 31, and see below, p. 236.

153. Meyer-Wendt⁸, p. 51. For an example of Σ repeated by mistake, cf. ΕΙΣΣΤΕΛΟΣ in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.

154. Bagster, London, 1887.

155. See Isaac Taylor’s History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times (1827); and compare also the text-books on Hermeneutics, e.g. in I. v. Müller’s Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft.

156. Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wölfflin, Lipsiae, Teubner, 1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr. ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.

157. Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti (Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k. Ak. d. Wiss., vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also The Text of St. Benedict’s Rule by Dom C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the Downside Review, December 1899, 12 pp.

158. TU. xiv. 1, 1896.

159. Krüger’s Sammlung, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.

160. TU., New Series, i. 1, 1897.

161. Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by Niese and Naber.

162. See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 441 ff.

163. See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

164. An instructive discussion of the relationship between D₂ and E₃ is given in Hort’s Introduction, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one copyist in Rom. xv. 31-33 took ἵνα ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ... διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ, and the other καὶ ἡ δωροφορία μου ἡ ἐν Ἱερ... διὰ θελήματος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ—i.e. two entirely different recensions.

165. Zahn very properly remarks (Th. Lbl., 1899, 16, 179): “One must not, at least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or, if I might say so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the fifty Bibles that Eusebius provided at the bidding of the Emperor for the use of the churches of the capital had contained a text of the N. T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and commentaries of Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in the region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the Antiochean text, would be perfectly incomprehensible. As in the matter of the canon so also of the text of the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the school of Origen, and attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this particular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the Bible.”

166. See Hort, Introduction, §§ 188, 189.

167. Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου οὐκ ἔγραψα ἢ μόνον ὅτε... καὶ ὅτε πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ μοι κατασκευάσαι, ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέστειλα.

168. It is given in Syriac in Abbé Martin’s Introduction à la critique textuelle du N. T., Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris, 27, f 88 b, and also in Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca, 259, 22-27. From the Greek πυργίσκος, which becomes פרדוסקא in the Semitic, the Syriac forms another diminutive פרדסקזנא, which is still omitted in the Thesaurus Syriacus, 3240; cf. Bar Bahlul, 1606, 9 (App. p. 64). In place of πυργίσκῳ, Oikonomos would read the genitive πυργίσκου (περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 500).

169. Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure problem in the New, but the converse may also be true—viz. that the history of the text of the New Testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the Old. It was long observed that many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Septuagint occur also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver, Notes on Samuel, p. li; Urt., 78). No proper explanation of this phenomenon could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old Testament was looked upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But the New Testament, for which we have far more Old Latin manuscripts than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-Jeromic version had a chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a revision was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex Brixianus (f, see p. 112), and which “non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista emendatione Itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum apparent, quas Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort.” So say Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old Testament, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at once becomes evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of Codex Legionensis (called Codex Gothicus in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iii. p. 50b.) which are particularly striking on this view of the case, may have been translated into Latin from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may possibly throw fresh light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (Urt., p. 78), whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of the Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Méritan, in his little book, entitled, La Version grecque des Livres de Samuel, précédée d’une Introduction sur la critique textuelle (Paris, 1898). On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question—whether Lucian knew and used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the affirmative: “It is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the Books of Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did not follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but availed himself of others also, and that one of those principal authorities was the Syriac version.” We often enough find ὁ Σύρος cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on the Old Testament. Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a point that seems not yet to be looked into.
I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the Zeitschrift für kath. Theol., iii. 467-469, entitled, “Die Lucianische Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,” by saying: “In establishing the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found in the New Testament.”
In his Einleitung, ii. 240, Zahn says: “Without a doubt many readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a position to support it with extant documents.”

170. Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.

171. See especially Lagarde, Sept.-Studien, 1892, and Moore’s Commentary on Judges, 1895, p. xlvi.

172. See above under Λ, p. 72.

173. There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the words themselves may be quoted: “Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores κοινήν, id est communem appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur, aliam septuaginta interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae (so Lagarde, Librorum V. T. can. pars prior, p. xiii. from Vallarsi, i. 635?) decantatur... κοινή autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter utramque quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio reservatur” (ibid., 637). For Λουκιανός Oikonomos (iv. 499) would read Λουκιανίς.

174. A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading εἴτε ἀπὸ μοχθηρίας τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα (Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr., vii., 1873, 233).

175. What he says is (Viri Illust., c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii Caesariensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque ἐξηγήσεων Origenis volumina manu eius (i.e. Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi videntur suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson’s text. Bernoulli (Krüger’s Sammlung, Heft xi. 1895) reads habentur, Sed in, and videtur, and also omits volumina.

176. Προσφώνησις· κορωνίς εἰμι δογμάτων θείων διδάσκαλος· ἄν τινί με χρήσῃς ἀντίβιβλον λάμβανε, οἱ γὰρ ἀποδόται κακοί· Ἀντίφρασις· θησαυρὸν ἔχων σε πνευματικῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ποθητὸν ἁρμονίαις τε καὶ ποικίλαις γραμμαῖς κεκοσμημένον—νὴ τὴν ἀλήθειαν—οὐ δώσω σε προχείρως τινὶ οὐδ’ αὖ φθονέσω τῆς ὠφελείας, χρήσω δὲ τοῖς φίλοις ἀντίβιβλον λαμβάνων. The last seven words, which are erased in H, are supplied by the minuscule 93^paul and the Armenian version. On ἀντίβιβλον = “borrowing-receipt” or “voucher,” see ThLz., 1895, 283, 407. See also Robinson, Euthaliana, Texts and Studies, iii. 3.

177. To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second section of Bousset’s Textkritische Studien (TU. xi. 4, 1894), entitled, Der Codex Pamphili, pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close connection between the Corrector of Sinaiticus indicated by Tischendorf as ^c and Codex H. I have established the connection of this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter’s Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to have examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. Cf. however Bousset, ThLz., 1900, 22, 611 ff.

178. It runs: Εἰσὶν ὅσα προτεταγμένον ἔχουσι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὧδε, ὅσα Ὠριγένην ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἔχει τούτῳ τῷ μονοσυλλάβῳ Ρ/Ω· εἰσὶ δὲ μάλιστα ἐν τῷ Ἰώβ· ὅσα δὲ περὶ διαφωνίας ῥητῶν τινῶν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐδαφίῳ ἢ ἐκδόσεών ἐστιν σχόλια, ἅπερ καὶ κάτω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον ἐστίν· ὅσα δὲ ἀμφιβόλως ἔξω κείμενα ῥητὰ ἔξω νενευκυῖαν περιεστιγμένην ἔχει προτεταγμένην, διὰ τὰ σχόλια προσετέθησαν κατ’ αὐτὰ τοῦ μεγάλου εἰρηκότος διδασκάλου ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ κατὰ κενοῦ τὸ σχόλιον φέρεσθαι, ἐν πολλοῖς μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων τῶν ῥητῶν οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ μὴ οὕτως κειμένων ἢ μηδ’ ὅλως φερομένων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο προστεθέντων.

179. Περι των ὀ ερμηνευτων, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

180. Texte und Untersuchungen, xvii. (N. F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90.

181. Euthaliusstudien, pp. 111-115; 115 ff.

182. Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Compare also von Dobschütz, lib. cit., 111.

183. μάλιστα δὲ παρὰ τοὺς καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντας διέπρεπε τῇ περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια γνησιωτάτῃ σπουδῇ. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii. 11.

184. See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn, ThLbl., 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz.

185. On κόφινον κοπρίων, see Chase, Syro-Latin Text, p. 135 f. It may be observed in passing how variously καταργεῖ is rendered in the different Latin manuscripts—viz. by evacuat in b ff² l q, by detinet in ff^2c i r, by intricat in e, and by occupat in d and the Vulgate.

186. The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as eight leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

187. Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Wordsworth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true: Codex hodie, ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest.

188. See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751.

189. At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts, but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative “original or later alteration” or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly stated. Blass was not the first to express the opinion, “Lucam bis edidisse Actus.” De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely “Western” witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western texts may have “started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and White are unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manuscripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question.

190. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen): I. Band, Das N. T. vor Origenes, 1 and 2 Hälfte, 1888-89; II. Band, Urkunden und Belege zum ersten und dritten Band, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile Zahn’s Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, I., 1898; II., 1899, 2nd ed., 1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great deal of valuable material for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basis on which all sound exegesis rests.

191. A small selection will be found in Preuschen, Analecta, pp. 152-157.

192. Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

193. Jülicher, loc. cit., from Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., i. 11. On the Latin form grabattum, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, σκίμπους occurs as early as Clem. Al. Paed., 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has κλίνη (ix. 6), and Luke κλινίδιον (v. 24). Cf. the passage cited by Lagarde (De Novo Test., 20 = Ges. Abh., 118) from Lucian’s Philopseudes, 11; ὁ Μίδας αὐτὸς ἀράμενος τὸν σκίμποδα ἐφ’ οὗ ἐκεκόμιστο ᾤχετο εἰς ἀγρὸν ἀπιών.

194. Τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ἣν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.

195. Cf. Matt. xiii. 27, δοῦλοι τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου, and also the superscriptions of the N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is varied by ἀπόστολος Ἰ. Χ.

196. “is reserved”—Syr.

197. “but”—Syr.

198. This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ read by Christophorson and Savil.

199. The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation. Bengel punctuates ἅγιον, κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ, and Westcott and Hort ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengel along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Bengel’s Gnomon). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian’s construction is impossible “on account of the position of κληθήσεται.” Westcott and Hort surely know Greek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us.

200. It seems worth while to quote here Harnack’s words on these notices of the earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (ibid., p. 189): “The charge preferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner (Theodotus) by the author of the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He complains of their formal and grammatical exegesis of Scripture, of their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the extent to which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical Science. At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these people had no interest to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is the case. The complainant himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis ‘with the object of establishing their godless conclusions,’ and textual criticism in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the allegorical method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How inimitable and charming really are these notices!... These scholars had to be generals without an army, because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had invested with admiration and respect.... As ‘genuine’ scholars—this is an exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also took a jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations. No remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes of the Christian Church (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such; cf. Epiph. lv. c. 1).” So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the sentence which Harnack renders “for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what each one has corrected as they call it, that is corrupted (deleted?),” φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι is to be understood simply of a diligent record of “corrections” undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac ἠφανισμένα is not to be rendered by “deleted,” but as Harnack translates it: cf. the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse 16 (Syr^p), verses 19 and 20 (Syr^pc). On the validity of the charge of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, GK. 1, 296 f.

201. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.

202. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310.

203. Ibid., p. 291.

204. Ibid., p. 303 ff. Cf. Texts and Studies, vol. i. 4: The Fragments of Heracleon, by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

205. On the literature of the subject, cf. Zahn, GK. i. 585-718, Das N. T. Marcions; ii. 409-529, Marcions N. T. All other works are superseded by this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt (1823); Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (1832: for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486); A. Ritschl, Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas (1846); Hilgenfeld, in the Z. f. hist. Theol., 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, c. viii.

206. The proof passages will be found in Zahn, GK. i. 620, 626, 663: machaera non stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time?—cf. Augustine, Con. Jul., iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo convertatur in minium): non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (con. Marc., i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius).

207. See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (sc. evangelium), prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (Pseudo-Origenes, de la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in Caspari Anecdota, i. 57) in Zahn, GK. i. 613.

208. Cf. also GK. p. 681.

209. Cf. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: “Some of the omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession” (p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings peculiar to Marcion are cited.

210. Cf. also ibid., p. 684, and see below, p. 313.

211. Cf. also ibid., p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their doing so systematically.”

212. Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the restoration of the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction.

213. Zahn interjects “as yet.”

214. We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion’s text. The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with which Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found, and also a great part of the Gospel of Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost works as well. Codex 604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς, in the Lord’s Prayer, Luke xi. 2. The same manuscript omits με λέγετε εἶναι in Luke ix. 20, and λέγουσα in verse 35. Compare also Jülicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. 5: “Marcion, who perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.”

215. On this passage W.-W. observe: “D ex Latinis forsan correctus.”

216. “Licet suos adiectio sit haeretici.” Tertullian.

217. In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number of Marcion’s readings from Zahn’s work, with the hope that these will now earn a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See e.g. on Luke xviii. 20; xxiii. 2; xxiv. 37; 1 Cor. vi. 20; xiv. 19.

218. See Literature on p. 105 f., to which add Westcott, Canon, Part I. c. iv. § 10.

219. Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the Marcionites, he says: τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστιν εὐαγγέλιον (Philocalia, ed. Robinson, 47; Zahn, GK. i. 412; PRE³, v. 654). From what Origen says, Contra Celsum, vi. 51, it would seem that he himself heard Tatian.

220. Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites: Χρῶνται μὲν οὖν οὗτοι Νόμῳ καὶ Προφήταις καὶ Εὐαγγελίοις (Syriac has אונגליון), ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφῶν... βλασφημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς Ἐπιστολὰς, μηδὲ τὰς Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως τῶν Εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς Τὸ Διὰ Τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν· ὃ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι φέρεται. Τοῦ δὲ Ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς ὡς ἐπιδιορθούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν. Καταλέλοιπε δὲ οὗτος πολύ τι πλῆθος γραμμάτων κ.τ.λ. In the Syriac version it runs: But this Tatian, their first head, collected and combined and framed a (or, the) אונגליון and called it דיטסרון, that is “the combined,” which is in the possession of many till this day. And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of the Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with the object of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left many writings, etc.

221. Epiphan., Haeret., 46, 1 (Pet. 391): λέγουσι δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς καλοῦσι.

222. Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt. xxvii. 48: ση[μείωσαι] ὅτι εἰς τὸ καθ’ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου καὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο προσκεῖται. Instead of Διοδώρου, Harnack-Preuschen (i. 493), read Διαδώρου, whether rightly or not I do not know. Nothing being known of the historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to conjecture (Zahn, Forsch., i. 28) that the reading should be διὰ δ’, but what becomes then of ωρου καὶ? Harnack suggests διὰ δ’ Σύρου Τατιανοῦ, but see Zahn, Forsch., ii. 298. The omission of the article before διὰ δ’ is a difficulty.

223. In his Ἐπιτομὴ αἱρετικῆς κακομυθίας (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in the year 453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:—οὗτος καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τε γενεαλογίας περικόψας καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννημένον τὸν κύριον δείκνυσιν, ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ οὐ μόνοι οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν τῆς συνθήκης κακουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωκότες, ἀλλ’ ἁπλούστερον ὡς συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ διακοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν ταῖς παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμημένας, καὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεθέμην καὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον.

224. See Hamlyn Hill, Earliest Life of Christ, etc., p. 324; Hope W. Hogg, Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

225. See Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, 1882, pp. 196-218, and, on the other side, Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 292 ff.

226. The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study, 1890.

227. See ThLz., 1891, col. 356.

228. It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not. For a reading of cod. W^d, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark vii. 33, p. 264.

229. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

230. See Forschungen, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

231. London, Macmillan, 1895.

232. Forschungen, i. 179.

233. This will be found most conveniently in Hogg’s translation—Ante-Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

234. Cf. p. 393: “To judge from Ephraem’s Commentary, the Diatessaron contains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis of the Gospels and Acts.”

235. In his N. T. um 200, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn’s interpretation of the words of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by saying among other things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius himself was aware of the double meaning of the word μεταφράσαι which was employed in the tradition (he says φασι) reported to him. He thinks that Rufinus might be said to have “paraphrased” certain commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology in many places. True, but in Eusebius it is φωνάς τινας τοῦ ἀποστόλου, not whole epistles, that Tatian is said to have “metaphrased.”

236. On the words of Jerome (ad Tit. praef., vii. 686), “Sed Tatianus Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem,” compare Zahn, Forsch., i. 6, GK. i. 426.

237. Introd., ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims our attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge from extant evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times; and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt its influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal character. The eccentric Whiston’s translation of the Gospels and Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex Claromontanus, and Bornemann’s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae was taken as the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even predominantly, Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what the Apostles wrote. This all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western documentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained that the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin; partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the Western text as revealed by Patristic quotations and by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this text, as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western readings have long been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient grounds; and in Tischendorf’s last edition their number has been augmented, owing to the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting documents. To one small and peculiar class of Western readings, exclusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption.
§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D contains, these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived from very ancient texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the secure recovery of the true text; and, apart from this direct applicability, no other single source of evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on the equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say; but it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old-Latin evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which D had hitherto stood alone.
§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before intimated (§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be genuine in spite of the exclusively Western character of their attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, that is to say, the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered interpolation in all the extant non-Western texts.... With a single peculiar exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western non-interpolations are confined to the last three chapters of St. Luke.
§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin.
In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an Additional Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direction. It is as follows:—
Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): “The Essays of Dr. Chase on The Syriac Element in Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1893, and The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important contribution to the solution of a fundamental problem in the history of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syr^sin and k are arrayed against א B, would point to the conclusion.” [The proper title of Chase’s Essays is The Old Syriac, under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also quotes them (Einl., ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the remark made in the Preface. “For the rest,” he says there, “I may perhaps be allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the general principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in the Notes since the publication of the First Edition, which were not fully considered by Dr. Hort and myself in the long course of our work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.—Auckland Castle, March 27, 1896. B. F. D.”

238. See my Philologica Sacra, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of Lagarde. His book may not be very accessible to textual critics.

239. “Thou shalt worship no manuscripts” was one of the ten commandments that Lehrs gave philologists.

240. This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus and Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the superb copy of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in the reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon the scene.

241. Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the Acts in Zahn’s Einleitung, ii. § 59, pp. 338-359. See also Burkitt’s Introduction to Barnard’s Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria (Texts and Studies, v. 5), especially p. xviii: “Let us come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as Clement’s quotations show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.”

242. Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of καὶ ἀνεφερ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. א* D Syr^sin a b d e ff l*, Aug. ½; verse 52, omit προσκυν· αὐτόν, D Syr^sin a b d e ff l, Aug. 1/1; verse 53, αἰνοῦντες for εὐλογοῦντες D a b d e ff l r (Aug.); (Syr^sin here has מברכין, not משבחין which represents αἰνοῦντες in Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read εὐλογοῦντες in this passage). Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52, only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testimony of D by the addition of that of א*? Schiller says in Tell: “The strong is mightiest alone: united e’en the weak are strong”—how far are both these notions true in textual criticism?

243. So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the καὶ that belongs to this reading is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read αἰν. καὶ εὐλογ. with the great majority of witnesses, and not εὐλογ. καὶ αἰν. with the Ethiopic version. See Th. St. Kr., 1898, i. 136 f. The passage is regarded by Westcott and Hort as a good example of “conflation,” § 146.

244. See now Textkritik der vier Evangelien, pp. 48, 181.

245. Αἰνεῖν is not given in Cremer’s Dictionary among the synonyms of εὐλογεῖν, and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες from this passage.

246. See Hilgenfeld, Das Apostel-Concil nach seinem ursprünglichen Wortlaute in the ZfwTh., 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

247. Harnack, Das Aposteldecret (Acta xv. 29) und die Blass’sche Hypothese, Berlin, 1899. From the Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. der Wiss. Noticed in the Expository Times for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the Berliner philologische Wochenschrift of the 13th May 1899.

248. See critical note in the Expositor’s Greek Testament (Knowling), in loco.

249. Cf. the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47.

250. A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a new page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence διαμαρτυρον τη Ιερουσαλημ τας ανομιας αυτης ταδε λεγει κυριος τη Ιερουσαλημ, with the result that the eight words from the first Ιερουσαλημ to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoioteleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony. Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In the former the passage from resurrexit to resurrexit is repeated, in the latter it is omitted.

251. I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton. We did not always agree with him; he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of a difficulty, but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to occur.

252. This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess’s reprint of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet five words have dropped out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis curis correcta), 1868, and 1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the occasion of the third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in Tischendorf’s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.

253. In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by themselves.

254. Scrivener would explain the “remarkable confusion” of the two prepositions προ and προσ, when compounded with verbs, which we meet e.g. in Matt. xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that the symbol [Symbol: an abbreviation made of a rho character written on top of a block with three lines.] is used indifferently for προ and προσ in the Herculanean rolls, and here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad habit in Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph prostheticum instead of protheticum, and that the practice is still defended (Gesenius-Kautzsch²⁶, p. 64, n. 3, “rightly so”) after my notice of it (Marginalien, p. 67), I have given some little attention to this confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have noticed it as well as myself. In his N.T., i. 20, B. Weiss says: “The compounds with προ and προσ are interchanged quite heedlessly,” and he cites in proof of this eight passages from the Acts. He writes similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only one or two cases in connection with this same word πρόθεσις. Pitra on Apost. Const., 5, 17 (p. 325): πρόθεσιν restituimus cum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo πρόσθεσιν; Excerpta Περὶ Παθῶν, ed. R. Schneider (Programme of Duisburg, 1895), where the manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp. 5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read in § 10, ἀντίκειται δὲ πρόσθεσις μὲν ἀφαιρέσει, etc., and in § 11, πρόσθεσις μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ προσθήκη στοιχείου κατ’ ἀρχήν, οἷον σταφίς, ἀσταφίς καὶ ὀσταφίς. Both times, of course, it should be πρόθεσις, as the better manuscripts have it. Wherever mention is made of the “shewbread,” D invariably turns it into “extra bread,” by reading προσθέσεως instead of προθέσεως. Tischendorf first called attention to this in Luke vi. 4, but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt myself that in the case of verbal forms, the σ was inserted in order to avoid the hiatus before the augment. Compare προσέθηκεν for προέθηκεν, Ex. xxiv. 23; προσέθηκας, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus; προανεθέμην or προσανεθέμην, Gal. i. 16. In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even writes προσφήτας for prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one of Philo’s books is προπαιδεύματα or πρὸς [τὰ] παιδεύματα. Etc. etc. Sapienti sat.

255. We find all the possible permutations of the words αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς in John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (N) in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 42 (1899), p. 623.

256. See Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Lukas i. 46-55) in the Berliner Sitzungsberichte of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good example of how glosses may creep into the text is afforded by Philo “Quod det.” 11 (Cohn, 1, 266).

²⁵⁷. On the influence of a system of pericopæ on the text of Codex D, see Scrivener’s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and Zahn, Einl., ii. 355.

258. See Semler’s edition of J. J. Wetsteinii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem N.T., Halae, 1766.

259. (1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2) Codices qui cum graecis א B L concordant plerumque textum Hieronymianum ostendunt.

260. In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν, ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν, etc., it is impossible to adjust their claims on any mere arithmetical principle. Zahn (Einl., ii. 61) calls attention to an important consideration in support of the reading ὑμῖν in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other passages as well—viz., “that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine service, ἡμεῖς would very readily and very frequently be substituted for ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader or preacher.” Compare Acts iv. 12: ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι—, ἡμᾶς or ὑμᾶς?
It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that particular importance attaches to those versions in which the distinction of the persons does not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word (nobis: vobis, etc.). In versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first; in the case of the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission, especially when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must also, of course, be taken into account.
A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is the tendency to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen divided the Greek N.T. (1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the Synoptic Gospels—viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi. 44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 (xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.). Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark vi. 11; xiii. 2; Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 21; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xxii. 19 f., 43 f., 47; xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several verses this or that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, e.g., is reduced to the three words, καὶ ὁ δεύτερος, with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

261. The best discussion of the form Ἀπελλῆς will again be found in Zahn, Einl., i. 193.

262. See my note in the Expository Times for July 1900, p. 478, where I have brought forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha—viz., Jerome’s Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum. He explains the word as “columba dans vel columba veniens.”

263. Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE³, iii. 227 ff., but he says not a syllable about the form βοσόρ, which is too bad. In Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible it is at least mentioned though not explained.

264. בער is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic בעור by C. B. Michaelis (De Paronomasia, § 30); Hiller, Onomasticum, 1706, p. 536; and Bernardus (in Marck, In praecipuas quasdam partes Pentateuchi Commentarius, Leyden, 1713, 366). Marck himself makes it the equivalent of פתור. M. M. Kalish, Bible Studies, i. The prophecies of Bileam, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the solution of the question.

265. See Mrs. Lewis, in the Expository Times, November 1900, p. 56 ff., What have we gained in the Sinaitic Palimpsest? I. St. Matthew’s Gospel, where a number of important variants are cited from that manuscript.

266. Corderius (Caten. Psal., ii. 631) substitutes “ancient” for “accurate.”

267. Or “exemplo graeco,” according as the plural points are inserted or not. The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says that it is also found in the margin of the London manuscript of the Peshitto, 14456. He also gives the verses in which Juvencus paraphrases this text.

268. The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely instructive—viz.:

locis eminentioribus	superioribus	g2 emm.	honorificis	m
clarior	dignior	d m g2 emm.	honoratior	e
deorsum	inferius	g2 emm.	infra	m
inferior	humilior		minor
superius	sursum		in superiori loco.
utilius	utile		gloriam.

This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was translated into Latin.

269. The Thesaurus Syriacus does not contain the word either in col. 1405 under חשמיתא, or in col. 2205 under מרא.
It may also be observed in passing, that the passage is one of those whose sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the negative in this or that witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of καὶ ἐκ μείζονος, Syr^cu reads καὶ μὴ ἐκ μείζονος. Moreover, it takes ζητεῖτε as imperative, a fact that Tischendorf has failed to notice.

270. I see that Chase, who discusses the passage in pp. 9-14 of his Syro-Latin Text, has the same impression: “the compound Greek word in D, ὁ δειπνοκλήτωρ, seems intended to represent the Syriac expression ‘the lord of the supper.’”

271. The case is quite different in 1 Macc. v. 2, where the first hand of א wrote ὠργίσθησαν for ἐβουλεύσαντο. Here ὠργίσθη occurs immediately before it.

272. So given in Merx’s edition, but not in Lewis.—Tr.

273. See also von Dobschütz, Das Kerygma Petri, p. 82, where he cites the passage of Origen relating to the Doctrina Petri, which is also quoted by Tischendorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in the LXX δαιμόνιον is never employed to represent דוּחַ. Conybeare’s articles on “The Demonology of the New Testament” in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1896) I have unfortunately been unable to consult. Joh. Weiss never mentions φάντασμα in his article on Dämonen und Dämonische in the PRE³, iv.

274. This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of Mopsuestia.

275. The same variation occurs in Luke vi. 7, where א* B S X read κατηγορεῖν (κατηγορῆσαι D), while א^c A E F have κατηγορίαν.

276. When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other passages, and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorf’s statements with regard to that manuscript, as I did previously in the case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B has ἀλλὰ for ἀλλ’, on which Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mention the passage in their Notes on Orthography, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B. On Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus: ειδοτας sine υμας cum A B C²... ϛ (Gb^oo) add. υμας cum א K L. But υμας stands quite plain in B. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort would certainly have printed their text differently. How far back this false testimony with regard to B extends I am unable to certify. It is found in Tischendorf’s seventh edition of 1859, and in Huther’s Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterum censeo, that two or three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current about B. This one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and all our Commentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted υμας in his text, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its interpolation, its omission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt, be gratified to see his reasoning confirmed by this weighty testimony afforded by Codex B.

277. Further instances of changes requiring investigation are:—ερωταν and παρακαλειν; οραν and θεασθαι; αγειν and φερειν; ερχεσθαι and υπαγειν; υπαρχειν and ειμι; συν and μετα; εις and εν; εως, μεχρι and αχρι; ενωπιον and εμπροσθεν; ετερος and αλλος; οικος and οικια; παις and παιδιον; πολις and κωμη; λαος and οχλος; ναος and ιερον; φεγγος and φως; active and middle voice, αρχεσθαι, etc.

278. See, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, Einl., i. 263.—Tr.

279. I have already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes, often quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few additional instances may be cited here.
There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above, p. 287.
According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners דלהין נתבשפון, i.e. that they should be entreated. The writer of the text, therefore, that Aphraates used, must have taken παρακαλεῖν here in the sense of “to entreat.” See Zahn, Forschungen, i. 78.
The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 νῦν δὲ ὅδε παρακαλεῖται in the form יומנא דין בעית מנה, i.e. “but to-day thou entreatest of him”, where παρακαλεῖν is again taken in the sense of “to entreat”, though a different word is used for it. See Zahn, ibid.
Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders παράκλησιν (αὐτῶν) in Luke vi. 24 בעותהין, “their prayer, their request.” Zahn, ibid.
The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered “that thou mayest have need of nothing else,” where χρεία must have been read instead of χεῖρον. Zahn, Forschungen, i. 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc. ii. 13; viii. 13, etc.

280. On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1898), p. 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the letters of the Emperor Julian, see Bidez and Cumont, Recherches etc., p. 19 (see above, p. 174).

281. What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in the way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved the dates, supposing they were there originally! One, but only one, of the epistles of Ignatius bears a date—viz. that to the Romans: ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ταῦτα τῇ πρὸ ἐννέα καλανδῶν Σεπτεμβρίων (x. 3).

282. On these two verbs compare Exod. xxxi. 17, where the LXX has ἐπαύσατο and Aquila ἀνέψυξε; Isa. xxxiv. 14, LXX ἀναπαύσονται, Aquila ἀνέψυξε; Isa. xxviii. 12, Aquila ἀνάψυξις; compare also ἀνάπαυσις, Matt. xi. 29; καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως, Acts iii. 20. Weiss, in his Commentary, ignores the reading of B in Rom. xv. 32; in his discussion of the text he supposes that the text was mutilated by a translator, and that D E F G “sought to restore it in their own way.”

283. See 1 Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has קדישותא—i.e. ἁγιότητος—for ἀληθείας.

284. To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many from the Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to them in reading. Take, for example, Herodotus i. 24. Was the votive offering that Arion set up at Taenarum μέγα or οὐ μέγα? In the Germania xv. 1 did Tacitus say of the Germans “non multum venationibus, plus per otium transigunt,” or “multum venationibus, etc.”? In the new edition of Origen (i. 87, 16) Koetschau reads ἀχρήσιμα where the manuscript and the earlier editions have χρήσιμα, and he lets an οὐκ stand which others omit, etc.

285. In his Lucian Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by certain letters shining through from the opposite side—e.g. Esther v. 22 and 27. This latter is a most interesting case. The following verse begins with μη, and Lagarde thought that the first scribe had added another μη by mistake and afterwards erased it, whereas it turned out that what he took to be ΜΗ was nothing else than ΗΝ shining through from the other side.

286. Cf. Westcott, Canon, Part II. ch. ii. § 1, p. 354 ff.; Bible in the Church, p. 125 f.

287. Cf. Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 153 ff.

288. See Article on The Catholic Epistles, by Salmond, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, i. p. 359 f.

289. It is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall be concise and yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts ἐλεᾶτε in the text, and yet he leaves the apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest that he intended to read ἐλέγχετε with Tischendorf.

290. The inscription on a column at Rome dedicated to a Sabine god which Justin read as “Simoni Sancto Deo,” and understood as referring to Simon Magus. See Kurtz, Church History (Macpherson), i. p. 97; Neander, Church History (Bohn), ii. p. 123, note.

291. Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol. iii.

292. See Blass, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § 31, 6, Eng. Tr., p. 80 f. Compare the similar German idiom used in the titles of books, “von X. Y. ordentlicher Professor.” How naturally this comes to a Hebrew is shown by the fact that Sal. Bär, in his translation of the Massoretic note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 1892, p. 158), among other lovely things has “ad mortem Davidis rex Israelis.”

293. In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement with Lachmann (Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and Hort (ii., App., 137). I see that Baljon and Zahn too follow it. But Bousset still writes ἡμέραις αἷς.

294. Including Gwynn’s Syriac manuscript; see above, p. 102.

Plate I

Plate II

Plate III

Plate IV

Plate V

Plate VI

Plate VII

Plate VIII

Plate IX

Plate X