Footnotes

1.

See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, ii. “Evidence of Early Versions and Patristic Quotations, &c.,” by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. 211. In this chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.

2.

I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin:—briefly speaking, (a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome; (b) Because Latin translations from the first must have been wanted everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empire would ensure a large number of translators: and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would account for the numerous errors found in and propagated by the old Latin manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been supplied in every place adequately to the want; (c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS.; (d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted on both sides; (e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them. But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.

3.

Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.

4.

Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), “The Dialects of Palestine in the time of Christ,” distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic, (2) Galilaean Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4) modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.

5.

I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg. lxxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito; but, while he admits a frequent resemblance between it and the renderings imputed to “the Syrian,” he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes ὁ Σύρος to ὁ Εβραῖος (Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the following writers as citing the former,—Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, Apollinarius, Chrysostom, Procopius (ibid. p. lxvii).

6.

All modern accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton's gracious language two hundred years ago: “Etsi verò, olim in haereses miserè prolapsi, se a reliquis Ecclesiae Catholicae membris separarint, unde justo Dei judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Schola Crucis Schola Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit” (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham, Tom. ii. p. 500).

7.

Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow 1 John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.

8.

See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in “Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy,” xxvii. 8, “On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.” This MS. was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in 1631, and is now in Trinity College Library, Dublin.

9.

Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London Polyglotts when interpolating τῶν σωζομένων Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).

10.

Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, Church Quarterly Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac H. Hall to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the Peshitto.

11.

Tregelles in “Smith's Dictionary of the Bible” thinks that the term was originally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar translation derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Proleg. p. ix, note 1), adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called ἁπλοῦν (1 Kings vii. 13; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ἐν τῷ ἑξαπλῷ. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time attached itself to the New.

12.

ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 3319.

13.

A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac Grammar of Nestle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.

14.

“Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton, D.D. ... Canon of Westminster,” 4to, London, 1858. See also Wright's description of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.

15.

Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thus far his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modification of it and not a translation from the Greek, he has but a single plea that will bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one particular of inserting the three kings, ch. i. 8, though even here the number of fourteen generations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such cases as Juda, ch. ii. 1; Ramtha, ver. 18; ܕ for ὅτι or the relative, ch. xiii. 16, can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto, from which version they may very well have been derived.

16.

The title to St. Matthew is remarkable; for while (in the subscription) we read, “Gospel of Markos,” and “Gospel of Juchanan” occurs, as in other Syriac MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title “Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.” The meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root means divide, distinguish, separate—cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref. vi) says (1) that the great authority Bernstein suggested “Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.” This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although some are noted by a much later hand in the margins. (2) Cureton himself, noticing a defect in the vellum before ܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡ), would read ܕܡܬܝ (or ܝܬܡܕ), and render “The distinct Gospel of Matthew.” This he understood to indicate that the translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was “built upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.” But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ܕ, which is required to connect the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work, “Evangeliom dampharsa—Mattai” [Catalogue Brit. Mus. l. c.]; the other names being preceded by “Evangeliom” only. (3) “Dampharsa” has been rendered “explained” [see the review in “Journal of Sacred Literature,” 1858], viz. from the text of the Peshitto; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4) from the quotations and references in the “Thesaurus Syriacus” (R. Payne Smith), col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means “separated,” as opposed to “united in a Harmony.” Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the offspring of Tatian's Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto, an opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation.

17.

“Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite Peshitto s'accorde bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu'avec (B).” (Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey, 1872, Préface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent.

18.

The student may also consult:—Evangelienfragmente, F. Baethgen, 1885. Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir's Etude, Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 1885. Zeitschrift des Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer in De Waarde der Syrische Evangeliën (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the literature of the question.

19.

Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii.

20.

Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138—see p. 36.

21.

So Roediger in Z.M.D.G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ܐܚܢܢ (or ܢܢܚܐ); but it proves nothing, for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.

22.

Pages 164-5.

23.

Pages 171-2.

24.

Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 345. Ephraem died a.d. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.

25.

Page 14.

26.

In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of investigations made by the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall, Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.

27.

For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.

28.

The forms in which O. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand attention, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.

29.

E.g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.

30.

Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:— 1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text. 2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision. 3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between a.d. 250 and 350. These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence. The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:— 1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history. 2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known. 3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had been known among them for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to require to be thrown off afterwards. As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the opinion of other experts (see Abbé Martin, Des Versions Syriennes, Fasc. 4). The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere conjecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies]. Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

31.

On the order, functions, and decay of the Χωρεπίσκοποι, see Bingham's “Antiquities,” book ii, chap. xiv.

32.

Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abbé Martin (see p. 323 note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask “Est-ce à dire que cette version soit entachée de monophysisme? Nous ne le pensons pas; pour l'affirmer, il faudra l'examiner très minutieusement; car l'hérésie monophysite est, à quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru” (Des Versions Syriennes, p. 162).

33.

The asterisks ([symbol] [symbol]) and obeli ([symbol] [symbol]) of this version will be observed in our specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen's Hexapla (from which they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists; so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the Peshitto: White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.

34.

“Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Bibliotheca Novi Collegii Oxon. repositis; nunc primum edita, cum Interpretation Latinâ et Annotationibus Josephi White. Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano,” 1778, 2 tom. 4to. And so for the two later volumes. Ridley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e.g. John vii. 53-viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John's Gospel (Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or about 1877 Professor Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerût a manuscript in the Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photographed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John), which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs much from White's, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White's.

35.

Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known, the Lectionaries Bodleian 43; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14,689, 18,714; Paris 51 and 52; Rome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 32.

36.

See also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end. Mut. at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

37.

Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in ܐ [final form] for ܐ: the third person affix to plural nouns in ܘ for ܗܘ. In the compass of the six verses we have cited (below, p. 39) occur not only the Greek words ܘܝܪܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܪܝܘ) (καιρός), v. 3, and ܢܘܣܐ (or ܐܣܘܢ) (ναός), v. 5, which are common enough in all Syriac books, but such Palestinian words and forms as ܕܝ (or ܝܕ) for ܕܝܢ (or ܢܝܕ), δέ (vv. 4, 6, 7); ܒܒܝܢ (or ܢܝܒܒ) v. 3, “when;” ܐܗܐ v. 3, “repented;” ܐܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕܐ) for ܕܡܐ (or ܐܡܕ) (vv. 4, 6, 8), “blood;” ܥܥܝܢܗ (or ܗܢܝܥܥ), v. 4, “to us;” ܓܪܡܐ (or ܐܡܪܓ), v. 5, “himself;” ܕܡܝܢ (or ܢܝܡܕ), v. 6, “price” (Pesh. has ܛܡܝ (or ܝܡܛ), Hark. ܛܝܡܐ (or ܐܡܝܛ) (pl.) τιμή); ܥܦܝܢ (or ܢܝܦܥ) v. 8, “therefore;” ܗܐܘ (or ܘܐܗ), v. 8, “this.”

38.

Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions of Targum and Talmud, see Etheridge's “Hebrew Literature,” pp. 145-6, 195-7.

39.

Dr. Hort's not very explicit judgement should now be added: “The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian], probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian]. Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly composite character” (Introd., p. 157).

40.

On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34), see “The New Syriac Fragments” (F. H. Woods), in the Expository Times, Nov., 1893.

41.

See the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. S. C. Malan, London, 1868.

42.

Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale O. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria commemorate this holiday.

43.

Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

44.

So Gale O. 4. 22, with the same Lesson.

45.

See Athenaeum, Oct. 28, 1893.

46.

Anecdota Oxoniensia, “The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture;” edited by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D.: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.

47.

The full form (ܛܘܒܢܐ or ܐܢܒܘܛ blessed) occurs in the scholion to Rom. viii. 15; Wiseman thought it meant the Peshitto; but see “Studia Biblica,” iii. 60 and note.

48.

Our specimens show the use in MSS. of rucaca and kushaia, here printed with fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah ore also shown.

49.

Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.

50.

The Codex Babylonicus, a.d. 916, is the oldest Old Testament MS. known at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.

51.

Karkaphta = skull. See also “Thes. Syr.,” col. 3762.

52.

Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas Heracleensis. M. l'Abbé Martin (Tradition Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas of Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. See Mr. Gwilliam's Essay in “Stud. Bibl. et Eccl.,” iii. pp. 56-65.

53.

“How the Codex was found” (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.

54.

Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself, which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS.; see Wordsworth's Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.

55.

For Itala Bentley conjectured et illa, changing the following nam into quae; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a “Versio Italica;” see Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569; and “Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,” in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured usitata for Itala; see Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

56.

Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Rheims, 1743-1749; a revised edition of this great work, for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wölfflin.

57.

Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinae Versionis Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae, editum ex codicibus manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Rome, 1749; reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Vercellensis.

58.

That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians would use other names, vetus, antiqua, usitata, communis, vulgata; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

59.

Published in the Catholic Magazine for 1832-3; since reprinted in his “Essays on various subjects,” 1853, vol. i.

60.

We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 1883; since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African origin of the Latin version. It is true that the words, phrases, &c., of that version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers, and from them only; but that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature; and consequently are able to use only the method of agreement and not the method of difference in testing the origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.

61.

See Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

62.

“Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam: et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia quae cum Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa praesumptio, judicare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum: senis mutare linguam, et canescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.” Praef. ad Damasum.

63.

“[Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant.” Ibid. For a signal instance, see below, ch. ix, note on Matt. xxi. 31.

64.

To his well-known censure of Jerome's rendering of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, Augustine adds, “Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.”

65.

Roger Bacon's writings, however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in which Jerome's translation is cited as the “Vulgate” in the modern sense of the term. See Denifle, Die Handschriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhunderts, 1883, p. 278.

66.

See Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, “Jam pridem universos Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;” S. Berger's essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.

67.

See the Oxford “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” ii (1890), p. 278 f.

68.

Fritzsche, “Latein. Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog, R. E.2 viii. p. 449; Westcott, “Vulgate,” in Smith's Bibl. Dict. iii. p. 1703; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulg., p. 229 f.; P. Corssen, in “Die Trierer Adahandschr.” (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.

69.

Berger, as above, p. 7.

70.

See the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch. xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, ibid., col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave's remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148), “Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,” seems hardly borne out by the facts.

71.

His corrected Bible in four vols. is now preserved at Dijon, public library, 9 bis, see below, p. 68, no. 8; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267; Kaulen, p. 245.

72.

His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class. x. cod. 178, fol. 141); see Denifle, p. 270, who prints them.

73.

See the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.

74.

See S. Berger, De l'histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.

75.

See Hugo's remark (Denifle, p. 295), “In multis libris maxime historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”

76.

See Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp. 426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth's Vulgate as cor. vat.; see Berger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

77.

See W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.

78.

Or to Peter Schoeffer, see J. H. Hessels, in the Academy, June, 1887, p. 396; August, p. 104; or to Johann Fust. See the British Museum “Catalogue of Printed Books,” Bible, part i. col. 16.

79.

Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of “Thielman Kerver, impensis J. Parvi,” with emendations of A. Castellani.

80.

The British Museum possesses a copy (340. d. 1); see the “Catalogue,” part i. col. 1.

81.

For details see “Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,” i. p. 51 f.

82.

Ibid., p. 48 f.

83.

The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three forms:— (1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian Bible of 1583. (2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated the subject more fully in (1). (3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels) in Walton's Polyglott; a delectus of them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

84.

See E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p. 13 f., 1892.

85.

There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is practically in one volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.

86.

He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that the versing of the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as from Stephen.

87.

The regular form of title, “Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. jussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita,” does not appear in any edition known to the writer before that of Rouille, Lyons, 1604. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masch (Le Long, Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. lxxii) names others considerably later as the earliest.

88.

See Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

89.

Ibid., p. xxv.

90.

See Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.

91.

M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of his “History of the Vulgate” as they were printed, and to add a large number of MSS. to this list from that source.

92.

For the Würzburg MSS., see G. Schepps, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Universitätsbibliothek, Würzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are mainly taken.

93.

For these MSS., see as before, G. Schepss, Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften d. Würzb. Univ. B., 1887.

94.

My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 4, but what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? “Au nombre des auteurs les plus récents qui nous aient donné des témoignages sur l'existence du démotique il faut citer St. Clément, prêtre de l'église chrétienne à Alexandrie, et qui vivait vers l'an 190 de notre ère, ou environ le temps où régnait l'empereur Sévère. Mais les monuments nous prouvent que cette date n'est pas la dernière; il se trouve encore des inscriptions d'une époque plus rapprochée; telle est par exemple une inscription démotique que M. de Saulcy avait copiée en Égypte et qu'il eut la complaisance de me communiquer pendant mon séjour à Paris; elle date du règne en commun d'Aurélius et de Vérus, ce qui prouve que dans la première moitié du troisième siècle le démotique était encore connu et en usage.” L. Verus died a.d. 169.

95.

The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Revillout (Mélanges d'Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.

96.

[That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitschr. für Aeg. Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]

97.

[There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name at any rate is incorrect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used by Tischendorf; this usage also is erroneous and misleading; and the names Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the present day.]

98.

Schwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias, infers from the historical notices that “the greatest part of the New Testament writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and indeed into that of Lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt” (p. 963).

99.

For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: “Z. A. S.” for Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache; “Recueil” for the Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes; “Mémoires” for the Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire; and “Mitt.” for the Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer.

100.

Quatremère can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c., p. 213 sq.).

101.

Memphitic (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).

102.

See also A. J. Butler's “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.

103.

I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year a.d.; but this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year began in August or September; see Clinton, Fast. Rom., ii. p. 210.

104.

I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in different Bohairic MSS.

105.

My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.

106.

The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c. “The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites, Timotheus, and Titus. In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak of the great Macarius, but of “an abbot Macarius.” The fact is, that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος) who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. lxi in Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated a.m. 604 = a.d. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde; but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the Greek. The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access to the Parham collection.

107.

The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.

108.

The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

109.

No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.

110.

It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tischendorf in his eighth edition; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan's “Gospel according to St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,” London, 1862, all Tuki's Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.

111.

See Münter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says, “Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei Rudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.” I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

112.

This has now been published. By Amélineau, Notice sur le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce. Texte et Traduction, Notices et Extraits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres Bibliothèques. Tome xxix. lre Partie. Paris, 1891; and Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus, von Carl Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.

113.

In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of information. Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

114.

Catal., p. 169: “Si de aetate codicum quaeris, scio equidem non defuisse qui singulos ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego sane non obstrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliis velut explorata offerre, &c.” But since this was written the publication of Hyvernat's “Album de Paléographie Copte” has given much assistance; and more may be looked for from the publication of the Paris fragments.

115.

Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex Vaticanus, after it.

116.

The term “Middle Egyptian” is often used as a general term to include the three varieties of Fayoumic, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and Akhmimic.

117.

The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed over.

118.

“But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians;” Gibbon, ch. xxxvii.

119.

“A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,” is the verdict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John's Gospel, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Ellicott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.

120.

Goth. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. O. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.

121.

Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.

122.

Matt. iii. 11; v. 8; 15-vi. 32; vii. 12-x. 1; 23-xi. 25; xxv. 38-xxvi. 3; 65-xxvii. 19; 42-66; Mark i. 1; vi. 30; 58-xii. 38; xiii. 16-29; xiv. 4-16; 41-xvi. 12; Luke i. 1-x. 30; xiv. 9-xvi. 24; xvii. 3-xx. 46; John i. 29; iii. 3-5; 23-26; 29-32; v. 21-23; 35-38; 45-xi. 47; xii. 1-49; xiii. 11-xix. 13; Rom. vi. 23; vii. 1-viii. 10; 34-xi. 1; 11-xii. 5; 8-xiv. 5; 9-20; xv. 3-13; xvi. 21-24; 1 Cor. i. 12-25; iv. 2-12; v. 3-vi. 1; vii. 5-28; viii. 9-ix. 9; 19-x. 4; 15-xi. 6; 21-31; xii. 10-22; xiii. 1-12; xiv. 20-27; xv. 1-35; 46-Gal. i. 7; 20-iii. 6; 27-Eph. v. 11; 17-29; vi. 8-24; Phil. i. 14-ii. 8; 22-iv. 17; Col. i. 6-29; ii. 11-iv. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 10-2 Thess. ii. 4; 15-1 Tim. v. 14; 16-2 Tim. iv. 16; Tit. i. 1-ii. 1; Philem. 1-23; but no portion of the Acts, Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.

123.

See p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French translation of this in the “Collection des Historiens de l'Arménie,” Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at random.

124.

The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.

125.

The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.

126.

Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth century.

127.

Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian MSS. is due to the fact that more than one sure copy was brought from Constantinople on which to base the final revision.

128.

This is the conclusion at which P. P. Carékin arrives. See his “Catalogue of Ancient Armenian Translations,” Venice, 1889, p. 228.

129.

Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following:— (i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855. (ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892. (iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій славянскаго перевода Евангелія. (iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы до xv вѣка. (v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the “Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361]. (vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex Zographensis, &c., by Jagić. (vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

130.

In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in another library as twelve to one. See Описаніе славянскихъ рукописей и т. д. (as above), p. 299.

131.

Kaluzniacki, l. c., p. xlv, gives instances.

132.

See Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

133.

The statement that John Bishop of Seville translated the Bible into Arabic in a.d. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).

134.

Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.

135.

I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of Dr. Scrivener's private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon's services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early citations as that which he formed when people were not sufficiently aware of the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon's great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.

136.

The Revision Revised, by John William Burgon, B. D., Dean of Chichester. John Murray, 1883.

137.

See some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford “Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).” Mr. Bebb's entire Article on “The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament” is well worth careful study.

138.

“Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 292. “Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an independent authority,” p. 297.

139.

I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Hammond, who says: “The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority may become of immense importance” (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed below, Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)

140.

He speaks (N. T., Proleg., § 1478) of Bp. Fell's “praepropera opinio;” he merely stated as universally true what for the most part certainly is so.

141.

Take the case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all. The editio princeps of Erasmus (1526) was printed from manuscripts now unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century, olim Claromontanus; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in the British Museum; the third once belonged to Vossius.

142.

Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbüttel manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which he designed to publish in his “Monumenta Sacra Inedita,” vol. vii. He indicates its readings by Chrgue.

143.

Life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 1892.

144.

Dampar cod. i.e. “Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Rupefuc. saeculi ferè 8.” Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He promised full information in his “Prolegomena,” which never appeared. Here we have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it contains. One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Rendel Harris, a.d. 1884); another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.

145.

This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with H. Roensch's “Das Neue Testament Tertullian's,” Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.

146.

See Dean Burgon's Appendix (D) to his “Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,” pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.

147.

It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are doubtful, authorities differing.

148.

Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Reuss has published “Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentoratensis” (Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his statements regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even than Mill's. Professor Isaac H. Hall in Schaff's “Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version,” D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Reuss, and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (see also his “American Greek Testaments—a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as published in America”—Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company, 1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to have availed myself of the Professor's kind permission to copy that list, but it would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are simply upon the Early Printed and the Critical Editions of the Text.—Ed.

149.

“Novum Testamentum Grece et Latine in academia complutensi noviter impressum,” Tom. v.

150.

Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour, “Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones, medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes” (Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original Scriptures, as such; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and so clung to the Latin as the only form (even before the Council of Trent) in which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.

151.

Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not his work. Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον, ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν, ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

152.

Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he was elected Feb. 28, crowned March 11: Sir Harris Nicolas (“Chronology of History,” p. 194) that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as usual, but mentioning that “Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of his pontificate before his coronation.”

153.

The following is the document (a curiosity in its way) as cited by Vercellone: “Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Reverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Toletanus de mandato SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheca a Dom. Phaedro Bibliothecario duo volumina graeca: unum in quo continentur libri infrascripti; videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro. Fuit extractum ex blancho primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super concessione dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Franciscum De Attavantes Notarium, ubi etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.”—“Restituit die 9 Julii, MDXVIII. Ita est. Fr. Zenobius Bibliothecarius.”

154.

The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up by Moldenhawer, whose admiration of las cosas de España was not extravagantly high, that the Alcalà manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749; to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, “To celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.” Gutierrez's recent list comprehends all the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745; and we may hope that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.

155.

Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places, and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a mass of other copies. In the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of their loci singulares being quite decisive: e.g. x. 17; 21; xii. 12; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12; 14; 2 Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul. 72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places, I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his Oxford manuscripts were collated much the best.

156.

Goeze's “Defence of the Complutensian Bible,” 1766. He published a “Continuation” in 1769. See also Franc. Delitzsch's “Studies on the Complutensian Polyglott” (Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.

157.

Reuss says boldly that the Complutensian text “purus et authenticus a veteribus nunquam repetitus est” (p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter cannot be disputed.

158.

At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32), who, prosperous in life, was so singularly “felix opportunitate mortis.” It gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes about him ten years later: “Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis contigisset annis, fortassis aliquid in bonis literis potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum felici, cum passim impunè regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in eâ regione, quae Baccho Cererique dicata sunt verius quam musis” (N. T. 1516, Annot. 1 Thess. ii. p. 554).

159.

Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote of Erasmus, “an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 395, 3rd edition).

160.

The title-page is long and rather boastful. “Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad graecam veritatem, verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde judica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.” The Vulgarius of Erasmus' first edition is no less a person than Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319, “nec in ullis graecorum exemplaribus addita reperi [ἐκ σοῦ, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem, nec in antiquis codicibus Latinis.” He had found out his portentous blunder by 1528, when, in his “Responsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,” he gives that commentator his right name.

161.

Yet he could have followed none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28; xxiii. 25; xxvii. 52; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26; x. 1; xii. 22; xv. 46; Luke i. 16, 61; ii. 43; ix. 1, 15; xi. 49; John i. 28; x. 8; xiii. 20; in all which passages the Latin Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier, Cod. Ev. 604, App. F. p. 4.

162.

Such are ὀρθρινός, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16; ἐλθέ bis, ἐλθέτω, λαμβανέτω τό, ver. 17; συμμαρτυροῦμαι γάρ, ἐπιτιθῇ πρὸς ταῦτα,—τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 18; ἀφαιρῇ, βίβλου, ἀφαιρῆσει, βίβλου secund., καί ult-τῷ (ante βιβλίῳ) ver. 19; ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν, ver. 21. Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did: “quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus.” But since the text and commentary in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles' “Delitzsch's Handschriftliche Funde,” Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his sole authority, e.g. ch. ii. 2, 17; iii. 5, 12, 15; vi. 11, 15 (see under Apoc. 1); vii. 17; xiii. 4, 5; xiv. 16; xxi. 16; xxii. 11, where the Greek words only of Erasmus are false; while in ch. ii. 3; v. 14 (bis); vi. 1, 3, 5, 7; xiii. 10; xiv. 5 (as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate, whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v. 14; xxii. 11, and the form ἀκαθάρτητος, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has τὰ ἀκάθαρτα) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1 lend any countenance to ch. xvii. 8, καίπερ ἔστι, or to ver. 13, διαδιδώσουσιν. For Erasmus' πληρώσονται ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has πληρώσωσιν, the Latin impleantur; for his σφραγίζωμεν, ch. vii. 3, we find σφραγίσωμεν in Apoc. 1, but the latter omits τῆς ἀμπέλου, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.

163.

Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.

164.

It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance with that given in the text; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them then. Thus John xvii. 2 δώσει (after Cod. 1, but corrected to δώση in the errata); 1 Thess. ii. 8; iii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 13; xxi. 6.

165.

The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus' third edition rather than his second: cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21 as well as 1 John v. 7, 8.

166.

I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that 'Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated' (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and trouble, he used them as copy for the press, as was intimated above, where Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Proleg., p. 127), “se codices suos praecastigasse.” Any wanton “tampering” with the text I am loth to admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.

167.

Reuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein the first edition of Erasmus differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian against the second (p. 30).

168.

Besides the weighty insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8, Reuss (p. 32) gives us only seven changes in the third edition from the second: Mill's other cases, he says, must be mere trifles.

169.

Here again Reuss declares “paucissimas novas habet” (p. 36), and names only six.

170.

“Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in locis: 1 Cor. xii. 2; Acts ix. 28” (Reuss, p. 37). Reuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present work.

171.

Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio).

172.

This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. 2 Cor. xi. 1; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e.g. Luke xi. 34; Eph. vi. 22). Since Wetstein's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Reuchlini (1) in the Apocalypse. Reuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the Complutensian against Erasmus; seven wherein it rejects both books.

173.

The title-page runs εν λευκετια των παρησιων, παρα σιμωνι τω κολιναιω δεκεμβριου μηνος δευτερα φθινοντος, ετει απο της θεογονιας α φ λ δ. This book has no Preface, and the text does not contain 1 John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in reading ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5. Reuss (p. 46), who praises Colinaeus highly, states that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he may have had manuscript authority.

174.

Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.

175.

Reuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus; in the second edition four (or rather three) more; in the third nine, including the great erratum, 1 Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.

176.

Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh 578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false; but we have tried to be as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight, viz. Acts ix. 6; xv. 29; xxv. 5; xxviii. 3; Eph. iv. 32; Col. iii. 20; Apoc. i. 12; ii. 1, 20, 24; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12; iv. 8; xv. 2: β' seems to be put for α' Matt. x. 25.

177.

Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5): but for the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, α᾽, ιε᾽, ιϛ᾽ (ιϛ᾽ ending ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times. See, moreover, above, p. 154, note 3.

178.

Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third edition agrees in fifty-six places with π. or πάντες of its own margin, and in fifty-five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere errata.

179.

Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indicated as “quidam codex” by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38; x. 50; Luke vii. 35. We may add that Beza in 1565 cites the evidence of one Stephanic manuscript for the omission of ὑμῶν, Matt. xxiii. 9; of two for κατεδίωξεν Mark i. 36; in later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25; of three for ἑτέρῳ; Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. ιβ᾽). In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1565, Beza speaks plainly of an “exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus paenè impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimè collatum.”

180.

But here again we must qualify previous statements. Reuss (p. 58) cites six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7; xxiii. 13, 14; xxiv. 15; Luke xvii. 36; Col. i. 20; Apoc. iii. 12): to which list add Mark xiv. 21; xvi. 20; Luke i. 50; viii. 31; xii. 1; Acts xxvii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 6; Heb. vii. 1.

181.

Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually himself possessing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of his “American Greek Testaments” kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in the edition of 1556 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's first Greek text was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions given above are extracted from Professor Hall's list in Schaff's “Companion to the Bible,” pp. 500-502.

182.

Reuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in 1565, so far as Reuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united; the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25; James v. 12) had been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 withdraws one of the peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition (1588), so far as Reuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 (δικαιοσύνην); Heb. x. 17 (add. τότε εἴρηκε), neither of which I can verify. These results, on Reuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (see p. 154, note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin version, as suggested in his Annotations.

183.

Reuss (p. 109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624 differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1565 in only eight readings, all of which may be found in some of Beza's other editions (e.g. the small edition of 1580), except one misprint (Rom. vii. 2).

184.

Οἱ δοῦλος is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), who says that he has seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read οἱ δοῦλου. He had also inspected mine. “And although he says it reads δοῦλος, I read easily δοῦλοι. The type is rather faulty, that is all.” The point is not worth disputing.

185.

“American Additions and Corrections,” p. 50.

186.

Professor Hall states (Schaff's “Companion,” p. 501) that Beza's editions of 1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii) refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef., p. vi, in taking the Elzevir edition of 1624 as the authority for the “Textus Receptus,” says that it rests upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 (= 1588), and 1598 (especially the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that out of 252 passages the “Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113, with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.”

187.

“The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives.” By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c., Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.

188.

See Miller's “Textual Guide,” George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's “Adversaria et Critica Sacra” (not yet published).—Postscript.

189.

Reuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 13; Philem. 6, where Walton prefers the Complutensian reading.

190.

Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).

191.

If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life prefixed to Ussher's “Body of Divinity,” 1678, p. 11, we are told that “in the winter evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible, Greek and Latin, taking with his own hand the variae lectiones of each:” on which statement Dean Burgon (Letter in the Guardian, June 28, 1882) makes the pregnant comment, “Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight, is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.”

192.

“Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analogiis discernendis nimis fortasse curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae servatis sanae interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi, qui nec parcior est, nec nimis minutus in locis allegandis, nec dissimilia unquam aut prorsus ἀπροσδιόνυσα ad marginem locavit.”—Car. Oxon. (Bishop C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.

193.

1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed “ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”

194.

“Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus lectionibus non habendae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possunt etiam pro uno codice haberi.” Canon xiii. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (see below, p. 204).

195.

But it goes with Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12; Apoc. xvi. 5, and sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e.g. Mark i. 21; vi. 29, and notably Luke ii. 22 (αὐτῶν); Luke x. 22; Rom. vii. 2; Philem. 7. Peculiarities of this edition are Εἰ δὲ for Εἶτα Heb. xii. 9; συγκληρονόμοις 1 Pet. iii. 7. Wetstein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν. Mill seems to say (N. T., Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curcellaeus.

196.

Fell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, adding one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence, citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known subscription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered hereafter; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed “e vulgo quibusvis, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare” (Praef. p. 4).

197.

“Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,” 1659: to which Walton rejoined, sharply enough, in “The Considerator considered,” also in 1659.

198.

Dr. Hort says that “his comprehensive examination of individual documents, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full of sagacious observations” (Introd. p. 180).

199.

As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical with that commonly received, it is right to note the following passages wherein it does not coincide with Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his typographical errors: Matt. xx. 15; 22; xxiv. 15; Mark ix. 16; xi. 22; xv. 29; Luke vii. 12 bis; x. 6; xvii. 1; John viii. 4; 25; xiii. 30-31; xix. 7; Acts ii. 36; vii. 17; xiv. 8; Rom. xvi. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 15; x. 10; xv. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. iv. 25; Tit. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 11; 21; iv. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 12; Apoc. ii. 5; xx. 4. Reuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanic readings in Matt. xxiv. 15; Apoc. ii. 5.

200.

Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.

201.

Ellis, ubi supra, pp. xvii-xix. These Proposals were also very properly reprinted by Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. lxxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together with the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii). The full title was to have been: “Ἡ ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per stum Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrumque ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis tum Latinis, edidit Richardus Bentleius.”

202.

This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground. Dr. Westcott confirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 14, he states that “Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true; but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he omits one-third of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I can discover, any law in the selection of readings.”

203.

Bp. John Wordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task. Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called “Clarissimus Walker,” died on Nov. 9, 1741, at the age of forty-eight.—Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65. And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially, see pp. 55-63.

204.

He continued this work till after 1735. See paper found by Dr. Ince at Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv. note 2.

205.

Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738; partly to a growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i.e. about 1720 and 1729. Reuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate success of such a man by the proviso “si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.”

206.

“This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that vae mihi unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall hinder me from prosecuting it to the end” (Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716: Ellis, ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1860, apparently from the pen of Tregelles, draws attention to “Nicolai Toinardi Harmonia Graeco-Latina,” Paris, 1707, fol. (“liber rarissimus,” Reuss, p. 167), who so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of two Roman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.

207.

Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing, he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.

208.

I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest and by far his most enduring work: “It may be stated as a fact worthy of observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse—a conviction that it is his duty and vocation to speak: but we too often want those who shall follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished labours” (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregory quotes against Dr. Scrivener, Mace (1729), Bowyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby, Middleton, and Twells: but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton, a more advancing study.

209.

The full title is “'Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita adornatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Margo variantium lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supplementum ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente J. A. B.”

210.

They consist of seven Augsburg codices (Aug. 1 = Evan. 83; Aug. 2 = Evan. 84; Aug. 3 = Evan. 85; Aug. 4 = Evst. 24; Aug. 5 = Paul. 54; Aug. 6 = Act. 46; Aug. 7 = Apoc. 80); Poson. = Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from three Basle copies (Bas. α = Evan. E; Bas. β = Evan. 2; Bas. γ = Evan. 1); Hirsaug. = Evan. 97; Mosc. = Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these add Uffenbach's three, Uffen. 2 or 1 = Paul. M; Uffen. 1 or 2 = Act. 45; Uffen. 3 = Evan. 101.

211.

It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement of his principle: “Posset variarum lectionum ortus, per singulos codices, per paria codicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque illorum, investigari et repraesentari; et inde propinquitates discessionesque codicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concordantiae fieri; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codicum, ad convincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam conjectanea nostra sylvam habent: sed manum de tabulâ, ne risuum periculo exponatur veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam aequissimam: Quo saepius non modo singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt; eo levius ferunt testimonium in discrepantiis difficilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eis deserta, tanquam genuina retineri debet” (N. T., Apparat. Crit., p. 387).

212.

See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild für unsere Tage, from the eminent pen of Dr. Nestle, which has been courteously sent to the editor through the Rev. H. J. White.

213.

The opposition of Frey and his other adversaries delayed that opus magnum for twenty years (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 218).

214.

We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient, every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd. C and 69 Evan. will each count for four.

215.

Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31; Acts i. 26; xiii. 29 ἐτέλησαν, from the Oxford N. T. 1675, though Wetstein himself remarks this. He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shows that he does not intend to read τῷ in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be deliberate variations from the Elzevir text: Matt. xiii. 15; xxi. 41; Mark xiv. 54; Luke ii. 22; xi. 12; xiii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2); Philem. 7; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 7. All these deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text; and in all of them (except Matt. xxi. 41; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 5) Fell's text agrees with Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15; Mark xiv. 54; 1 Cor. i. 29; v. 11; xii. 23; xiv. 15; Phil. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells ναζαρέτ uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47. Reuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical reasons: Matt. viii. 28; Luke xi. 2; John vii. 53-viii. 11; Acts v. 36; xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16 (δ); Apoc. iii. 2; x. 4; xviii. 17.

216.

One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice: he is speaking of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. “Hic Codex scriptus est literis quadratis, estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144] comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant. [Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine ullo dubio pessimè ex scholiis et Versione Latinâ Vulgatâ interpolati sunt” (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).

217.

In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated by him will be found useful: a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2), Apost. 82 (a 3): B = Evst. 47: b = Apost. 13: c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48: d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115: e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14: f = Act. 101, Paul. 116, Evst. 49: g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117: H = Evst. 50: h = Act. 103, Paul. 118: i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119: k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc. 47: l = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48: m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul. 122: n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123: o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49: p = Evan. 246, Apoc. 50: q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124: r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 502, Apoc. 90: s = Evan. 249, Paul. 76: t = Apoc. 32, Evst. 51: tz = Apost. 15: V = V: v = Evan. 250, Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 30 (from Knittel); z = Evan. 252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = O, 16 = Evst. 56, Apost. 20: 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57: 20 = Evan. 89: ξ = Evst. 52, Apost. 16: χ = Evst. 53, Apost. 17: ψ = Evst. 54, Apost. 18: ω = Evst. 55, Apost. 19: Frag. Vet. = part of H: Gpaul. It should be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one letter: e.g. c = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.

218.

The copies of Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ, λ, μ, π, ρ, φ: those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, α, β.

219.

Reuss (p. 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places, none of them being in the Gospels.

220.

“Textui ad Millianum expresso” says Reuss (p. 151), which is not quite the same thing: see p. 203, note 2.

221.

“Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse, ut haec editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fuit locus, curae testimonium promererem; nulla tamen mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisse. Vix enim potest esse ulla tam perpetua legentis intentio, quae non obtutu continuo fatigetur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus constat.” (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of these last words!

222.

“Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum Collectiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.”

223.

Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added two readings (Mark vi. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod. D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, επηγειραν, Acts xiv. 2.

224.

In the London edition of 1809 ἄλλοι is printed for the first οὗτοί, Mark iv. 18. Griesbach also omits καί in 2 Pet. i. 15: no manuscript except Cod. 182 (ascr) is known to do so.

225.

“Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,” Halae, 1771: “Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,” Jenae, 1777.

226.

“Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,” Part i. 1798; Part ii. 1811.

227.

The following specimen of a reading, possessing no internal excellence, preferred or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon throughout. In Matt. xxvii. 4 for ἀθῶον he indicates the mere gloss δίκαιον as equal or preferable (though in his later manual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior reading), on the authority of the later margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places (ἀθῶον once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or Harkleian; the Jerusalem may countenance him; though in such a case the testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach defends δίκαιον against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian, the Latin versions Western.

228.

Reuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Reuss' thousand chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.

229.

Laurence, in the Appendix to his “Remarks,” shows that while Cod. A agrees with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444 passages.

230.

David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels), containing also collations of certain additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.

231.

One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all) without giving the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on 1 Tim. iii. 16, contains the words “uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis:” this too Scholz appropriates (Tom. ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the “Symbolae Criticae” of the Halle Professor as his own! See also p. 217, Evan. 365; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on Acts xix. 25; 2 Pet. i. 15 (N. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted με in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note a few cursives in which he had met with με, a word really absent from no known copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix τῆς to δόξης. Scholz's inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last: “What else but calamitous is it to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incorrigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this?” (Guardian, Aug. 27, 1873.)

232.

Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's “Collation of the Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,” Introd. pp. lxix-lxxi.

233.

The following is the whole of this notice, which we reprint after Tregelles' example: “De ratione et consilio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur praetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proximis duobus saeculis receptae lectionis ratio haberi non posset. Haec diversitas hic in fine libri adjecta est, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse videbatur.” Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities—his absolute disregard of the received readings—hinted at in an incidental manner: the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chief authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated: but no one would guess that by the “custom of the oldest Churches of the East” he intends the few very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.

234.

These are d for Cod. Bezae, e for Cod. Laud. 35, f being Lachmann's notation for Paul. Cod. D, as ff is for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited independently), g for Paul. Cod. G.

235.

We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. א called by Tischendorf Ca, who actually changes the original reading εκδ. into ενδ., to be himself set right by a later hand Cb. This is one out of many proofs of something more than an accidental connexion between Codd. א and B at a remote period. See vol. i. p. 96, and note.

236.

In dedicating the third volume of his “Monumenta sacra inedita” in 1860 to the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to these studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.

237.

Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American scholars, Dr. Caspar René Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge, U. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of making bricks without straw.

238.

Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared to be forestalled by a certain Englishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols. vii and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin, will complete vol. vii; Caspar René Gregory hopes to do what is possible for vol. viii.

239.

For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862, “Constantin Tischendorf in seiner fünfundzwanzigjährigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit. Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Joh. Ernst Volbeding.” I have also seen, by Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in the Unitarian Review, March, 1875.

240.

A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, “Additions to the Fourth Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” &c., by S. P. T. Most of this industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the “Canon Muratorianus,” liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Tregelles' book with the document itself at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness (Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873). Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judgement. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriani, had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.

241.

As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of the person who revised the sheets for the press.

242.

He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough, assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.

243.

Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: “Those,” he says, “who propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten.”

244.

I hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. Linwood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament, 1873, p. 9, note); although I fear that the difference between us is in substance as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field, &c., simply because all sober critics feel that there is no need for it” (Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt, some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with a marginal [+] in their edition; e.g. Acts vii. 46; xiii. 32; xix. 40; xxvi. 28; Rom. viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ὅτι ποτέ); 1 Tim. vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, 2 Pet. iii. 10; 12; Jude 5; 22, 23, wherein, whether from internal difficulties or from the actual state of the external evidence, we should be very glad of more light than our existing authorities will lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as intuitively true.

245.

Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emendations, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that “If the author has anything to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.” It is really worth while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's “Critical Conjectures and Observations on the N. T.,” or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797, if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e.g. συναλιζομένοις Acts i. 4; πορκείας for πορνείας ibid. xv. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid (e.g. νηνεμίαν for νηστείαν Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly condemned by the deep silence of a host of authorities which have since come to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to fare much better. Who but himself will think πρώτη in Luke ii. 2 corrupted through the intermediate πρώτει from πρώτω ἔτει (ubi supra p. 5); or that τὰ πολλά in Rom. xv. 22 ought to be ἐτη πολλά (p. 13)? Add to this, that he gives up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt ὅς ἄν for ὅταν in John viii. 44 (p. 6); and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is ΟΣ for ΘΣ (θεός) Rom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless ἐστιν followed ὅς, as it does in the very passage (Rom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).

246.

“vii. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est εὐφωνότερος aut planior aut Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. VIII. Lectio exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenientem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.” Wetstein's whole tract, “Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae” (N. T., vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critici and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.

247.

So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the same as the Bishop of Lincoln's: “Of course occasions might occur on which, from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar; but it is manifest that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in the opposite direction” (“Words of the New Testament,” p. 7). So again speaks E. G. Punchard on James iii. 3 in Bp. Ellicott's Commentary, “The supporters of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so; and thus every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in their eyes than is the Received text with believers in verbal inspiration.” Sir Edmund Beckett (“Should the Revised New Testament be Authorised?” 1882) writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of his native acuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument “that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have invented it.” “I suppose,” he rejoins, “an accidental piece of carelessness can produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.” (p. 7.)

248.

In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.

249.

One other example to illustrate this rule, so difficult in its practical use, may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to have been the original form, since “it fully explains all the others, either as emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.” The reader may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic. iv. 9, in selecting between the three different readings ὀκνηροί or νωθροί or νοεροί to close the sentence οὐ μὴν ἠλίθιοί γε οἱ τοιοῦτοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, ἀλλα μᾶλλον ... having careful reference to the context in which it stands: or to the easier case of καίτοιγε and its variations in Acts xvii. 27: or to Rom. viii. 24, where the first hand of B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting τί καί, appear to present the original text.

250.

“Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e.g. by Wassenberg in ‘Valcken.’ Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, in some MSS.

251.

On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, “The question may still perhaps be asked ... whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not pressed somewhat excessively” (Bampton Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).

252.

Griesbach's “etiam manifestò falsas” can allude only to 1 John v. 7, 8; yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is not cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins who did.

253.

The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence against it is strong and varied (אAB, 17, 67, Bohair., &c.).

254.

Alford's only definite example (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol. ii. p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Rom. xiv. 17, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἄσκησις καὶ εἰρήνη. Tregelles (An Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds 1 Cor. vii. 5; Act. x. 30; Rom. xii. 13 (!) More to their purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the suspected addition of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21; the former being brought into doubt on the very insufficient authority of Codd. א (by the first hand) Β, of the beautiful Latin copy k from Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alexandria: the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (k being defective) with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, the Latin e ff1, some forms of the Ethiopic version, and from the absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to the tenth canon. In the face of such readings of אΒ it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague suspicion that they “bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.” (N. T., Preface, p. 3.)