Chapter XXXII: Appendix: E. Table of Differences Between the Fourth Edition of Dr (3)

69 Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς, πολλήν, ὡς εἰκός, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν
εἰσαγηοχώς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ
Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθείς,
ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν
διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὕφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. Ἵνα δὲ σωζομένου καὶ
τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ ὅλου σώματός τε καὶ εἱρμοῦ, εἰδέναι ἔχοις τοὺς
οἰκείους ἑκάστου εὐαγγελιστοῦ τόπους, ἐν οἶς κατὰ τῶν αὐτῶν
ἠνέχθησαν φιλαλήθως εἰπεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πονήματος τοῦ προειρημένου ἀνδρὸς
εἰληφὼς ἀφορμάς (taking the hint from Ammonius’ as Dean Burgon
rightly understands the expression), καθ᾽ ἑτέραν μέθοδον κανόνας
δέκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν διεχάραξά σοι τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους. Epist. ad
Carpian. initio. I have thankfully availed myself on this subject of
Burgon’s elaborate studies in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,
pp. 125-132; 295-312.

70 This is the number given for St. Mark by Suidas and Stephen. It is
an uncertain point: thirty-four manuscripts give 233, reckoning only
to xvi. 8; while thirty-six give 341. See Burgon Twelve Last Verses,
p. 311.

71 I subjoin Eusebius’ own words (Epist. ad Carpian.) from which no one
would infer that the _sections_ were not his, as well as the
_canons_. Αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων κανόνων ὑπόθεσις; ἡ δὲ
σαφὴς αὐτῶν διήγησις, ἔστιν ἤδε. Ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων
ἀριθμός τις πρόκειται κατὰ μέρος, ἀρχόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου, εἶτα
δευτέρου, καὶ τρίτου, καὶ καθεξῆς προϊὼν δι᾽ ὅλου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους
τοῦ βιβλίου [the sections]. Καθ᾽ ἕκαστον δὲ ἀριθμὸν ὑποσημείωσις διὰ
κινναβάρεως πρόκειται [the canons], δηλοῦσα ἐν ποίῳ τῶν δέκα κανόνων
κείμενος ὁ ἀριθμὸς τυγχάνει.

72 Something of this kind, however, must be the plan adopted in Codex E
(see Plate xi. No. 27) of the Gospels, as described by Tregelles,
who himself collated it. “[It has] the Ammonian sections; but
instead of the Eusebian canons there is a kind of harmony of the
Gospels noted at the foot of each page, by a reference to the
parallel sections of the other Evangelists.” Horne’s Introd. vol.
iv. p. 200. Yet the canons _also_ stand in the margin of this copy
under the so-called Ammonian sections: only the _table_ of Eusebian
canons is wanting. The same kind of harmony at the foot of the page
appears in Cod. Wd at Trinity College, Cambridge, but in this latter
the sections in the margin are not accompanied by the canons.
Tischendorf states that the same arrangement prevails in the small
fragment Tb at St. Petersburg; Dean Burgon adds to the list Codd. M.
262, 264 at Paris, and conceives that this method of harmonizing,
which he regards as far simpler than the tedious and cumbersome
process of resorting to the Eusebian canons (ubi supra, p. 304), was
in principle, though not in details, derived to the Greek Church
from early Syriac copies of the Gospels, some of which still survive
(p. 306).

73 To this list of manuscripts of the Gospels which have the Ammonian
sections without the Eusebian canons add Codd. 38, 54, 60, 68, 117;
Brit. Mus. Addit. 16184, 18211, 19389; Milan Ambros. M. 48 _sup._;
E. 63 _sup._; Burdett-Coutts I. 4; II. 18; 262; III. 9. Now that
attention has been specially directed to the matter, it is
remarkable how many copies have the Ammonian sections without the
corresponding Eusebian canons under them, sometimes even when (as in
Codd. 572, 595, 597) the letter to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables
stand at the beginning of the volume. To the list here given must
now be added Codd. O, Υ, 185, 187, 190, 193, 194, 207, 209, 214,
217, 367, 406, 409, 410, 414, 418, 419, 456, 457, 494, 497, 501,
503, 504, 506, 508, 518, 544, 548, 550, 555, 558, 559, 564, 573,
575, 584, 586, 591, 592, 601, 602, 620: in all seventy-one
manuscripts.

74 No doubt they do serve, in the manuscripts which contain them and
omit the canons, for marks of reference, like in kind to our modern
chapters and verses; but in consequence of their having been
constructed for a wholly different purpose, they are so unequal in
length (as Burgon sees very clearly, pp. 297, 303), that they answer
that end as ill as any the most arbitrary divisions of the text well
could do.

75 Sulci in Sardinia is the only Bishop’s see of the name I can find in
Carol. a Sancto Paulo’s Geographia Sacra (1703), or in Bingham’s
Antiquities, Bk. ix. Chapp. II, VII. Horne and even Tregelles speak
of Sulca in Egypt, but I have searched in vain for any such town or
see. Euthalius is called Bishop of Sulce both in Wake 12 (infra,
note 4), and in the title to his works as edited by L. A. Zacagni
(Collectanea Monument. Veter. Eccles. Graec. ac Latin., Rom. 1698,
p. 402). But one of Zacagni’s manuscripts reads Σούλκης once, and he
guesses Ψέλχη near Syene, which appears in no list of Episcopal
sees.

76 Καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐπιστολὴν προτάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, ἑνὶ τῶν
σοφωτάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχρίστων πατέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην.

77 Αὐτίκα δῆτα is his own expression.

78 E.g. in Wake 12, of the eleventh century, at Christ Church, the
title at the head of the list of chapters in the Acts is as follows:
Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σουλκῆς ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων τῶν Πράξεων σταλῆσα
(-εῖσα) πρὸς Ἀθανάσιον ἐπίσκοπον Ἀλεξανδρείας.

79 In Wake 12 certain of the longer κεφάλαια are subdivided into
μερικαὶ ὑποδιαιρέσεις in the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews only.
For a similar subdivision in the Gospels, see Evan. 443 in the list
of cursive MSS. given below.

80 Διὰ τὴν τριμερῆ τῶν εἴκοσι τεσσάρων πρεσβυτέρων ὑπόστασιν, σώματος
καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος. See Matthaei, N. T. Gr. et Lat. vii. 276,
note 4.

81 Many manuscripts indicate passages of the Old Testament cited in the
New by placing > (as in Codd. Vatican. Wd, &c., but in Sinait. more
rarely), or [symbol with two greater-than marks], or some such mark
in the margin before every line. Our quotation-marks are probably
derived from this sign, the angle being rounded into a curve.
Compare the use of [symbol like right double quotation mark] in the
margin of the Greek Testament of Colinaeus, 1534, and Stephen’s
editions of 1546, -49, -50, &c. Evan. 348 and others have [symbol].
In Codd. Bezae, as will appear hereafter, the words cited are merely
thrown a letter or two back in each line.

82 The whole mystery is thus unfolded (apparently by Cosmas) in Lamb.
1178, p. 159: Καὶ γὰρ τὰ χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα; καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν
εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; τὸ γὰρ ὅμοιον λέοντι, τὸ
ἔμπρακτον καὶ βασιλικὸν καὶ ἡγεμονικὸν [John i. 1-3] χαρακτηρίζει;
τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον μόσχωι, τὴν ἱερουργικὴν καὶ ἱερατικὴν [Luke i. 8]
ἐμφανίζει; τὸ δὲ ἀνθρωποειδές, τὴν σάρκωσιν [Matt. i. 18] διαγράφει.
τὸ δὲ ὅμοιον ἀετῶι, τὴν ἐπιφοίτησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος [Mark i. 2]
ἐμφανίζει. More usually the lion is regarded as the emblem of St.
Mark, the eagle of St. John.

83 N. B. The στίχοι of the Acts and of all the Epistles except Hebr.
are taken from the Codex Passionei (G or L), an uncial of the ninth
century.

84 The numbers of the Gospel στίχοι in our Table are taken from the
uncial copies Codd. GS and twenty-seven cursives named by Scholz:
those of the ῥήματα from Codd. 9, 13, 124 and seven others. In the
ῥήματα he cites no other variation than that Cod. 339 has 2822 for
St. Matthew: but Mill states that Cod. 48 (Bodl. 7) has 1676 for
Mark, 2507 for Luke (Proleg. N. T. § 1429). In Cod. 56 (Lincoln
Coll.) the ἀναγνώσματα of St. Matthew are 127, of St. Mark 74, of
St. Luke 130 (Mill).

In the στίχοι, a few straggling manuscripts fluctuate between 3897?
and 1474 for Matthew; 2006 and 1000 for Mark; 3827 and 2000 for
Luke; 2300 and 1300 for John. But the great mass of authorities
stand as we have represented.

85 Our English version divides 2 Cor. xiii. 12 of the Greek into two,
and unites John i. 38, 39 of the Greek. The English and Greek verses
begin differently in Luke i. 73, 74; vii. 18, 19. Acts ix. 28, 29;
xi. 25, 26; xiii. 32, 33; xix. 40, 41; xxiv. 2, 3. 2 Cor. ii. 12,
13; v. 14, 15; xi. 8, 9. Eph. i. 10, 11; iii. 17, 18. Phil. iii. 13,
14. 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12. Heb. vii. 20, 21; x. 22, 23. 1 Jo. ii.
13,14. 3 Jo. 14, 15. Apoc. xii. 18 or xiii. 1; xviii. 16, 17. In a
few of these places editions of the Greek vary a little. The whole
subject of the verses is discussed in Dr. Ezra Abbot’s tract “De
Editionibus Novi Testamenti Graece in versuum quos dicunt
distinctione inter se discrepantibus” 1882, included in the
Prolegomena for Tischendorf’s N. T., eighth edition, pp. 167, &c.

86 “I think it would have been better done on one’s knees in the
closet,” is Mr. Kelly’s quaint and not unfair comment (Lectures on
the Minor Prophets, p. 324), unless, as is not unlikely, he copied
what was done before.

87 Novum Testamentum Graecum. Edente Jo. Alberto Bengelio. Tubingae
1734. 4to. The practice of the oldest Greek manuscripts in regard to
paragraphs has been stated above (p. 49, note 2), and will be
further explained in the next section under our descriptions of
Codd. אBD.

88 Coislin. 199 (Evan. 85); Vatic. 2080 (Evan. 175); Palat. Vat. 171
(Evan. 149); Lambec. 1 at Vienna (Evan. 218); Vatic. 1160 (Evan.
141); Venet. 5 (Evan. 205); its alleged duplicate Venet. 10 (Evan.
209); Matthaei k (Evan. 241); Moscow Synod. 380 (Evan. 242); Paris,
Reg. 47 (Evan. 18); Reg. 61 (Evan. 263); Vat. Ottob. 66 (Evan. 386);
Vat. Ottob. 381 (Evan. 390); Taurin. 302 (Evan. 339); S. Saba, 10
and 20 (Evan. 462 and 466); Laurent. 53 (Evan. 367); Vallicel. F. 17
(Evan. 394); Phillipps 7682 (Evan. 531); perhaps Scholz ought to
have added Venet. 6 (Evan. 206) which he states to contain the whole
New Testament, Proleg. N. T. vol. i. p. lxxii. In Evan. 180 all
except the Gospels are by a later hand. Add (Evan. 622) also copies
at Poictiers, Ferrara, and Toledo. Lagarde (Genesis, pp. 7, 8)
describes another copy at Zittau, collated by Matthaei in 1801-2,
apparently unpublished.

89 I presume that the same order is found in Evan. 393, whereof Scholz
states “sec. xvi. continet epist. cath. paul. ev.” Proleg. N. T.
vol. i. p. xc.

90 Hartwell Horne in the second volume of his Introduction tells us
that in some of the few manuscripts which contain the whole of the
New Testament the books are arranged thus: Gospels, Acts, Catholic
Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles (p. 92, ed. 1834). This
statement may be true of some of the foreign MSS. named in p. 69
note, but of the English it can refer to none, although Wake 34 at
Christ Church commences with the Acts and Catholic Epistles,
followed by the Apocalypse beginning on the same page as Jude ends,
and the Pauline Epistles on the same page as the Apocalypse ends.
The Gospels, which come last, may have been misplaced by an early
binder.

91 This is the true _Western_ order (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introd. p.
xxx and note), and will be found in the copies of the Old Latin
_a_1, _a_2, _b_, _e_, _f_1, _ff_2, _i_, _n_, _g_, _r_ to be
described in vol. ii, and in the Gothic version. In Burdett-Coutts
II. 7, p. 4, also, prefixed to the Gospels, we read the following
rubric-title to certain verses of Gregory Nazianzen: _χυ_ θαύματα;
παρὰ ματθαίω ῒωάννῃ τὲ καὶ λουκᾶ καὶ μάρκω; κ.τ.λ.

92 Tischendorf cites the following copies in which the Epistle to the
Hebrews stands in the same order as in Codd. אABC, “H [Coislin.
202], 17, 23, 47, 57, 71, 73 aliique.” Add 77, 80, 166, 189, 196,
264, 265, 266 (Burdett-Coutts II. 4). So in Zoega’s Thebaic version.
Epiphanius (adv. Haer. i. 42) says: ἄλλα δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἔχει τὴν πρὸς
ἑβραίους δεκάτην, πρὸ τῶν δύο τῶν πρὸς Τιμόθεον καὶ Τίτον. So Paul
166, 281, and also Bp. Lightfoot’s MSS. of the Memphitic except 7
and 16. In the Thebaic it follows 2 Cor. See below.

93 They are also termed Εὐαγγέλια—evidently a popular, as well as a
misleading name.

94 Suicer, s. v.

95 This was the word for a lection or lesson, and Suicer tells us that
ἀνάγνωσις and ἀνάγνωσμα were employed as equivalents. But in modern
textual criticism, ἀναγνώσματα is used to signify the marks
indicating lections, which are found in the margin or at the head or
foot of pages, or the computation of their number which is often
appended at the end of a book. See pp. 67, note 1, 69.

96 Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. x κατὰ μίαν σαββάτων ἢ καὶ κατὰ σάββατον.
Traces of these Church-lessons occur in manuscripts as early as the
fifth and sixth centuries. Thus Cod. Alexandrinus reads Rom. xvi.
25-27 not only in its proper place, but also at the end of ch. xiv
where the Lectionaries place it (see p. 84). Codex Bezae prefixes to
Luke xvi. 19 εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἐτέραν παραβολήν, the proper introduction
to the Gospel for the 5th Sunday in St. Luke. To John xiv. 1 the
same manuscript prefixes καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, as does our
English Prayer Book in the Gospel for May 1. Even τέλος or τὸ τέλος,
which follows ἀπέχει in Mark xiv. 41 in the same manuscript and
other authorities, probably has the same origin.

97 See the passages from Augustine Tract. VI. in Joan.; and Chrysost.
Hom. VII ad Antioch.; Hom. LXIII, XLVII in Act. in Bingham’s
Antiquities, Book XIV, Chap. III. Sect. 3. Chrysostom even calls the
arrangement τῶν πατέρων ὁ νόμος. The strong passage cited from Cyril
of Jerusalem by Dean Burgon (Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 195)
shows the confirmed practice as already settled in A.D. 348.

98 August. Serm. CXLIII de Tempore. The few verses Luke xxiii. 39-43,
John xix. 31-37 are merely wrought into one narrative with Matt.
xxvii, each in its proper place. See p. 85.

99 Besides this special meaning, Synaxarion was also employed in a
general sense for any catalogue of Church-lessons, both for daily
use and for Saints’ days.

100 This was naturally even more the case in countries where the Liturgy
was not in Greek. Thus in the “Calendar of the Coptic Church”
translated from the Arabic by Dr. S. C. Malan (1873), the only
Feast-days identical with those given below (pp. 87-89) are Sept.
14; Oct. 8; Nov. 8, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30; Dec. 20, 24, 25, 29; Jan. 1,
6 (the Lord’s Baptism), 22; Feb. 2, 24; March 25; April 25; May 2;
June 19, 24, 29; July 22; Aug. 6, 25. Elsewhere the day is altered,
even if the festival be the same; e.g. St. Thomas’ Day is Oct. 6
with the Greeks, Oct. 23 with the Copts; St. Luke’s Day (Oct. 18),
and the Beheading of the Baptist (Aug. 29), are kept by the Copts a
day later than by the Greeks, since Aug. 29 is their New Year’s Day.

101 This system was introduced by Wetstein (N. T. 1751-52). Mill used to
cite copies by abridgements of their names, e.g. Alex. Cant. Mont.
&c.

102 The _pericope adulterae_ John vii. 53-viii. 11 is omitted in all the
copies we know on the feast of Pentecost. Whenever read it was on
some Saint’s Day (_vid. infra_, p. 87, _notes_ 2, 3).

103 Lessons for the week in B-C. III. 24 are (2) 2 Cor. iii. 4-12. (3)
iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6) 15-21.

104 In B-C. III. 42 all the Gospels for this day run into each other
without break, e.g. John xiii. 3-17 being read _uno tenore_. Just so
in the same manuscript stands the mixed lesson for Good Friday
evening.

105 The more usual indiction, which dates from Sept. 1, is manifestly
excluded by the following rubric (Burney, 22, p. 191, and in other
copies): Δέοό γινώσκζιν ὅτι ἄρχδται ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς
Κυριακῆς μετὰ τὴν ὕψωσιν; τότε γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἰσυμερία [i.e. ἰσημερία]
γίνεται, ὃ καλεῖται νέον ἔτος. Ἤ ὅτι ἀπὸ τὰς [τῆς] κγ´ τοῦ
σεπτευβρίου ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀναγινώσκεσαι.

106 The lesson for the Sunday after Sept. 14 is the same as that for the
3rd Sunday in Lent.

107 The ordinary lessons for week days stand thus in B-C. III. 24. Week
ι´. (2) 2 Cor. iii, 4-12. (3) iv. 1-6. (4) 11-18. (5) v. 10-15. (6)
15-21. ιζ´. (2) vi. 11-16. (3) vii. 1-11. (4) 10-16. (5) viii. 7-11.
(6) 10-21. ιη´. (2) viii. 20-ix. 1. (3) ix. 1-5. (4) 12-x. 5. (5)
4-12. (6) 13-18. ιθ´. (2) xi. 5-9. (3) 10-18. (4) xii. 10-14 (5)
14-19. (6) 19-xiii. 1. κ´. (2) xiii. 2-7. (3)7-11. (4) Gal. i.
18-ii. 5. (5) ii. 6-16. (6) ii. 20-iii. 7. κα´. (2) iii. 15-22. (3)
28-iv. 5. (4) iv. 9-14. (5) 13-26. (6) 28-v. 5. κβ´. (2) v. 4-14.
(3) 14-21. (4) vi. 2-10. (5) Eph. i. 9-17. (6) 16-23. κγ´. (2) ii.
18-iii. 5. (3) 5-12. (4) 13-21. (5) iv. 12-16. (6) 17-25. κδ´. (2)
v. 18-26. (3) 25-31. (4) 28-vi. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-21. κε´. (2)
Phil. i. 2. _Hiat codex usque ad’_ λ´. (1) 1 Thess. i. 6-10. (3)
9-ii. 4. (4) 4-8. (5) 9-14. (6) 14-20. λα´. (2) iii. 1-8. (3) 6-11.
(4) 11-iv. 6. (5) 7-11. (6) 17-v. 5. λβ´. (2) v. 4-11. (3) 11-15.
(4) 15-23. (5) 2 Thess. i. 1-5. (6) 11-ii. 5. λγ´. (2) ii. 13-iii.
5. (3) 3-9. (4) 10-18. (5) 1 Tim. i. 1-8. (6) 8-14. λδ´. (2) 1 Tim.
ii. 5-15. (3) iii. 1-13. (4) iv. 4-9. (5) 14-v. 10. (6) 17-vi. 2.
λε´. (2) vi. 2-11. (3) 17-21. (4) 2 Tim. i. 8-14. (5) 14-ii. 2. (6)
22-26.

108 In the Menology, even Arund. 547 has μηνὶ σεπτεμβρίῳ _α_; ἀρχὴ τῆς
ἰνδίκτου. So Burn. 22 nearly.

_ 109 Theodosia_ in Codex Cyprius (_see_ p. 73), with the cognate lesson,
Luke vii. 36-50, which lesson is read in Gale for Sept. 16, Euphemia
and in Evst. 261 (B.M. Addit. 11,840). In Burdett-Coutts II. 7, John
viii. 3-11 is used εἰς μετανοοῦντας: B-C. II. 30 adds καὶ γυναικῶν.

110 So Cod. Cyprius, but the Christ’s Coll. Evst. removes Pelagia to
Aug. 31, and reads John viii. 1-11.

111 The Proto-martyr Stephen is commemorated on August 2 in Evst. 3
(Wheeler 3).

112 The same Saint is commemorated in the fragment of a Golden
Evangelistarium seen at Sinai by the Rev. E. M. Young in 1864, and
in B-C. III. 42 as μεγαλόμαρτυς ὁ τροπαιοφόρος; which (Evst. 286) is
described in its place below.

113 These fragments were published by Tischendorf in his Appendix Codd.
cel. Sin. Vat. Alex. 1867. They consist of Gen. xxiii. 19-xxiv. 4;
5-8; 10-14; 17, 18; 25-27; 30-33; 36-41; 43-46; Num. v. 26-30; vi.
5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18; 22-27; vii. 4, 5, 12, 13; 15-26. Another leaf
of the same manuscript, containing Lev. xxii. 3-xxiii. 22, was also
found at Sinai by Dr. H. Brügsch Bey, of Göttingen, and published by
him in his Neue Bruchstücke des Codex Sinaiticus aufgefunden in der
Bibliothek des Sinai Klosters, 1875, but is not, after all, part of
Cod. א. Another morsel, containing Gen. xxiv. 9, 10, and 41-43, now
at St. Petersburg, really belongs to it.

114 J. Rendel Harris, New Testament Autographs, Baltimore (without
date), an original and ingenious contribution to textual criticism;
as is the Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887) Camb. Synd. by the
same author, Fellow of Clare College, and Reader in Palaeography at
Cambridge. Curious results in Bradshaw’s spirit. Identity of hand
with Caius Psalter.

115 Abbot, Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican
Manuscripts, p. 195. Dean Burgon surrendered the position maintained
in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.

116 It has been suggested that this strange mode of division originated
in the reluctance of scribes to begin a new line with any
combination of letters which could not commence a Greek word, and to
end a line with any letter which is not a vowel, or a liquid, or σ,
or γ before another consonant, except in the case of Proper Names
(Journal of Sacred Literature, April 1863, p. 8). Certainly the
general practice in Cod. א bears out the rule thus laid down, though
a few instances to the contrary occur here and there (Scrivener,
Collation of Cod. Sinaiticus, Introd. p. xiv, note). Hort refers it
to a grammatical rule not to end a line with οὐκ or οὐχ, or a
consonant preceding an elided vowel, as ἀπ᾽, οὐδ᾽. New Testament in
Greek, p. 315.

117 But ΜΗ, ΝΗ, for μη, νη occur even in the Septuagint Cod.
Sarravianus, also of the fourth century, in which copy numerals are
quite constantly expressed by letters.

118 Tischendorf, however, describes אa as “et formis et atramento primam
manum tantum non adaequans,” and its writer has been regarded by
some as little inferior in value to the first scribe. Thus Dr. Hort
(Introd. p. 271), calling him the “corrector” proper, states that he
“made use of an excellent exemplar, and the readings which he
occasionally uses take high rank as authority.” Hort considers אb as
mixed, אc as still more so.

119 I am indebted for the following Memoranda on Cod. א to the kindness
of the Dean of Derry and Raphoe.

i. It is demonstrable that the Eusebian Sections and Canons on the
margin are contemporaneous with the text. For they are wanting from
leaves 10 and 15. Now these leaves are conjugate; and they have been
(on other grounds) noted by Tischendorf as written not by the scribe
of the body of the N. T., but by one of his colleagues (“D”) who
wrote part of the O. T. and acted as Diorthota of the N. T. It thus
appears that, after the marginal numbers had been inserted, the
sheet containing leaves 10 and 15 was cancelled, and rewritten by a
contemporary hand. The numbers must therefore have been written
before the MS. was completed and issued.

ii. The exemplar whence these numbers were derived, differed
considerably from that which the text follows. For, in some cases,
the sectional numbers indicate the presence of passages which are
absent from the text. E.g. St. Matt. xvi. 2, 3, which is sect. 162,
is wanting; and 162 is assigned to ver. 4, while the wrong canon (5
for 6) betrays the presence in the canonizer’s exemplar of the
passage omitted by the scribe. The same is true of St. Mark xv. 28
(in which case the scribe is “D”).

iii. The scribe who wrote the text was unacquainted with the
Eusebian sections. For the beginning of a section is not marked, as
in A and most subsequent MSS., by a division of the text and a
larger letter. On the contrary the text is divided into paragraphs
quite independent of the Eusebian divisions, which often begin in
the middle of a line, and are marked merely by two dots (:) in
vermilion, inserted no doubt by the rubricator as he entered the
numbers in the margin. The fact that the numbers of the sections as
well as of the canons (not as in other MSS. of the Canons only) are
in vermilion, points the same way.

iv. From the above it follows, (1) That while Cod. א proves the
absence from its exemplar of certain passages, its margin proves the
presence of some of them in a contemporaneous exemplar; (2) that
while on the one hand the Eusebian numbers, coeval with the text,
show that the MS. cannot be dated before the time of Eusebius, on
the other hand the form of the text, inasmuch as it is not arranged
so as to suit them, and as it differs from the text implied in them,
marks for it a date little, if at all, after his time—certainly many
years earlier than A.

v. As regards the omission of the verses of St. Mark xvi. 9-20, it
is not correct to assert that Cod. א betrays no sign of
consciousness of their existence. For the last line of ver. 8,
containing only the letters τογαρ, has the rest of the space (more
than half the width of the column) filled up with a minute and
elaborate “arabesque” executed with the pen in ink and vermilion,
nothing like which occurs anywhere else in the whole MS. (O. T. or
N. T.), such spaces being elsewhere invariably left blank. By this
careful filling up of the blank, the scribe (who here is the
diorthota “D”), distinctly shows that the omission is not a case of
“non-interpolation,” but of deliberate excision. John Gwynn, May 21,
1883.

120 He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every
day. Compare the performance of that veritable Briareus, Nicodemus ὁ
ξένος, who transcribed the Octateuch (in cursive characters
certainly) now at Ferrara (Holmes, Cod. 107), beginning his task on
the 8th of June, and finishing it the 15th of July, A.D. 1334,
“working very hard”—as he must have done indeed (Burgon, _Guardian_,
Jan. 29, 1873).

121 This opinion, first put forth by Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum
1867, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxiii, was minutely discussed in the course of
a review of that book in the _Christian Remembrancer_, October 1867,
by the writer of these pages. Although Dr. Hort labours to show that
no critical inferences ought to be drawn from this identity of the
scribe of Cod. B with the writer of six conjugate leaves of Cod. א
(being three pairs in three distinct quires, one of them containing
the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel), he is constrained to admit
that “the fact appears to be sufficiently established by concurrent
peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, avoidance of
contractions, and some points of orthography” (Introduction, p.
213). The internal evidence indeed, though relating to minute
matters, is cumulative and irresistible, and does not seem to have
been noticed by Tischendorf, who drew his conclusions from the
handwriting only.

122 Prothero (Memoir of H. Bradshaw, pp. 92-118) reprints a letter of
Bradshaw from _Guardian_, Jan. 28, 1863, worth studying:—“Simonides
died hard, and to the very end was supported by a few dupes of his
ingenious mendacity.” (p. 99.)

123 A more favourable estimate of the ecclesiastical policy of Cyril
(who was murdered by order of the Sultan in 1638, aet. 80) is
maintained by Dr. Th. Smith, “Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario,
Patriarcha Constantinopolitano,” London 1707.

124 I.e. “Memorant hunc Librum scriptū fuisse ma-nu Theclae Martyris.”
On the page over against Cyril’s note the same hand writes
“videantur literae ejusdé Cyrill: Lucar: ad Georgium Episco Cant”
[Abbot]; _Harl_: 823, 2. quae extant in Clementis Epistolis ad
Corinthios editionis Colomesii Lond. 1687 8o page 354 &c.

125 Not to mention a few casual _lacunae_ here and there, especially in
the early leaves of the manuscript, the lower part of one leaf has
been cut out, so that Gen. xiv. 14-17; xv. 1-5; 16-20; xvi. 6-9 are
wanting. The leaf containing 1 Sam. xii. 20-xiv. 9, and the nine
leaves containing Ps. 1. 20-lxxx. 10 (Engl.) are lost.

126 Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the
Pericope Adulterae, John vii. 58-viii. 11. Taking the Elzevir N. T.
of 1624, which is printed without breaks for the verses, we count
286 lines of the Elzevir for the two leaves of Cod. A preceding its
defect, 288 lines for the two which follow it; but 317 lines for the
two missing leaves. Deduct the thirty lines containing John vii.
53-viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287.

127 An excellent facsimile of A is given in the Facsimiles of the
Palaeographical Society, Plate 106; others in Woide’s New Testament
from this MS. (1786), and in Baber’s Old Test. (1816). Two specimens
from the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Jacobson’s Patres
Apostolici, vol. i. p. 110, 1838 (1863); and one in Cassell’s Bible
Dict. vol. i. p. 49.

128 Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis
(Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 198), where the difference
of hand in the leaves removed from their proper place is much more
striking than any change in Cod. Alexandrinus. Yet even in that case
it is likely that one scribe only was engaged. It should be stated,
however, that Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, who, edits the autotype
edition, believes that the hand changed at the beginning of St.
Luke, and altered again at 1 Cor. x. 8. His reasons appear to us
precarious and insufficient, and he seems to cut away the ground
from under him when he admits (Praef. p. 9) that “sufficient
uniformity is maintained to make it difficult to decide the exact
place where a new hand begins.”

129 Tischendorf, Septuagint, Proleg. p. lxv, cites with some approval
Grabe’s references (Proleg. Cap. i. pp. 9-12) to Gregory Nazianzen
[d. 389], three of whose Epistles are written to a holy virgin of
that name (of course not the martyr), to whose παρθενών at Seleucia
he betook himself, the better to carry out his very sincere _nolo
episcopari_ on the death of his father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus:
Πρῶτον μὲν ἦλθον εἰς Σελεύκειαν φυγὰς | Τὸν παρθενῶνα τῆς ἀοιδίμου
κόρης | Θέκλας κ.τ.λ. “De vitâ suâ.”

130 The last Arabic numeral in the Old Testament is 641, the first in
the New Testament 667.

131 Very interesting is Whitelock’s notice of a design which was never
carried out, under the date of March 13, 1645. “The Assembly of
Divines desired by some of their brethren, sent to the House [of
Commons] that Mr. Patrick Young might be encouraged in the printing
of the Greek Testament much expected and desired by the learned,
especially beyond seas; and an ordinance was read for printing and
publishing the Old Testament of the Septuagint translation, wherein
Mr. Young had formerly taken pains and had in his hand, as library
keeper at St. James’s, an original _Teeta_ [sic] Bible of that
translation” (Memorials, p. 197, ed. 1732).

132 “MSm Alexandm accuratissime ipse contuli, A.D. 1716. Rich:
Bentleius.” Trin. Coll. Camb. B. xvii. 9, in a copy of Fell’s Greek
Testament, 1675, which contains his collation. Ellis, Bentleii
Critica Sacra, p. xxviii.

133 See Bibliothèque du Vatican au Xme siècle, par Eugène Müntz et Paul
Fabre, Paris. Thorn. 824 Lat., 400 Gr.

134 The “Epistle” of Cardinal Carafa to Sixtus V, and the Preface to the
Reader by the actual editor Peter Morinus, both of which Tischendorf
reprints in full (Septuagint, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxvii), display an
amount of critical skill and discernment quite beyond their age, and
in strange contrast with the signal mismanagement in regard to the
revision of the Latin Vulgate version under the auspices of the same
Pope.

135 In Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 1 Kings i. 1-xix. 11, there
are forty-four lines in a column; and in 2 Paralip. x. 16-xxvi. 13,
there are forty lines in a column.

136 The writer of the Preface to the sixth volume of the Roman edition
of 1881 (apparently Fabiani), is jubilant over his discovery of the
name of this retracer (“eruditissimi et patientissimi viri,” as he
is pleased to call him, p. xviii) in the person of Clement the Monk,
who has written his name twice in the book in a scrawl of the
fifteenth century. But mere resemblance in the ink is but a lame
proof of identity, and Fabiani recognizes some other correctors,
whom he designates as B4, posterior to the mischievous
“instaurator.”

137 Hug says _none_, but Tischendorf (Cod. Frid.-Aug. Proleg. p. 9)
himself detected two in a part that the second scribe had left
untouched; and not a very few elsewhere (N. T. Vatican. Proleg. pp.
xx, xxi, 1867); though a break often occurs with no stop by either
hand. In the much contested passage Rom. ix. 5, Dr. Vance Smith
(“Revised Texts and Margins,” p. 84, note), while confidently
claiming the stop after σαρκα in Cod. A as _primâ manu_, and
noticing the space after the word in Cod. Ephraemi (C), admits that
“in the Vatican the originality of the stops may be doubtful.” In
the judgement of Fabiani, “vix aliqua primo exscriptori tribuenda”
(Praef. N. T. Vat. 1881, p. xviii).

138 The publication of the Roman edition (1868-81) enables us to add
(Abbot, _ubi supra_, p. 193) that the blessings of the twelve
patriarchs in Gen. xlix are in separate paragraphs numbered from A
to IB, that the twenty-two names of the unclean birds Deut. xiv.
12-18, twenty-five kings in Josh. xii. 10-22, eleven dukes in 1 Chr.
i. 51-54, each stand in a separate line. In Cod. א, especially in
the New Testament, this arrangement στιχηρῶς is much more frequent
than in Cod. B, although the practice is in some measure common to
both.

139 The Roman edition (1868-81) also makes known to us that in the Old
Testament two columns are left blank between Nehemiah and the
Psalms, which could not have been otherwise, inasmuch as the Psalms
are written στιχηρῶς with but two columns on a page. Between Tobit
and Hosea (which book stands first of the Prophetical writings) a
column is very naturally left blank, and two columns at the end of
Daniel, with whose prophecy the Old Testament concludes. But these
peculiarities obviously bear no analogy to the case of the end of
St. Mark’s Gospel.

140 See above, pp. 49-51.

141 The writer of the Preface to the Roman edition (vol. vi. Praef. p.
9, 1881) vainly struggles to maintain the opposite view, because the
Cardinal, in his Preface to the Complutensian N. T., speaks about
“adhibitis Vaticanis libris,” as if there was but one there.

142 Rulotta’s labours are now printed in Bentleii Critica Sacra by Mr.
A. A. Ellis, 1862, pp. 121-154.

143 Thus the correspondence of Codex B with what St. Basil (c. Eunom.
ii. 19) states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς
παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων, in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without ἐν
Ἐφέσῳ, though now read only in this and the Sinaitic manuscript
_primâ manu_, and in one cursive copy (Cod. 67) _secundâ manu_,
seems in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been
raised is the position of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this
argument can apply only to the elder document from which the Vatican
MS. was taken, and wherein this book unquestionably followed that to
the Galatians. In Cod. B it _always_ stood in its present place,
after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p. 74, note.

144 Besides the twenty-five readings Tischendorf observed himself,
Cardinal Mai supplied him with thirty-four more for his N. T. of
1849. His seventh edition of 1859 was enriched by 230 other readings
furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855.

145 “They would not let me open it,” he adds, “without searching my
pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a
passage too long the two _prelati_ would snatch the book out from my
hand.” Tregelles, Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the N. T., p.
84.

146 The great gap in the Pauline Epistles is filled up from Vatic. 1761
(Act. 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century.

147 Other editions of the Vatican N. T. appeared at Ratisbon; at Leyden
(1860) by A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, with a masterly Preface by the
latter; and at Berlin (1862) by Philip Buttmann, furnished with an
Appendix containing the varying results of no less than nine
collations, eight of which we have described in the text, the ninth
being derived from Lachmann’s Greek Testament (1742, 1850), whose
readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much
commend the accuracy of Buttmann’s work.

148 “Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει
γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rectè mandari posset:”
Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Praef. p. 1. Tischendorf too, in his
over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is
not more than just in alleging “Angelum Maium in editionibus suis
Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se praebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei
palaeographicae scientiâ, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas
is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.” The defence set up for Mai
in the Preface to the Roman volume of 1881, was that he intended to
produce only a new edition of the “authentic” Septuagint of 1586-7,
chiefly for the use of Greek-speaking Catholics.

149 The Dean himself on Feb. 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days,
“went twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilized most of the
important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the
Librarian, who “insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it
ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing
the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp. 310, 315.)

150 “Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos
labores ex ipso codice edidit Ae. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsiae, 4to,
1867.

151 To his hand Tischendorf assigns seven readings, Matt. xiii. 52; xiv.
5; xvi. 4; xxii. 10; xxvii. 4. Luke iii. 1 (_bis_), 7. “For some six
centuries after it was written B appears to have undergone no
changes in its text except from the hand of the ‘corrector,’ the
‘second hand’ ” (Hort, Introd. p. 270). What then of B2?

152 It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers
when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the
case of B2 or B3: “In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia
continentur, et nihilo plus in primâ manu quam in secundâ inest
auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaquaeque lectio ex se ipsâ
spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hanc modo illam
animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum
est, non esse secundae manûs lectiones correctoris alicujus
suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive illae sunt acutiores sive
leviores, sed quidquid a secundâ manu correctum, mutatum, deletum
esse Maius referat, id omne haud secus atque id quod prior manus
dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (N. T. Vat.
Praef. p. xxvi.)

153 It may be mere oversight that in Matt. xxvii. 4 he does not say in
1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition
(1865) he adjudges it to B2. In Matt. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32
εκφύη he gives to B3 in 1867 what he had assigned to B2 in 1865. The
Roman Commentary gives no light in the other places, but assigns
πιστεύητε to B2, B3.

154 “Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX
Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis
Barnabitae, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Romae typis
et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide,” square folio,
1868.

155 The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by
Tischendorf’s Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which
pamphlet we cannot highly praise.

156 This practice is plainly confessed to in the Preface to the volume
of 1881 (p. xvi) without any consciousness of the fatal mistake
which it involves: “Facies libri Vaticani repraesentata est [ut] ea
primum omnia apparerent, quae a priore codicis notario profecta
adhuc manifesto perspiciuntur, tum ea tantum a posterioribus sive
emendatoribus, sive instauratoribus commutata adderentur, quae sine
scripturae confusione legi possent.”

157 In 1 Cor. vii. 29 Vercellone joins ἐστιν and το closely, but
Tischendorf leaves a space between them, with a middle point, which
he expressly states to be _primâ manu_. Again, in ver. 34 Vercellone
joins μεμερισται with the following και. Tischendorf in 1867 (but
not in his last edition of the N. T.) interposes a point and space.
In these _minutiae_ Vercellone, who was not working against time,
may be presumed to be the more accurate of the two. The editors of
the sixth volume have no note at either place. Tischendorf detects
an error of Vercellone, ειτε for ειχε Heb. ix. 1, but this has been
corrected by the hand in some copies of the Roman volume, as also in
the Commentary.

158 His reasons for regarding the Sinaitic manuscript as the younger
(_see_ p. 89, note 2) are valid enough so far as they go (Praef. p.
vi): its initial letters stand out more from the line of the
writing; abridgements of words are fewer and less simple; it
contains the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons instead of the
antiquated divisions of its rival, and the text is broken up into
smaller paragraphs. Tregelles, who had seen both copies, used to
plead the fresher appearance of the Sinaitic, contrasted with the
worn look of the Vatican MS.; but then its extensive hiatus proves
that the latter had been less carefully preserved.

Eusebius sent to Constantine’s new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. iv)
πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (c. 36) ... ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις
τεύχεσι τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (c. 37): on which last words Valesius
notes, “Codices enim membranacei ferè per quaterniones digerebantur,
hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria sunt folia
simul compacta. Et quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas,
terniones vero duodenas.” But now that we have come to know that
Cod. B is arranged in quires of five sheets (_see_ p. 105), that
manuscript will hardly answer to the description τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά
(see p. 27, note 1) as Cod. א does. Indeed Canon Cook (Revised
Version, &c., p. 162) objects to Valesius’ explanation altogether,
on the ground that his sense would rather require τριπλόα καὶ
τετραπλόα, and that the rare words τρισσά (“three by three”) and
τετρασσά (“four by four”) exactly describe the arrangement of three
columns on a page in Cod. B, and four on a page in Cod. א. The Canon
has since observed that the same view is maintained by O. von
Gebhardt (“Bibel-text” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, Leipsic 1878,
second edition). On the other hand Archdeacon Palmer, in an obliging
communication made to me, comparing the words πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν
διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις (c. 36) with ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις
τεύχεσιν τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων ἡμῶν, and interpreting
Eusebius’ compliance (c. 37) by means of Constantine’s directions
(c. 36), is inclined to refer τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά to σωμάτια, as if
it were “we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly
adorned cases, three or four in a case.” It will probably be thought
that the expression is on the whole too obscure to be depended on
for any controversial purposes. It is safer to argue that if the
sections and canons extant in Cod. א be by a contemporary hand
(_see_ p. 93, and Dean Gwynn’s _Memoranda_ in our _Addenda_ for that
page), that circumstance, the great antiquity of the manuscript
considered, will confirm the probability of Eusebius’ connexion with
it. Eusebius agrees also with א in omitting ἡ πύλη, Matt. vii. 13,
and knew of copies, not however the best or with his approval, which
inserted ἡσαΐου before τοῦ προφήτου in Matt. xiii. 35: א being the
only uncial which exhibits that reading. So again Eusebius after
Origen maintains the impossible number ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα of א and a
few others in Luke xxiv. 13. Dr. C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, pp.
347, 348, inclines to the belief that B and א were among the fifty
MSS. sent by Eusebius to Constantino about A.D. 331-2. Canon Cook’s
entire argument (Revised Version of the First Three Gospels (1882),
pp. 160-165) should be consulted.

159 Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620. Even Bishop
Lightfoot, a strong and consistent admirer of the manuscript, speaks
of its “impatience of apparently superfluous words” (Epistle to the
Colossians, p. 316). Dr. Hort (Introduction, p. 235) pleads that
such facts “have no bearing on either the merits or the demerits of
the scribe of B, except as regards the absolutely singular readings
of B,” whereas multitudes of these omissions are found in other good
documents.

160 Dean Burgon cites four specimens of such repetitions: Matt. xxi. 4,
five words written twice over; ib. xxvi. 56-7, six words; Luke i.
37, three words or one line; John xvii. 18, six words. These,
however, are but a few out of many. Nor is Tischendorf’s judgement
at variance with our own. Speaking of some supposed or possible
gross _errata_ of the recent Roman edition, he puts in the
significant proviso “tamen haec quoque satis cum universâ scripturae
Vaticanae vitiositate conveniunt” (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p.
xvii).

161 The latest Roman editors incline to an Egyptian origin, rather than
one suggested in Magna Graecia, but the only fresh reason they
allege can have very slight weight, namely, that two of the damaged
leaves have been repaired by pieces of papyrus. The learned Ceriani
of Milan believes that Cod. B was written in Italy, Cod. א in
Palestine or Syria (Quarterly Review, April, 1882, p. 355). The
supposed Eusebian origin of both has been already stated.

162 As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to
subjoin a full list of the passages it contains, that it may not be
cited _e silentio_ for what it does not exhibit: Matt. i. 2-v. 15;
vii. 5-xvii. 26; xviii. 28-xxii. 20; xxiii. 17-xxiv. 10; xxiv.
45-xxv. 30; xxvi. 22-xxvii. 11; xxvii. 47-xxviii. 14: Mark i. 17-vi.
31; viii. 5-xii. 29; xiii. 19-xvi. 20: Luke i. 2-ii. 5; ii. 42-iii.
21; iv. 25-vi. 4; vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17; viii. 28-xii. 3; xix. 42-xx.
27; xxi. 21-xxii. 19; xxiii. 25-xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46-53: John i. 1-41;
iii. 33-v. 16; vi. 38-vii. 3; viii. 34-ix. 11; xi. 8-46; xiii.
8-xiv. 7; xvi. 21-xviii. 36; xx. 26-xxi. 25: Acts i. 2-iv. 3; v.
35-x. 42; xiii. 1-xvi. 36; xx. 10-xxi. 30; xxii. 21-xxiii. 18; xxiv.
15-xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16-xxviii. 4: James i. 1-iv. 2: 1 Pet. i. 2-iv.
6: 2 Pet. i. 1-1 John iv. 2: 3 John 3-15: Jude 3-25: Rom. i. 1-ii.
5; iii. 21-ix. 6; x. 15-xi. 31; xiii. 10-1 Cor. vii. 18; ix. 6-xiii.
8; xv. 40-2 Cor. x. 8: Gal. i. 20-vi. 18: Eph. ii. 18-iv. 17: Phil.
i. 22-iii. 5: Col. i. 1-1 Thess. ii. 9: Heb. ii. 4-vii. 26; ix.
15-x. 24; xii. 15-xiii. 25: 1 Tim. iii. 9-v. 20; vi. 21-Philem. 25:
Apoc. i. 2-iii. 19; v. 14-vii. 14; vii. 17-viii. 4; ix. 17-x. 10;
xi. 3-xvi. 13; xviii. 2-xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2
Thess. are entirely lost; about thirty-seven chapters of the
Gospels, ten of the Acts, forty-two of the Epistles, eight of the
Apocalypse have perished. The order of the books is indicated, p.
74.

163 The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Royal
Library by the same means; Evan. 16, 19, 42, 317. Act. 12, 126.
Paul. 164. It appears therefore that Cod. C was not one of the
manuscripts bought of Marshal Strozzi (Pattison, Life of Is.
Casaubon, p. 202), which were only 800 out of the 4,500 which
belonged to the Queen (ibid. p. 204).

164 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. Part iv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein’s
statement (Bentley’s Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him
two hours to read one page; so that his £50 were not so easily
earned, after all. This collation is preserved in Trinity College
Library, B. xvii. 7, 9.

165 Dr. Hort, with his ever ready acuteness, draws certain inferences to
be discussed hereafter from the fact that a displacement in the
leaves of the exemplar wherefrom the Apocalypse in Cod. C was
copied, which the scribe of C did not notice, proves it to have been
a book of nearly 120 small leaves, and accordingly that it “formed a
volume either to itself or without considerable additions”
(Introduction, p. 268).

166 Very remarkable is the language of the University in returning
thanks for the gift: “Nam hoc scito, post unicae scripturae
sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni memoriâ temporum
scriptores extitisse, quos memorabili viro Johanni Calvino tibique
praeferamus.” Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, Introd. p. vi.

167 Matt. i. 1-20; vi. 20-ix. 2; xxvii. 2-12: John i. 16-iii. 26: Acts
viii. 29-x. 14; xxi. 2-10; 15-18 (though Ussher, Mill, Wetstein and
Dickinson cite several readings from these verses, which must have
been extant in their time); xxii. 10-20; 29-xxviii. 31 in the
_Greek_: Matt. i. 1-11; vi. 8-viii. 27; xxvi. 65-xxvii. 1: John i.
1-iii. 16: Acts viii. 20-x. 4; xx. 31-xxi. 2; 7-10; xxii. 2-10;
xxii. 20-xxviii. 31 in the _Latin_. The original writing has
perished in the following, which are supplied by a scribe of not
earlier than the ninth century: Matt. iii. 7-16: Mark xvi. 15-20:
John xviii. 14-xx. 13 in the _Greek_: Matt. ii. 21-iii. 7: Mark xvi.
6-20: John xviii. 2-xx. 1 in the _Latin_. A fragment, containing a
few words of Matt. xxvi. 65-67 (Latin) and xxvii. 2 (Greek), (Fol.
96, Scrivener), was overlooked by Kipling.

168 It is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of
Cod. D with Stephen’s β´. No other manuscript has been discovered
which agrees with β´ in the many singular readings and arbitrary
additions in support of which it is cited by Stephen. That he
omitted so many more than he inserted is no argument against their
identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his α´
(the Complutensian Polyglott) and η´ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great
inaccuracy of Stephen’s _margin_ (the text is much better revised)
is so visible from these and other well-ascertained instances that
no one ought to wonder if β´ is alleged occasionally (not often) for
readings which D does not contain. On a careful analysis of all the
variations imputed to β´ by Stephen, they will be found to amount to
389 in the parts written in the original hand, whereof 309 are
alleged quite correctly, forty-seven a little loosely, while in
eight instances corrected readings are regarded in error as from the
original scribe. Of the twenty-five places which remain, all but
three had been previously discovered in other copies used by
Stephen, so that β´ in their case has been substituted by mistake
for some other numeral. One of the three remaining has recently been
accounted for by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, who has found καὶ
περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται αὐτῷ (Luke viii. 18 from Matt.
xiii. 12) in Stephen’s θ´ or Coislin 200 at Paris (No. 38, of the
Gospels). I do not find β´ cited by Stephen after Acts xx. 24,
except indeed in Rom. iii. 10 (with α´), in manifest error, just as
in the Apocalypse xix. 14 ε´ (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not
contain this book, is cited instead of ιε´; or as ια´ is quoted in
xiii. 4, _but not elsewhere in the Apocalypse_, undoubtedly in the
place of ιϛ´; or as ιϛ´, which had broken off at xvii. 8, reappears
instead of ιε´ in xx. 3. In the various places named in the last
note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β´ is cited only at Matt.
xxvii. 3, beyond question instead of η´; and for _part_ of the
reading in Acts ix. 31, δ´ (to which the whole rightly belongs)
being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6, indeed, where the
original Greek is missing, β´ is cited, but it is for a reading
actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex
D’s defects.

169 “Ils s’emparèrent des portes et de tous les lieux forts ... non pas
sans leur impiétes et barbaries accoutumées envers les choses
saintes” (Mézeray, Hist. de France, tom. iii. p. 87, 1685).
Accordingly, travellers are shown to this day the bones of unclean
animals which the Huguenots, in wanton mockery, then mingled with
the presumed remains of St. Irenaeus and the martyrs of Lyons.

170 One cannot understand why Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. vol. i, 30) should
have supposed that Beza _prevaricated_ as to the means whereby he
procured his manuscript. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of
spoiling the Philistines, and the bare mention of Lyons in connexion
with the year 1562 would have been abundantly intelligible scarce
twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable that in the last
edition of his Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex
Lugdunensis, but _Claromontanus_ (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx.
3); for, though it might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of
age and after the lapse of so long a time, should confound the Lyons
copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul’s Epistles (D);
yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex Bezae being
collated in _Italy_ for Stephen, is by adopting Wetstein’s
suggestion that it was the actual copy (“antiquissimum codicem
Graecum”) taken to the Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato,
Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm the Latin reading in John
xxi. 22 “sic eum volo,” which D alone may seem to do. Some learned
man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son Henry) might
have sent to Robert Stephen from Tren the readings of a manuscript
to which attention had been thus specially directed.

171 Not more than eighty-three typographical errors have been detected
in Kipling throughout his difficult task, whereof sixteen are in his
Annotations, &c.