Chapter XXXIII: Appendix: E. Table of Differences Between the Fourth Edition of Dr (4)

172 In St. Luke 136 (143 Lat.): in what remains of St. Matthew 583 (590
Lat.), of St. Mark 148, of St. John 165 (168 Lat.), of the Acts 235.
The later παραγραφαί, indicated by [symbol] (_see_ p. 51, note 3),
though forty-five out of the forty-nine are firmly and neatly made,
and often resemble in colour the ink of the original scribe, can be
shown to be full four centuries later (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae,
Introd. p. xxviii).

173 Bradshaw (Prothero’s Memoirs, p. 97) in a letter to the _Guardian_,
Jan. 28, 1863, writes thus:—“I saw Cod. א at Leipsig _per_
Tischendorf. I had been curious to know whether it was written in
even quaternions throughout, like the Cod. Bezae, or in a series of
fasciculi, each ending with a quire of varying size, like the Cod.
Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This,
by-the-bye, is sufficient to prove”—why, is not quite clear—“that it
cannot be the volume which Dr. Simonides speaks of having written at
Mount Athos.”

174 Yet Φ (Beratinus) and Σ (Rossanensis) contain St. Matthew and St.
Mark, and are probably a little older than D.

175 H. C. Hoskier, Collation of Cod. 604, &c. Appendix F. Mr. Hoskier
saw the MS. on May 18, 1886.

176 In our facsimile (No. 21), over against the beginning of Mark xvi.
8, is set the number of the section (ΣΛΓ or 233), above the
corresponding Eusebian canon (B or 2).

177 Dr. Hort more exactly reckons that these leaves apparently contain
Mark vi. 53-vii. 4; vii. 21-viii. 32; ix. 1-x. 43; xi. 7-xii. 19;
xiv. 25-xv. 22 (_Addenda and Corrigenda_ to Tregelles’s N. T., p.
1019), adding that Tischendorf had access also to a few verses
preserved in the collections of the Russian Bishop Porphyry. They
are published in Duchesne’s “Archives des Missions scientifiques et
littéraires” (Paris, 1877), 3e sér. tom. iii. pp. 386-419.

178 These songs, with thirteen others from the Old Testament and
Apocrypha, though _partially_ written in uncial letters, are
included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns, whose prevailing character
is early cursive.

179 From Tischendorf’s copy of Od Dr. Caspar René Gregory has gathered
readings in Heb. v. 8-vi. 10, and sent them to Dr. Hort.

180 I.e., twenty lines on a page, according to the form used in this
edition.

181 They had been previously described in a tract “Jac. Frid. Heusinger,
de quatuor Evan. Cod. Graec. quem antiqua manu membrana scriptum
Guelferbytana bibliotheca servat.” Guelf. 1752.

182 Codex P contains Matt. i. 11-21; iii. 13-iv. 19; x. 7-19; x. 42-xi.
11; xiii. 40-50; xiv. 15-xv. 3; xv. 29-39: Mark i. 1-11; iii. 5-17;
xiv. 13-24; 48-61; xv. 12-37; Luke i. 1-13; ii. 9-20; vi. 21-42;
vii. 32-viii. 2; viii. 31-50; ix. 26-36; x. 36-xi. 4; xii. 34-45;
xiv. 14-25; xv. 13-xvi. 22; xviii. 13-39; xx. 21-xxi. 3; xxii. 3-16;
xxiii. 20-33; 45-56; xxiv. 1, 14-37; John i. 29-41; ii. 13-25; xxi.
1-11.

183 Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34-v. 4; vi. 10-26; xii. 6-43; xv. 14-31;
xvii. 34-xviii. 15; xviii. 34-xix. 11; xix. 47-xx. 17; xx. 34-xxi.
8; xxii. 27-46; xxiii. 30-49: John xii. 3-20; xiv. 3-22.

184 Published in the Jahrbücher (Vienna) d. Lit. 1847.

185 Codex R contains Luke i. 1-13; i. 69-ii. 4; 16-27; iv. 38-v. 5; v.
25-vi. 8; 18-36, 39; vi. 49-vii. 22; 44, 46, 47; viii. 5-15; viii.
25-ix. 1; ix. 12-43; x. 3-16; xi. 5-27; xii. 4-15; 40-52; xiii.
26-xiv. 1; xiv. 12-xv. 1; xv. 13-xvi. 16; xvii. 21-xviii. 10; xviii.
22-xx. 20; xx. 33-47; xxi. 12-xxii. 15; 42-56; xxii. 71-xxiii. 11;
xxiii. 38-51. A second hand has supplied ch. xv. 19-21.

186 For the Coptic style of the letters Tischendorf compares a double
palimpsest leaf in the British Museum, containing 1 Kings viii.
58-ix. 1, which he assigns to the fifth century, although the
capital letters stand out a little, and are slightly larger than the
rest (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. ii. Proleg. p. xliv). But both Dr.
Wright and Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, from their great experience in
this style of writing, have come to suspect that it is usually
somewhat less ancient than from other indications might be supposed.

187 Tischendorf found breathings also in the palimpsest Numbers (Monum.
sac. ined. _ubi supra_, p. xxv).

188 I say _almost_, for Bengel’s description makes it plain that this is
the Moscow manuscript from which F. C. Gross sent him the extracts
that Wetstein copied and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states
that the cursive portion from John vii onwards bears the date of
6508 or A.D. 1000. Scholz was the first to notice this identity
(_see_ Evan. 250).

189 Notwithstanding, the Eusebian canons have been washed out of Wb, a
strong confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 61.

190 Codex X contains Matt. vi. 6, 10, 11; vii. 1-ix. 20; ix. 34-xi. 24;
xii. 9-xvi. 28; xvii. 14-xviii. 25; xix. 22-xxi. 13; 28-xxii. 22;
xxiii. 27-xxiv. 2; 23-35; xxv. 1-30; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 12; Mark vi.
47-Luke i. 37; ii. 19-iii. 38; iv. 21-x. 37; xi. 1-xviii. 43; xx.
46-John ii. 22; vii. 1-xiii. 5; xiii. 20-xv. 25; xvi. 23-xxi. 25.
The hiatus in John ii. 22-vii. 1 is supplied on paper in a hand of
the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61-64; xiv. 72-xv. 4; xv. 33-xvi. 6
are illegible in parts, and xvi. 6-8 have perished. Matt. v. 45
survives only in the commentary.

191 Codex Z contains Matt. i. 17-ii. 6; ii. 13-20; iv. 4-13; v. 45-vi.
15; vii. 16-viii. 6; x. 40-xi. 18; xii. 43-xiii. 11; 57-xiv. 19; xv.
13-23; xvii. 9-17; 26-xviii. 6; xix. 4-12; 21-28; xx. 7-xxi. 8;
23-30; xxii. 16-25; 37-xxiii. 3; 15-23; xxiv. 15-25; xxv. 1-11;
xxvi. 21-29; 62-71.

192 Not in moveable type, as a critic in the _Saturday Review_ (Aug. 20,
1881) seems to suppose.

193 Mr. E. H. Hansell prints in red these additional readings thus fresh
brought to light in the Appendix to his “Texts of the oldest
existing manuscripts of the New Testament,” Oxford, 1864.

194 “Barrett’s edition shows that of the sixty-four pages of the MS.
fifty had originally twenty-one lines to the page, and fourteen had
twenty-three.” Dr. Ezra Abbot.

195 These are Matt. vi. 16-29; vii. 26-viii. 27; xii. 18-xiv. 15; xx.
25-xxi. 19; xxii. 25-xxiii. 13; John vi. 14-viii. 3; xv. 24-xix. 6.

196 In the St. Petersburg portion are all the rest of St. John, and
Matt. i. 1-v. 31; ix. 6-xii. 18; xiv. 15-xx. 25; xxiii. 13-xxviii.
20; or all St. Matthew except 115 verses.

197 Dr. Gregory, Tisch. Prolegomena, p. 401, quotes Gardthausen,
Griechische Palaeogr., Lipsiae, 1879, pp. 159, 344, as assigning
A.D. 979 as the date.

198 The edition was posthumous, and has prefixed to it a touching “Life”
of two pages in length, by his brother and pupil, dwelling
especially on Rettig’s happy change in his later days from
rationalism to a higher and spiritual life.

199 Viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim.
ii. 15. Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited eight
times in Δ, about sixteen in G. This personage was Bishop of
Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who died A.D. 941; a fact
which does not hinder our assigning Cod. Δ to the ninth century, as
Rettig states that all notices of him are by a later hand. There is
the less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has
observed, a circumstance which demonstrates to a certainty the
identity of Cod. Δ and G. When he was at Dresden he found in Cod. G
twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same hand as several
that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to Cod.
Δ. “Thus,” he says, “these MSS. once formed one book; and when
separated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing
attached to the former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles’
Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 197).

200 The portion of this manuscript contained in Paul. G was divided into
στίχοι on the same principle by Hug (Introduction, vol. i. p. 283,
Wait’s translation).

201 Λ (1) is really an Evangelistary. See Evst. 493.

202 The subscription to St. Matthew stands in _both_: ευανγελιον κατα
ματθαιον. εγραφη και αντεβληθη εκ των [sic] ἱεροσολυμοις παλαιων
αντιγραφων; των εν τω ἁγιω ορει αποκειμενων; εν στιχοις _βφιδ_;
κεφφ. _τνε_. Very similar subscriptions occur in Codd. 20, 215, 300,
376, 428, 573.

203 Cod. Ξ contains Luke i. 1-9; 19-23; 27, 28; 30-32; 36-66; 77-ii. 19;
21, 22; 33-39; iii. 5-8; 11-20; iv. 1, 2; 6-20; 32-43; v. 17-36; vi.
21-vii. 6; 11-37; 39-47; viii. 4-21; 25-35; 43-50; ix. 1-28; 32, 33;
35; 41-x. 18; 21-40; xi. 1, 2; 3, 4; 24-30; 31; 32, 33.

204 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur, 1. Bd. 4. Hft., 1883, Leipsig. Also see _Church
Quarterly_, Jan. 1884. Prof. Sanday in Studia Biblica, i. p. III.
“Would delight the heart of the Dean of Chichester.” _Athenaeum_,
No. 302, Sept. 19, 1885.

205 Dean. Gywnn of Raphoe is so good as to remind me that among the
other proper names enumerated by Wetstein and Semler as written on
the reverse of the last leaf of this manuscript, ΘΕΩΔΟΡΟΣ stands by
itself in a hand which may be as old as the seventh century. Common
as the name is, the fact is interesting and suggestive. For the
orthography compare κωλονια Acts xvi. 12 in Cod. E.

206 It is probable that Mill got this from “Nouvelles Observations sur
le Texte et les Versions du Nouveau Testament,” par R. Simon, Paris,
1695.

207 I see no force in Tischendorf’s objection, that if Theodore had
brought Cod. E to England, Bede would have used it before he came to
write his “Expositio Retractata.”

208 The names and order of the books of the New Testament in this most
curious and venerable list stand thus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke,
Romans, 1, 2 Corinth., Galat., Ephes., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Colos.,
_Filimon_, 1, 2 Pet., James, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Barnabas’ Ep.,
John’s Revelation, Act. Apost., Pastor [Hermas], Actus Paul.,
Revelatio Petri.

209 Facsimiles of this manuscript are given by Semler in his edition of
Wetstein’s Prolegomena (1764, Nos. 8, 9). Bianchini’s estimate of
its age (Evangeliarium Quadruples, tom. ii. fol. 591, 2), as of the
seventh century, is certainly too high.

210 Facsimile of 1 Tim. vi. 19-2 Tim. i. 5 is given in Pal. Soc. Pt. ix
(1879), Pl. 127.

211 So 1 Cor. xii. 2. For ἄφωνα, Vulg. _muta_, Cod. Aug. ἄμορφα. Rom.
viii. 26. For ἀσθενείαις, Vulg. _infirmitatem orationis nostrae_,
Cod. Aug. τῆς δεήσεως, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. Infinitives for
Imperatives.

212 He betrays his nationality by placing “waltet” _primâ manu_ over the
first εξουσειαζει, 1 Cor. vii. 4.

213 In 1 Tim. iv. 2 the Latin h is inserted _secundâ manu_ before
υποκρισι.

214 Boerner’s son tells the tale thirty years afterwards with amusing
querulousness in his Catalogus Bibl. Boern. Lips. 1754, p. 6, cited
by Matthaei Cod. Boern. p. xviii. But there must have been some
misunderstanding on both sides, for it appears from a manuscript
note in his copy of the Oxford N. T. of 1675 (Trin. Coll. B. xvii.
8), that Bentley considered Cod. G his own property; since after
describing Cod. F before the Epistle to the Romans as his own, and
as commencing at Rom. iii. 19, he adds “Variae lectiones ex altero
_nostro_ MSto, ejusdem veteris exemplaris apographo.”

215 viz. ημας for υμας, Rom. xvi. 17; μετρους for μερους, Eph. iv. 16;
εσκοτισμενος for -μενοι, iv. 18. Add to these στωμα for σωμα, 1 Cor.
ix, 27, as cited by Bentley (Ellis, Critica Sacra, p. 36).

216 By John O’Donovan, Editor of Irish Annals. I have been favoured with
corrections by the late Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, Dublin, and
recently by the Rev. Robert King of Ballymena, whose version I have
ventured to adopt.

Téicht do róim [téicht do róim]: To come to Rome, to come to Rome,
Mór saido becic torbai: Much of trouble, little of profit,
Inrí chondaigi hifoss: The thing thou seekest here,
Manimbera latt ni fog bai: If thou bring not with thee, thou findest
not.

Mór báis mór baile: Great folly, great madness,
Mór coll ceille mór mire: Great ruin of sense, great insanity,
Olais airchenn teicht dóecaib: Since thou hast set out for death,
Beith fó étoil maic Maire.: That thou shouldest be in disobedience
to the Son of Mary.

The second stanza intimates that as the pilgrimage to Rome is at the
risk of life, it is folly not to be at peace with Christ before we
set out. The opening words “To come to Rome” imply that the verses
were written there by some disappointed pilgrim. Since the
handwriting resembles that of the interlinear Latin, Mr. King
suggests that both may have been the work of the Scottish Bishop
Marcus, or of his nephew Moengal (Rettig, Cod. Δ, Prolegomena, p.
xx), who called at St. Gall on their return from Rome, whence Marcus
went homewards, leaving his books and Moengal behind him.

217 Here αου standing to represent _au_ shows that the Greek is derived
from the Latin, not _vice versâ_.

218 That Cod. G cannot have been taken from Cod. G appears both from
matters connected with their respective Latin versions, and because
F contains no trace of the vacant lines left in G at the end of Rom.
xiv to receive ch. xvi. 25-27. But Dr. Hort (Journal of Philology,
vol. iii. No. 5, pp. 67, 68 note) has come to think that F is a mere
transcript of G, the scribe of the former being by far the more
ignorant of the two. He meets our argument to the contrary stated
above in the text, by alleging that in respect to the division of
words F is free from no outrageous portent found in G, while it has
to answer for many of its own. But (to take our examples from one
open leaf) if the writer of F were so helplessly ignorant as Dr.
Hort represents, how could he have set right G’s error in 1 Tim. iv.
7, reading και · γραωδεις for G’s και αιγραωδεις? Again, if F had
before him an undivided manuscript, one can easily account for such
monsters as in 1 Tim. iv. 2 και · καυτη ριασ μενων· F (_photographed
page_), but no one could possibly have so written with G’s
κεκαυτηριασμενων before him. That the two copies were compared
together in after times seems evident from the fact stated in p.
179, that Latin renderings from G stand in eighty-six places above
the Greek of F. It was at the same time perhaps that some
ill-divided words in F were corrected by means of a loop from the
Greek of G: e.g. 2 Cor. i. 3 οικτιρμων G, οικ [symbol] τιρμων F; ii.
14 θριαμβευοντι G, θριαμ [symbol] βεὐοντι F; iv. 9
ενκαταλιμπαννομενοι G, εν · καταλιμπαν [symbol] νομενοι F; ver. 15
πλεονασασα G, πλεονα [symbol] σασα F. ’Mr. Hort’s view, that F was
copied directly from G’ (writes Bishop Lightfoot very gently,
Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 6, p. 210, note), “deserves
consideration, and may prove true, though his arguments do not seem
quite conclusive.” Lightfoot elsewhere pronounces that “the
divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts” seem unfavourable to Dr.
Hort’s hypothesis (Ep. to Coloss. p. 355, note 2). But the latter
still adheres to it with characteristic firmness: “we believe F to
be as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G [as E is of D];
if not, it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar”
(Introd. p. 150). Yet why “inferior”?

219 Epistularum Paulinarum codd. Gr. et Lat. scriptas Augiensem
Boernerianum Claromontanum examinavit, &c. Petrus Corssen, H.
Fienche Kiliensis, 1889.

_ 220 See_ p. 63, note 1.

221 Scholz describes Codd. 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as also written
in red ink. See too Evan. 254.

222 Dr. C. R. Gregory has read a few words more of this MS. Griesbach
and Scholz number the London part as 64, the Hamburg part as 53.

223 Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. vol. ii. p. 166) says that in the
Harleian fragment “Iota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel
postscribitur, plerumque omittitur,” overlooking the second ascript.
Scrivener repeats this statement about ι subscript (Cod. Augiens.
Introd. p. lxxii), believing he had verified it: but Tischendorf
cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting
Harl. 5613 for the purpose. Tregelles too says, “I have not seen a
_sub_scribed iota in any uncial document” (Printed Text, p. 158,
note).

224 Tregelles, wishing to reserve the letter B for the great Codex
Vaticanus 1209, called this copy first L (N. T. Part iv. p. iii),
and afterwards Q (N. T. Part vi. p. i). Surely Mr. Vansittart was
right (Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 41) in protesting
against a change so needless and inconvenient; nor has Tischendorf
adopted it in his eighth edition of the N. T.

225 Very many corrections have been made in the following Catalogue as
well from investigations of my own as from information kindly
furnished to me by Mr. H. Bradshaw, University Librarian at
Cambridge, by Professor Hort, by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, late Fellow
of Trinity College there [d. 1882], by Mr. W. Kelly, and especially
by Dean Burgon, to whom the present edition is more deeply indebted
than it would be possible to acknowledge in detail. His series of
Letters addressed to me in the _Guardian_ newspaper (1873) contains
but a part of the help he has afforded towards the preparation of
this and the second edition. Ed. iii.

226 For the Authorities chiefly consulted in the list of Cursive
Manuscripts given in this edition, see Appendix A to this volume;
and for a list of Facsimiles, see Appendix B.

227 Stephen’s margin cites ζ´ eighty-four times in the Gospels, usually
in company with several others, but alone in Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15;
Luke i. 37. Since Evan. 18 or Reg. 47 contains the whole N. T., and
Stephen cites ζ´ in the Acts once (ch. xvii. 5), in the Catholic
Epistles seven times, in the Pauline twenty-seven, in the Apocalypse
never; Reg. 47 has been suggested to have been Stephen’s ζ´, rather
than Cod. 8 or Reg. 49. On testing the two with Steph. ζ´ in eight
places, Mr. Vansittart found that they both agreed with it in five
(Matt. xx. 12; Mark vi. 20; x. 52; Luke vi. 37; John vi. 58), but
that in the remaining three (Mark xii. 31; Luke i. 37; John x. 32)
Reg. 49 agreed with ζ´, while Reg. 47 did not.

228 Stephen includes his θ᾽ among the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν
συνηθροίσαμεν, which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St.
Louis would have brought or sent it to France. Mr. Vansittart tested
Cod. 38 in Matt. xxvi. 45; Luke viii. 18; xix. 26; James v. 5; 2
Pet. ii. 18, and found it agree in all with Stephen’s θ᾽. What of
ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5? In Luke viii. 18 that most careless editor
misprints β᾽ when he means θ᾽. See above, p. 124, note 3.

229 “Textus ipse distinctus est in clausulas majores, seu Paragraphos;
ad initium notatos singulos literâ majusculâ miniatâ,” Mill (N. T.
Proleg. § 1445). Yet since Burgon testifies that its text “is not
broken up into Paragraphs after all,” Mill can only intend to
designate in a roundabout way the presence of the larger chapters
(p. 55) with their appropriate capitals.

230 On the death of Dr. John Moore, Bishop of Ely (whose honesty as a
book-collector is impeached, on no fair grounds, by Tew in Bridge’s
“Northamptonshire,” vol. ii. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I
was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at
Cambridge, amounting to 30,000 volumes, in acknowledgement of the
attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one
remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked. _See_ “Cap and
Gown,” p. 15.

231 “We often hear,” said a witty and most reverend Irish Prelate, “that
the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a _gloss_; and any one
that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.”
It was a little bold in Mr. Charles Forster (“A New Plea,” &c., pp.
119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the
truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr. Adam Clarke
for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather
since almost in the same breath, he stigmatizes the Wesleyan
minister for a “self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr. Clarke tells us
fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion
(Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, Manchester,
1805, pp. 8-10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails
authority, _quum res ipsa per se clamat_? The facsimile made for Dr.
Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne’s
Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt
about the date of Codex Montfortianus.

232 This Froy or Roy is believed by Mr. Rendel Harris (Origin of Cod.
Leic., p. 48) to be the forger of Cod. 61.

233 Another facsimile (Luke xxi. 36-John viii. 6) is given by Abbott in
his “Collation of Four Important Manuscripts” (_see_ Cod. 13). In
all four the _pericope adulterae_ follows Luke xxi. 38.

234 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 80-83;
Matthaei’s uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, described
below. So B.-C. ii. 13, to be described hereafter, reads in St.
Matthew only ἀρχ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Compare
also Codd. 211, 261, 357, and B.-C. iii. 5 in SS. Matthew and Mark.

235 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop
of Canterbury [1657-1737] to Christ Church (of which he had been a
Canon), no less than twenty-eight contain portions of the Greek
Testament. They are all described in this list from a comparison of
Dean Gaisford’s MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to
which Bp. Jacobson’s kindness gave me access in 1861. Corrected by
E. M., to whom similar kindness has been shown. See also “Account of
some MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford,” by the Rev. Charles H. Hoole,
Student.

236 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made
by the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of
Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders,
through Cardinal Hugo de St. Caro (_see_ above, p. 69), and adopted
by their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision
had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot
Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas
Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. vol. i. p. 85). Canon
Westcott calls attention to a _Correctorium_ in the British Museum,
King’s Library, 1 A. viii.

237 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (ἥδε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου |
τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ἀε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις
Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110,
305.

238 Noted “Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione
ejus Constantinopolitanâ collect. Anno Domini 1676.” See Evan. 68;
Evst. 3.

239 Cod. 101 better suits Bengel’s description of Uffen. 3 than 97: they
are written on different materials, and the description of their
respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same.
Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the
end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has
been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to
101.

240 Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi], 4to, 2 vols., on
parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been examined by
Wetstein, Griesbach, and by G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains
the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has
the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, 8. It is now, however, admitted
by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian
Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephen, and as such has
no independent authority.

241 (Wetstein.) THE VELESIAN READINGS. The Jesuit de la Cerda in his
“Adversaria Sacra,” cap. xci (Lyons, 1626), a collection of various
readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a _Greek_ Testament
(which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R.
Stephen’s of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard,
who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in
the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices
or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the
readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then
lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s
account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek.
These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by
Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate
and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical
authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own
better judgement) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however
(N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 59-61), and after him Michaelis and Bp.
Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have
been collected by Velez from _Latin_ manuscripts, and by him
translated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity
with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian
readings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek
text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by
Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the
possibility of doubt:

(For each of these, there is the reference, the Greek Text, the
Vulgate Text, the Vulgate various reading, and the Velesian
reading.)

Mark viii. 38; ἐπαισχυνθῇ; confusus fuerit; confessus fuerit;
ὁμολογήσῃ;
Heb. xii. 18; κεκαυμένῳ; accensibilem; accessibilem; προσίτῳ;
——xiii. 2; ἔλαθον; latuerunt; placuerunt; ἤρεσαν;
James v. 6; κατεδικάσατε; addixistis; adduxistis; ἠγάγετε;
Apoc. xix. 6; ὄχλου; turbae; tubae; σάλπιγγος;
——xxi. 12; ἀγγέλους; angelos; angelos; γωνίας.

242 (Wetstein.) THE BARBERINI READINGS must also be banished from our
list of critical authorities, though for a different reason. The
collection of various readings from twenty-two manuscripts (ten of
the Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the
Apocalypse), seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library
at Rome, was made about 1625, and first published in 1673 by Peter
Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at the end of a catena of St. Mark.
He alleged that the collations were made by John M. Caryophilus [d.
1635], a Cretan, while preparing an edition of the Greek Testament,
under the patronage of Paul V [d. 1621] and Urban VIII [d. 1644]. As
the Barberini readings often favour the Latin version, they fell
into the same suspicion as the Velesian: Wetstein especially (N. T.
Proleg. vol. i. pp. 61, 62), after pressing against them some
objections more ingenious than solid, declares “lis haec non aliter
quam ipsis libris Romae inventis et productis, _quod nunquam credo
fiet_, solvi potest.” The very papers Wetstein thus called for were
discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209) more than thirty years
later, and besides them Caryophilus’ petition for the loan of six
manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS, 127, 129, 141, 144), which
he doubtless obtained and used. The good faith of the collator being
thus happily vindicated, we have only to identify his eleven [Cod.
141 of the Gospels being also Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40. Another
of his manuscripts was Act. 73, Paul. 80.] remaining codices, most
of them probably being in that very Library, and may then dismiss
the Barberini readings as having done their work, and been fairly
superseded.

243 In Codd. 115 and 202 _Eus._ is usually, in Codd. 116, 117, 417, 422,
and B. M. Addit. 15,581 but rarely, written under _Am._: these
copies therefore were probably never quite finished. See p. 62, and
note 1.

244 Meerman’s other manuscript of the N. T., sold at his sale in 1824,
is No. 562.

245 A collection presented to Urban VIII (1623-44) by Maximilian,
Elector of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine,
titular king of Bohemia.

246 Or rather A.D. 1274. According to Engelbreth the letters stand
ψτψπβ, which can only mean A.M. 6782 (_see_ p. 42, note 2).

247 Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer’s description, “Evangeliis
et Actis λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus notae.”

248 Others F.

249 By double _syn._ Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in
Cod. 232 both _syn._ and _men._

250 Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symb. Crit. i. pp. 247-304) from
the margin of a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in the Bodleian, in
his own or Thomas Hearne’s handwriting, were placed here, but are
omitted. Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shown that
they were derived from Evan. 440.

251 Holmes, Praefatio ad Pentateuchum, describes his Cod. 32 as “e
Codicibus Eugenii, olim Archiepiscopi Slabinii et Chersonis.”
Nicephorus also is named by Holmes as the editor of a Catena on the
Octateuch and the four books of Kings from the Constantinopolitan
manuscripts (Leipzig, 1772-3), and is described as “primo
Hieromonachus, et postea Archiepiscopus Slabiniensis et
Chersonensis, sedem Astracani habens” (_ubi supra_, cap. iv).

252 Written in three several and minute hands (Hort):—A for the Gospels,
the Epistle of Pilate and its Answer, and a treatise on the
genealogy of the Virgin; B for the Apocalypse and a Synaxarion; C
the Acts, Cath. Paul. (Hebrews last), and Lives of the Apostles,
followed on the same page by the Psalter by B, so that Apoc. and
_syn._ probably stood last.

253 This manuscript appears to be the only Greek witness for the Old
Latin and Curetonian Syriac variation Matt. i. 16 ἰωσὴφ ᾧ
μνηστευθῆσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν _ιν_ τὸν λεγόμενον _χν_. But
then it was written in Italy, as Ceriani judges.

254 The asper or asprum was a mediaeval Greek silver coin (derived from
ἄσπρος, _albus_); we may infer its value from a passage cited by
Ducange from Vincentius Bellovac. xxx. 75 “quindecim drachmas seu
asperos.”

255 450. Great Gr. Monastery at Jerusalem 1 [July 1, 1043], 8vo, _syn._,
_Eus. t._, first three Gospels with an Arabic version, neatly
written by a reader, Euphemius. This appears to be Coxe’s 6, 4to,
St. Luke only.

451. Jerusalem 2 [xii], 8vo.

452. Jerusalem 3 [xiv], 8vo.

453. Jerusalem 4 [xiv], 8vo.

454. Jerusalem 5 [xiv], 8vo.

455. Jerusalem 6 [xiv], 4to, with a commentary.

456. Jerusalem 7 [xiii], 4to, St. Matthew with a commentary, neatly
written.

_Perhaps_ Coxe’s 43 [xi], in gold _uncial_ letters.

457. St. Saba 2 [xiii], 4to, _syn._, _men._, is Act. 186, Paul. 234.

458. St. Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indiction 15], 16mo.

459. St. Saba 7 [xii], 8vo.

460. St. Saba 8 [xii], 8vo.

461. See Evan. 481.

462. St. Saba 10 [xiv], 4to, is also Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86.

463. St. Saba 11 [xiv], 4to, _chart._

464. St. Saba 12 [xi], 4to.

465. St. Saba 19 [xiii], 8vo.

466. St. Saba 20 [xiii], 8vo, is Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 862 or
89. Also “from a monastery in the island of Patmos.”

467. [xi], 4to.

468. [xii], 8vo, with a commentary.

469. [xiv], 4to.

256 The Psalter 5pe (Petrop. ix. 1) [994], containing the hymns, Luke i.
46-55; 68-79; ii. 29-32, is like our Evan. 612, which see.

257 In addition to Evann. 73, 74, Gaisford in 1837 catalogued, and
Scrivener in 1861 inspected, these fourteen copies of the Gospels in
the collection of Archbishop Wake, now at Christ Church, Oxford.
They were brought from Constantinople about 1731, and have now been
described in the Rev. G. W. Kitchin’s Catalogue of the Manuscripts
in Christ Church Library (4to, 1867).

258 The letter χ is quite illegible, but the Indiction 9 belongs only to
A.D. 831, 1131, 1431, while the style of the manuscript leaves no
doubt which to choose.

259 Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey (Evan. 483) states on the
fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 12, 25, 28, 34 in 1749. Caspar
Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 and 34 for his
relative’s great edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4to Greek
Testament printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious
collation (preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake
manuscripts with Wetstein’s N. T. of 1711, having this title
prefixed to them, “Hae Variae lectiones ex MSS. notatae sunt manu et
opera Johannis Walkeri, A. 1732.” John Walker, most of whose labours
seem never yet to have been used, although they were known to
Berriman in 1741 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, pp.
102-4), was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of
his critical materials accumulated for the illustrious Bentley are
deposited. Walker d. 1741, Archdeacon of Hereford, after Bentley’s
will, six months before him. The codd. in Trinity College were
bought from Bentley’s heirs (not from Richard Bentley) when
Wordsworth was Master (1820-41), and so were not in Bentley’s hands
when Walker died. Old Latin Biblical Texts, xxiv-vi. Of his eight
codices, we find on investigation that Walker’s C is Wake 26;
Walker’s 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to
Wetstein, comprise Codd. 73, 74, described above); Walker’s B is
Wake 21; Walker’s D is Wake 24, both of Gospels; Walker’s E is Wake
18, his H is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker’s q is Wake 12, of
which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apocalypse (Cod. 26);
Walker’s W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epistles, or Scholz’s Act.
191, Paul. 245.

260 Bentley specifies “argumenta inedita Cosmae Indicopleustae in 4
Evangelia, et versus iambici fortasse Jacobi Calligraphi: argumenta
incerti ad Actus: prologus ineditus et argumenta Oecumenii ad
Epistolas omnes.”

261 Matt. iv. 1-vii. 6; xx. 21-xxi. 12; Luke iv. 29-v. 1; 17-33; xvi.
24-xvii. 13; xx. 19-41; John vi. 51-viii. 2; xii. 20-40; xiv. 27-xv.
13; xvii. 6-xviii. 2; 37-xix. 14.

262 In Mr. Coxe’s “Report to Her Majesty’s Government,” we find an
account (which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of
several copies of the Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium,
all dated [xii], still remaining in this Prelate’s Library.

263 For Add. 11,837, which is mscr, see Evan. *201.

264 Belsheim (Cod. Aureus, Proleg. p. xvii and note 3) gives a short
life of that noble Swede, John Gabriel Sparvenfeldt [1655-1727], who
was sent over Europe by his master, Charles XI, to procure
manuscripts for the Royal Library, and bought the Latin Codex Aureus
at Madrid in 1690.

265 Gregory considers this to be (not a duplicate but) the same as Cod.
634.

266 For the other Evann. at Patmos, _see_ No. 1160, &c.

267 For all these MSS. (Evann. 1148, 1149, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1265-1268,
1274-1279), _see_ Ἱεροσολομιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, κ.τ.λ., ὑπὸ Α.
Παπαδοπούλου Π. Κεραμέως. Τόμος Πρῶτος. Ἐν Πετρουπόλει, 1891.

268 Mr. Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. xxviii, xxix) represents,
among facts which I am better able to verify, that Act. and Epp. 25,
26, and Epp. 15, were collated by Wetstein, and his labours
preserved at Trin. Coll. Cambridge (B. xvii. 10, 11). The
manuscripts he indicates so ambiguously must be Paul. 25, 26, and
Act. 15, since Wetstein is not known to have worked at Act. 25, 26,
or Paul. 15.

269 Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of
the Sinai MS. (little anticipating worthier claimants for that
appellation), reserving 5 for Harl. 5777 or Evan. 446.

_ 270 See_ under 98.

271 Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it
is the only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the
celebrated text 1 John v. 7, 8, whose authenticity will be discussed
in Vol. II. Ch. XII. A facsimile of the passage in question was
traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess, and published
by Horne in several editions of his “Introduction,” as also by
Tregelles (Horne, vol. iv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all
faithful, this is as rudely and indistinctly written as any
manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between the Latin
column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on
the right, has been ascertained by Mr. B. H. Alford (who examined
the codex at Tregelles’ request) to be merely a consequence of the
accidental shifting of the tracing paper, too servilely copied by
the engraver.

272 Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects but few of his gross
errors in these Catalogues: but A.M. 6902, which he cites from the
manuscript, is A.D. 1394.

273 Here again we banish to the notes Scholz’s list from Cod. 182 to
Cod. 189, for the reasons stated after Evan. 449.

182. (Paul. 243.) Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [xii],
8vo, also another [xiii] 8vo.

183. (Paul. 231.) Library of the Great Greek monastery at Jerusalem
8 [xiv], 8vo. This must be Coxe’s No. 7 [x], 4to, beginning Acts
xii. 6.

184. (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85.) Jerusalem 9 [xiii], 4to, with a
commentary. This is evidently Coxe’s No. 15, though he dates it at
the end of [x].

185. (Paul. 233.) St. Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xi], 12mo.

186. (Evan. 457.)

187. (Evan. 462.)

188. (Paul. 236.) St. Saba 15 [xii], 4to.

189. (Evan. 466.)

274 From the monastery of Grotta Ferrata, near Tusculum, “Ubi degunt ab
antiquo tempore monachi, ordinis S. Basilii Magni, ritum
Italo-Graecum observantes,” Holmes. Praef. ad Pentateuch. on his
Cod. 128, which came to the Vatican from the same place. It is the
traditional Villa Luculli.

275 Birch shows the connexion of Caryophilus with this important copy
(which much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from
James v. 5, and especially from 3 John 5 μισθόν for πιστόν, a
_lectio singularis_. In this codex, as in the others cited, Heb.
stands before 1 Tim.

276 The gold ducat coined for the Military Order of St. John at Rhodes
(_see_ Ducange) was worth 9_s_. 6_d_. English money.

277 Here again we set Scholz’s codices in a note, substituting others in
their room. Scholz’s run, 231. (Act. 183.) 232. (Act. 184.) 233.
(Act. 185.) 234. (Evan. 457.) 235. (Evan. 462.) 236. (Act. 188.)
237. (Evan. 466.) 243. (Act. 182), two separate codices.

278 Mr. B. W. Newton superintended the publication of Tregelles’ last
part of his Greek New Testament under circumstances which disarm
criticism, but Tregelles could hardly have meant that in the
Apocalypse “much of Cod. 14 (Leicestrensis) has been supplied by a
later hand from the Codex Montfortianus, Apoc. 92” (Introductory
Notice, p. 1). The original hand remains unchanged in the Leicester
copy, even on the last torn leaf containing portions of Apoc. xix,
but the converse supposition is very maintainable, though not quite
certain, that the Apocalypse in Cod. 92 was transcribed from Cod.
14.

279 Gregory has substituted this for Scholz’s 23, which he finds does
not contain Apoc. Whatever readings he cites under these three
numbers, are simply copied from Wetstein (Kelly’s “Revelation,”
Introd. p. xi, note). Dr. Gregory has seen all the four.

280 After this again we withdraw Scholz’s copies, as virtually included
in Coxe’s, putting others in their room. They are 85. (Act. 184.)
86. (Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischendorf). 862 of
Scholz, being 89 of Tischendorf (Evan. 466).

281 We cannot identify 109, Bentley’s R (Regis Galliae, 1872): cf.
Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Intr. p. xxix.

282 In the sixth lesson for the Holy Passions the prefatory clause to
Mark xv. 16 is founded on an obvious misconception: Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ
οἱ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον τὸν ϊν εἰς τὴν ἀυλὴν τοῦ καϊάφα, ὅ ἐστι
πραιτώριον. We remember no similar instance of error.

283 Laud. Gr. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an
Evangelistarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the
Septuagint read in Lent and the Holy Week, such as we described
above. It has red musical notes, and seems _once_ to have borne the
date A.D. 1028. It is Dean Holmes’ No. 61 (Praef. ad Pentateuch).

284 As with the MSS. of the Gospels, and for the reasons assigned above,
we remove to the foot of the page, and do not reckon in our
numbering, the twenty-one copies seen by Scholz in Eastern
Libraries.

158. Library of the Great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem, No. 10
[xiv], fol.

159. “Biblioth. monasterii virginum τῆς μεγάλης παναγίας a S. Melana
erect.” [xiii], fol., very neat (“non sec. viii ut monachi putant,”
Scholz).

160. (Apost. 33.) St. Saba 4, written there by one Antony [xiv],
8vo.

161. St. Saba 5 [xv], 8vo, _chart._

162. St. Saba 6 [xv], 16mo, _chart._

163. St. Saba 13 [xiii], 4to, _chart._, adapted (as also those that
follow) to the use of Palestine.

164. St. Saba [xiv], 4to.

165. St. Saba 17 [xv], 4to, _chart._

166. St. Saba 21 [xiii], fol.

167. St. Saba 22 [xiv], fol.

168. St. Saba 23 [xiii], fol.

169. St. Saba 24 [xiii], fol.

170. St. Saba 25 [xiii], fol.

171. (Apost. 52.) St. Saba (unnumbered) [written July, 1059, in the
monastery of Θεοτόκος, by Sergius, a monk of Olympus in Bithynia],
8vo.

[+]172. Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [“iv” Scholz,
obviously a misprint], fol.

[+]173. Patmos [ix], 4to.

[+]174. Patm. [x], 4to.

[+]175. Patm. [x], 4to.

176. Patm. [xii], 4to.

177. Patm. [xiii], 4to.

178. Patm. [xiv], 4to, in the same Library, but not numbered.

Some of these MSS. have been removed to Europe since Scholz made his
reckoning, e.g. Parham No. 20 (Evst. 236).

285 At the end in small gold uncials the following very curious colophon
was deciphered by Dean Burgon and the learned sub-librarian Signor
Veludo jointly: Μηνὶ μαΐω Ἰνδ. ΙΔ. ἔτους ϛφνδ᾽. προσηνέχθη παρὰ
βασιλείου μοναχοῦ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τῆς
κοιμήσεως τῆς θ_κου_ εἰς τὴν ἀυτὴν μονὴν βιβλία τέσσαρα; τὸ
ἀυτὸεὐαγγέλιον, ἀπόστολος, προφητεία, καὶ ἀναγνοστικόν, ὁ βίος τοῦ
ἁγίου. καὶ ἐστύχηται δίδωσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῆς προσενέξαιως ἑνὶ ἑκάστω
χρόνω ἀπὸ τοῦ δοχείου τῆς αὐτῆς μονῆς ὑπὲρ μνήμης αὐτ νόμισμα ἒν
ἥμισον, μέχ[ρι γὰρ τού] τὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν [συ]νίσταται;
περιφυλάττεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ἁγία μονὴ αὕτη; ἐν γὰρ τῶ τυπικῶ τῆς μονῆς
περὶ τοῦ κατίδους (_sic_) τῶν ἀυτῆς βιβλίων, καὶ περὶ τῆς διανομῆς
τοῦ ἑνὸς ἡμίσου νομίσματος σαφέστερον διερμηνεύει.

286 Thus 222, with only two other Evangelistaria (6, 13) and Evan. 59 by
the first hand, supports Cod. א and Eusebius in the significant
omission of υἱοῦ βαραχίον, Matt. xxiii. 35.

287 [+]Evan. Td and Te and Λ (1) should also properly be classed as
Lectionaries. Apost. 15, and perhaps Apost. 24, also contains
Lessons from the Gospels. The two copies of the Gospels, Lowes
formerly Askew, membr. 4to, mentioned by Scholz (N. T., vol. i. p.
cxix), and stated by Marsh on Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 662, to have
been bought at Askew’s sale by Mr. Lowes, the bookseller, are shown
by the sale catalogue to have Evangelistaria. They have not yet been
traced. (Ed. 3.)

288 In 1721. _See_ Monk’s “Life of Bentley,” vol. ii. p. 149. This is
Bentley’s O, John Walker’s collation of which is preserved at Trin.
Coll. (B. xvii. 34). Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introd. pp.
xxix, xxx.

289 As in our preceding lists, we remove to this foot-note Scholz’s six
copies seen at St. Saba, and occupy their numbers by other
manuscripts. They are Apost. 49. St. Saba 16 [xiv], 4to, _chart._
50. St. Saba 18 [xv], 8vo. 51. St. Saba 26 [xiv], fol. 52. (Evst.
171.) 53. (Evst. 160.) 54. St. Saba (unnumbered) [xiii], 4to.

290 An independent mode of reckoning the commencement of the indiction
was followed in Egypt under the later Roman Empire. The indiction
there began normally in the latter half of the month Pauni, which
corresponds to about the middle of June; but the actual day of
commencement appears to have been variable and to have depended upon
the exact period of the rising of the Nile.—“Catalogue of Greek
Papyri in the British Museum,” pp. 197, 198.

291 So Scholz’s index, and we may suppose correctly, but in his
Catalogue of Evangelistaria he numbers it 1256.

<pre id="pg-footer">