Chapter XXV: Appendix: B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts in Egypt (1893) (2)

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

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

_ 36 See_ also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version,
Acts and Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John.
Presented to the Syrian Protestant College, &c., described with
phototyped facsimiles by Prof. Isaac H. Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a
fragment at end. _Mut._ at beg. and end, &c. Written in old Jacobite
characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

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

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

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

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

_ 41 See_ the “Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder
and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,” translated by the Rev. S.
C. Malan, London, 1868.

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

43 Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

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

45 See _Athenaeum_, Oct. 28, 1893.

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

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

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

49 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iii. 56.

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

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

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

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

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

55 For _Itala_ Bentley conjectured _et illa_, changing the following
_nam_ into _quae_; and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the
idea of a “Versio Italica;” _see_ Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth,
1842, p. 569; and “Versio Latina Italica, somnium merum,” in Ellis,
Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159; Kaulen, Gesch. d. Vulgata,
Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured _usitata_ for
_Itala_; _see_ Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

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

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

58 That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy; Italian Christians
would use other names, _vetus_, _antiqua_, _usitata_, _communis_,
_vulgata_; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

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

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

_ 61 See_ Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

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

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

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

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

_ 66 See_ Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, “Jam pridem universos
Veteris ac Novi instruments libros ... examussim correximus;” S.
Berger’s essay (to be distinguished from his larger work), De
l’histoire de la Vulgate en France (1887), p. 3 f.

_ 67 See_ the Oxford “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” ii (1890), p.
278 f.

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

69 Berger, as above, p. 7.

_ 70 See_ the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bec, ch.
xv, in Migne, Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, _ibid._,
col. 101 f.; Mill, Proleg., § 1058; Cave’s remark (Hist. Lit. 1743,
vol. ii. p. 148), “Lanfrancus textum continuo emendat,” seems hardly
borne out by the facts.

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

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

_ 73 See_ the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f., and Hody, p. 419 f.

_ 74 See_ S. Berger, De l’histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f.,
1887, and Revue de Théol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41,
1883.

_ 75 See_ Hugo’s remark (Denifle, p. 295), “In multis libris maxime
historialibus, non utimur translatione Hieronymi.”

_ 76 See_ Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Rome, 1864, pp. 44-51; Hody, pp.
426-430; and Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in
Wordsworth’s Vulgate as _cor. vat._; _see_ Berger, Notitia Linguae
Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

_ 77 See_ W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Biblica, or the first half-century
of the Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892; and L. Delisle, Journ. des
Savants, Apr. 1893.

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

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

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

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

_ 82 Ibid._, p. 48 f.

83 The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in
three forms:—

(1) The “Notationes,” published in 1580, and incorporated in the
Hentenian Bible of 1583.

(2) The “Variae Lectiones,” printed in Walton’s Polyglott, and taken
from the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various
readings to the Vulgate, with MS. authorities; he frequently adds
the letters Q. N., i.e. “quaere notationes,” where he has treated
the subject more fully in (1).

(3) The “Notae ad Varias Lectiones,” also printed (for the Gospels)
in Walton’s Polyglott; a _delectus_ of them is given in Sabatier at
the end of each book of the New Testament, under the title “Roman.
Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br. delectus.”

_ 84 See_ E. Nestle, Ein Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel, Tübingen, p.
13 f., 1892.

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

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

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

_ 88 See_ Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

_ 89 Ibid._, p. xxv.

_ 90 See_ Fasc. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge,
1862.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: “Z. A. S.”
for _Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache_; “Recueil” for the
_Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie
égyptiennes et assyriennes_; “Mémoires” for the _Mémoires de la
Mission Archéologique Française au Caire_; and “Mitt.” for the
_Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer_.

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

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

_ 102 See_ also A. J. Butler’s “Coptic Churches,” vol. ii, Oxford.

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

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

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

106 The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1,
vellum, p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
is really a selection of passages taken in order from the four
Gospels, with a patristic catena attached to each. The leaves,
however, are much displaced in the binding, and many are wanting.
The title to the first Gospel is ϯ ⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ
ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲑⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϩⲁⲛⲙⲏϣ ⲛⲥⲁϧ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲫⲱⲥⲧⲏⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ, &c.
“The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from
numerous doctors and luminaries of the Church.” Among the Fathers
quoted I observed Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two
Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius,
Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories (Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen,
and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of Gabala, Severus of
Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites,
Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that “the
name of the scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the
monastery, or monastic rule, of Laura under the sway of the great
abbot Macarius,” and the inference is thence drawn that it must have
been written before 395, when Macarius died. This early date,
however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in
the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred
Literature, vii. p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the
facsimile, points out the error of date, and suggests as an
explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen) does not speak
of the great Macarius, but of “_an abbot_ Macarius.” The fact is,
that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing
which implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself
as ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϧⲁ ⲡⲓ ⲧⲁⲗⲉⲡⲱⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ, “I the unhappy one (ταλαιπωρος)
who wrote it” (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a
proper name Sapita Leporos). He then gives his name ⲑⲉⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ
(Theodorus of Busiris?) and adds, ⲡⲓⲁⲧⲙⲡϣⲁ ⲙⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲁⲩⲣⲁ
ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲛⲓϣϯ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓ, “the unworthy monk of the holy laura
of the great abbot Macarius.” He was merely an inmate of the
monastery of St. Macarius; see the expression quoted from the Vat.
MS. lxi in Tattam’s Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated
A.M. 604 = A.D. 888 and has been published by Professor De Lagarde;
but its value may not be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it
is perhaps translated from the Greek.

The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as
containing the Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be
explained by the fact that the name ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲟⲩ occurs at the bottom of
one of the pages; but the manuscript is not Biblical. Another MS.
(no. 13, p. 29) is described as “St. Matthew with an Arabic
translation, very large folio: a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an
antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.” I was not able
to find this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouche I had access
to the Parham collection.

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

108 The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

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

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

_ 111 See_ Münter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang.
p. xx) says, “Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri scatent
vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt fidei _Rudimenta_, Sahidicis locis
partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis.” I do not know on
what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

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

113 In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to
have obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS.,
e.g. Acts xxiv. 22, 23; xxv. 6; xxvii. 14; Col. ii. 2. At least I
have not succeeded in tracing them to any printed source of
information.

Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the
Sahidic text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already
spoken (p. 108). He has added no unpublished materials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

121 Skeat, St. Mark, 1882.

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

_ 123 See_ p. 10 of the Armenian edition; Venice, 1833. The French
translation of this in the “Collection des Historiens de l’Arménie,”
Paris, 1869, is untrustworthy in all ways, and especially because
the translator both adds to and omits from the Armenian text at
random.

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

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

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

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

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

129 Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the
following:—

(i) Горскій и Невоструевъ, описаніе славянскихъ рукописей Московской
Синодальной Библіотеки. Москва, 1855.

(ii) Астафьевъ, Опьітъ исторіи библіи въ Россіи въ связи съ
просвѣщеніемъ и нравами. С. Петербургъ, 1892.

(iii) Voskresenski, Характеристческія чертъі гиавнъіхъ редакцій
славянскаго перевода Евангелія.

(iv) Voskresenski, Древній славянскій переводъ Апостола и его судьбы
до xv вѣка.

(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the
“Archiv für Slavische Philologie,” xiii. pp. 321-361].

(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex
Zographensis, &c., by Jagić.

(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Palaeoslavonicae, vol. i.

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

131 Kaluzniacki, _l. c._, p. xlv, gives instances.

_ 132 See_ Jagić, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

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

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

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

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

_ 137 See_ some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Rev. Ll. J.
M. Bebb in the second volume of the Oxford “Studia Biblica (et
Ecclesiastica).” Mr. Bebb’s entire Article on “The Evidence of the
Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of
the New Testament” is well worth careful study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_ 146 See_ Dean Burgon’s Appendix (D) to his “Last Twelve Verses of St.
Mark,” pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by
a not very friendly critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius
and character of Victor of Antioch’s Commentary on St. Mark, and
enumerates the manuscripts which contain it.

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

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

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

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

151 Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I
subjoin those of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a
rather favourable specimen of verse composition in that age: the
fantastic mode of accentuation described above was clearly not _his_
work.

Ειπράξεις ὅσιαι ἀρετήτε βροτοὺς ἐς ὅλυμπον,
ἐσμακάρων χῶρον καὶ βίον οἶδεν ἄγειν,
ἀρχιερεὺς ξιμένης θεῖος πέλει. ἔργα γὰρ αὐτοῦ
ἤδε βίβλος. θνητοῖς ἄξια δῶρα τάδε.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185 “American Additions and Corrections,” p. 50.

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

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

_ 188 See_ Miller’s “Textual Guide,” George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr.
Scrivener’s “Adversaria et Critica Sacra” (not yet
published).—Postscript.

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

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

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

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

193 1 John v. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Reuss (p. 130) thinks that
the text follows Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22.
Mill (N. T., Proleg. § 1397) says that it was printed “ad editiones
priores Elzevirianas, typis Elzevirianis nitidissimis.”

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

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

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