Chapter II (1)

MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Even in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded by that invention, it is not always easy or even possible to exhibit or restore the literary productions of a great mind in their original form. One has but to think of the obscurity in which the works of Shakespeare and their early editions are enveloped, or the questions raised over the Weimar edition of Luther’s works. And even when the author’s original manuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual, destroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional discrepancies between the print and the manuscript are intentional or not. Nay, even when the two agree, there is still the possibility that what the author wrote and allowed to be printed was not what he thought or intended to be read. Did Lessing, _e.g._, mean us to read in _Nathan_ ii. 5, 493, “the great _man_ requires always plenty of room,” or “the great _tree_” does so? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist’s talents or dexterity, have used the words “haud impigre.” To take them at their word, the object of their praise had no such endowment beyond the common. We may be certain that what they meant to convey was the very opposite of what they actually wrote, viz. “haud pigre” or “impigre.” As a rule, however, the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon reading it in the form in which the author intended it to be circulated. It is quite different in the case of those works which were composed at a time when their multiplication was only possible by means of copying, and specially so in the case of those that are older by a thousand years than the invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh source of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact as it was possible for him to be. It is simply astonishing, in view of all the perils to which literary works have been exposed, to find how much has been preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully.

[Sidenote: Autographs.]

The matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good fortune the author’s own manuscript, his =autograph=, is extant. The abstract possibility of this being so in the case of the New Testament writings cannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness of the climate of Egypt and the excellence of ancient writing material, we have documents more than twice the age that the New Testament autographs would be to-day did we possess them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the newspapers that such an original document has been found,—of Peter, _e.g._, or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it was asserted that the original copy of Matthew had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the devout there are still exhibited not only the Inscription from the Cross, but works from the artist hand of Luke. In reality, however, we have no longer the autograph of a single New Testament book. Their disappearance is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation. Even in the early ages of the Christian Church, when there must have been frequent occasion to appeal to them, the autographs were no longer in existence.

Tertullian (_De Praescriptione Haereticorum_, 36) mentions
Thessalonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of
the Apostles that were addressed there were still read from
autograph copies.[18] “Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas
ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas
ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et
repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque.” But when the same author, in
his _De Monogamia_, speaks of “Graecum authenticum,” he refers not
to the autograph, but to the original text as distinguished from a
version.

On the copy of Matthew’s Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas in
Cyprus, _vide_ Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of Antioch
in Assemani, _Bibliotheca Orientalis_, ii. 81; _Vitae omnium 13
Apostolorum_: Βαρνάβας ὁ καὶ Ἰωσῆς ... οὗτος τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον
εὐαγγέλιον οἰκειοχείρως γράψας ἐν τῇ τῆς Κύπρου νήσῳ τελειοῦται.[19]
In the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on
Holy Thursday of every year. _Vide_ Fabricius, _Evv. Apocr._, 341.

On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky,
_Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, vulgo autographi_, Prague, 1778.
It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating
from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague.

In the _Chronicon Paschale_ there is a note on the reading τρίτη for
ἕκτη in John xix. 14, to the following effect:—καθὼς τὰ ἀκριβῆ
βιβλία περιέχει _αὐτό τε τὸ ἰδιόχειρον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ_, ὅπερ μέχρι
τοῦ νῦν πεφύλακται χάριτι θεοῦ ἐν τῇ Ἐφεσίων ἁγιωτάτῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ
ὑπὸ τῶν πιστῶν ἐκεῖσε προσκυνεῖται. Bengel himself said on 1 John v.
7:—“Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum
Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc
periocham habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc
latentes, suo tempore productum iri.” (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)

In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, _Aus dem
deutschen Gelehrtenleben_, Göttingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends of
this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the
Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the
possession of the Queen of England, etc., _vide_ S. Schechter, _Die
Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums_, in the
_Jüdisches Literatur-Blatt_ for 1888, No. 46.

At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Harnack (_DG._ ii.
408) says might be called the “Council of Antiquaries and
Palaeographers”, investigations were instituted in this department
with some success.

J. G. Berger, _De Autographis Veterum_, Vitenb., 1723. 4^o.

J. R. Harris, _New Testament Autographs_ (Supplement to the
_American Journal of Philology_, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882. With
three plates.

In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of
Constantine Simonides: _Facsimiles of certain portions of the Gospel
of St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude,
written on papyrus of the first century_. London, 1862. Fol.

[Sidenote: Manuscripts.]

Seeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament books have all perished, we have to do as in the case of the Greek and Latin classics, viz. apply to later copies of them, the so-called =manuscripts= of which frequent mention has already been made. But while in the case of most literary products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the _only_ sources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, we are happily more fortunate in regard to the New Testament.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

The new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant peoples speaking other languages than that in which the Gospel was first preached. Indeed, even in its native land of Palestine, several languages were in use at the same time. Accordingly, at a very early date, as early as the second, and perhaps, in the case of fragments, even in the first century, there arose in the East, and in the South, and in the West, =versions= of the Christian books very soon after their composition. At first only separate portions would be translated, but as time went on versions of the entire New Testament made their appearance. Manifestly, the value for our purpose of these versions depends on their age and accuracy. It is impossible, without further knowledge, to be certain whether a Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original quite faithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testament which dates from the second century, _e.g._, will represent with tolerable certainty the second century Greek manuscript from which it is derived, even supposing that our present copy of that version is not earlier than the sixth century or even later. But these versions confer yet another advantage. In the case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek manuscripts, we do not know in what country they originated. But it is quite certain that a Latin version could not have originated in Egypt, or a Coptic version in Gaul. In this way we may learn from the versions how the text of the Bible read at a particular time and in a particular region. Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating in quite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the Syrian East, and in the Egyptian South, agree, then we may be certain that what is common to them all must go back to the earliest times and to their common original.

[Sidenote: Quotations.]

In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we have still a third and by no means unimportant class of material that we can employ in reconstructing our text of the New Testament. We possess an uncommonly rich Christian literature, which gathers volume from the second half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first century onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that matter, what any early writer quotes from the New Testament will have for us its own very peculiar importance, under certain conditions. Because, as a rule, we know precisely where and when he lived. So that by means of these =patristic quotations= we are enabled to locate our ancient manuscripts of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history further than we are able to do with the help of the versions. Here, of course, we must make sure that our author has quoted accurately and not loosely from memory, and also that the quotations in his book have been accurately preserved and not accommodated to the current text of their time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions, as has actually been done even in the nineteenth century. We shall now proceed to describe these three classes of auxiliaries.

LITERATURE.—W. Wattenbach, _Anleitung zur griechischen
Palaeographie_, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877; V. Gardthausen, _Griechische
Palaeographie_, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, _Palaeographie,
Bücherwesen, und Handschriftenkunde_, in I. v. Müller’s Handbuch der
klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892;
E. M. Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography_, London,
1891; T. Birt, _Das antike Buchwesen_, Berlin, 1882; W. A. Copinger,
_The Bible and its Transmission_; F. G. Kenyon, _Our Bible and the
ancient Manuscripts_, London, third edition, 1897; F. H. A.
Scrivener, _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient
Manuscripts which contain it_, Cambridge and London, 1875; _A
Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels_, London,
1853; _Adversaria critica sacra_, Cambridge, 1893; Hoskier; _Urt._,
pp. 16, 54; O. Weise, _Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer
Zeit_, Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work); F.
G. Kenyon, _The Palaeography of Greek Papyri_, Oxford, 1899 (with 20
Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160); Ulr. Wilcken,
_Tafeln zur älteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Originalen des
Berliner K. Museums_, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20
photographs); G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, _Collezione Fiorentina di
facsimili paleografici greci e latini_, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50
Greek Plates and 50 Latin, Folio); Charles F. Sitterly, _Praxis in
Manuscripts of the Greek Testament; the mechanical and literary
processes involved in their writing and preservation_ (with table of
Manuscripts and 13 Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898,
second enlarged edition, 1900; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati,
_Monumenta Palaeographica sacra: Atlante paleografico-artistico
composto sui manuscritti_, Turin, 1899; Karl Dziatzko,
_Untersuchungen über ausgewählte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit
Text, Uebersetzung und Erklärung von Plinii Histor. Nat._, lib.
xiii. § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner, 1900.

1. MANUSCRIPTS.

[Sidenote: Number of manuscripts.]

For no literary production of antiquity is there such a wealth of manuscripts as for the New Testament. Our classical scholars would rejoice were they as fortunate with Homer or Sophocles, Plato or Aristotle, Cicero or Tacitus, as Bible students are with their New Testament. The oldest complete manuscript of Homer that we have dates from the thirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragments go back to the Alexandrian age. All that is extant of Sophocles we owe to a single manuscript dating from the eighth or ninth century in the Laurentian Library at Florence. But of the New Testament, 3829 manuscripts have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the list; a search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly do so. Gregory believes that there are probably some two or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been collated, and every year additional manuscripts are brought to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain only separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New Testament.[20] Not a few, however, go much further back than our manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of the Greek and Latin Classics. Only in the case of the Mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more favourable. These came into existence in the seventh century, and the variations between separate manuscripts are a vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviolably sacred. Fortunately, one might almost say, it is quite different with the New Testament, which was put together in a totally different way. In its case the very greatest freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.

The manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous, it becomes necessary to arrange them. One of the most important considerations hitherto has been that of age, and therefore manuscripts have been divided into =Uncials= (or Majuscules) and =Cursives= (or Minuscules), according to the style of writing in use at earlier or later times.

[Sidenote: Uncial, and Cursive script.]

In early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monuments and public buildings were engraved in capital letters. This form of writing was also employed for books, especially those containing valuable or sacred writing. The letters were not joined together, but set down side by side.[21] They were called _litterae majusculae_, _capitales_, _unciales_, _i.e._ “inch-high,” as Jerome says with ridicule—_uncialibus ut vulgo aiunt litteris onera magis exarata quam codices_. Alongside of this there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller Cursive form (_Minusculae_), for use in common life, in which the letters were joined.[22] This running hand found its way into manuscripts of the Bible in the course of the ninth century. In some cases, in Codex Λ _e.g._, both styles are found alongside or following each other.[23]

The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the exact date of which is known, is 481^{evv.}; it bears the date 835. The great majority of New Testament manuscripts belong to this later date, seeing that out of the 3829 manuscripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules. Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manuscripts exactly, it becomes the task of palæography to settle the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript’s origin may be determined. These are the style of writing—whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the punctuation—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and form of the book. These distinctions, however, are often very misleading. The following table will show the distribution of the manuscripts according to the centuries in which they were written, as given by Vollert, Scrivener, and von Gebhardt[24]:—

Vollert. Scrivener. v. Gebhardt.
IVth Century, 5 ... 2
Vth “ 4 10 15
VIth ” 18 22 24
VIIth “ 6 9 17
VIIIth ” 8 8 19
IXth “ 23 ... 31
Xth ” 4 ... 6

[Sidenote: Papyrus and parchment.]

Manuscripts are distinguished according to the =material= on which they are written, which may be either parchment or paper.

=Parchment= derives its name from Pergamum, where it was introduced in the reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). But prior to the use of parchment, and to a certain extent alongside of it, =papyrus= was used, especially in Egypt, down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest. Papyrus books were originally in the form of rolls (_volumina_). Only a few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. The use of parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. In the case of parchment codices, a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the skins of very young calves, and those made of common parchment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.

[Sidenote: Paper.]

As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called =cotton paper= (_charta bombycina_) was introduced from the East. This, however, never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of flax and hemp. It had been in use for a long time in China and the centre of Eastern Asia, but seems to have been unknown in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of Samarcand in 704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of linen was employed.

In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are referred to. In 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the φελόνης he had left at Troas might be brought to him, and τὰ βιβλία, but specially τὰς μεμβράνας. Here, φελόνης means cloak rather than satchel; τὰ βιβλία are the papyrus books, possibly his Old Testament, while τὰς μεμβράνας are clean sheets of parchment. In 2 John 12 the word χάρτης is used of papyrus. There, and in 3 John 13, τὸ μέλαν is the ink, and the κάλαμος (_lat._ canna) is the reed pen, still used for writing in the East. The quill pen, strange to say, is not mentioned prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in the sixth century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to above.

[Sidenote: Scriptio continua.]

In order to economize space, the writing was continuous, with no break between the words (=scriptio continua=), breathings and accents being also omitted. This is a frequent source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, _e.g._, ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ may be either εἷς ἐλθὼν or εἰσελθὼν. In Mark x. 40, ΑΛΛΟΙΣΗΤΟΙΜΑΣΤΑΙ was rendered “aliis praeparatum,” ἄλλοις being read instead of ἀλλ’ οἷς. In Matt. xvi. 23, ΑΛΛΑ may be taken either as ἀλλὰ or ἀλλ’ ἃ. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, again, the Ethiopic translator read οὖς instead of οὓς. The Palestinian-Syriac Lectionary translates 1 Tim. iii. 16 as though it were ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς μέγα ἐστίν. There is something to be said for this, but Naber’s proposed reading of Gal. ii. 11, ὅτι κατέγνωμεν ὃς ἦν, cannot be accepted.

[Sidenote: Columns, Lines.]

Most manuscripts show two =columns= to the page. The Sinaitic, however, has four, while the Vatican has three. Columns vary considerably in width. They may be the width of a few letters only, or of an average hexameter line of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters. Such a line is called a στίχος, and as the scribe was paid according to the number of στίχοι, we find at the end of several books a note giving the total number of στίχοι contained in them. In carefully written manuscripts, every hundredth, sometimes every fiftieth στίχος is indicated in the margin. These stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be obvious.

As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testament manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings and churches.

[Sidenote: Palimpsests.]

Parchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and so the practice arose of using an old manuscript a second time. The original writing was erased by means of a sponge or pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets were then employed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same matter over again. And so we have =Codices Rescripti= or =Palimpsesti= as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who says, though of a wax tablet, “quod in palimpsesto, laudo parsimoniam” (_ad Diversos_ vii. 18). Some manuscripts were used as often as three times for distinct works in three different languages _e.g._ Greek, Syriac, and Iberian. Codex I^b is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first in Greek and then twice in Syriac.

[Sidenote: Punctuation.]

Marks of =punctuation= are hardly to be found in the earliest times. It was frequently, therefore, a question with church teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively or indicatively, or how the sentences were to be divided, as in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the general absence of punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in some of the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus _e.g._, to indicate citations from the Old Testament, is remarkable.

[Sidenote: Size.]

The =size= of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in the case of a parchment codex must have been very expensive, to a small octavo. In regions inhabited by a mixed population we find =bilingual= manuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek-Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like. If the manuscript was designed for use in church, the two languages were written in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying the left column or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of honour. In manuscripts intended for use in schools, the translation was written between the lines. Codex Δ is an example of a manuscript with an interlinear version of this sort.

[Sidenote: Contents.]

Of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts according to their =contents=. Of all our recorded Uncials, only one contains the whole of the New Testament complete. That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in 1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of the later Minuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the entire New Testament. Of the English Minuscules, five are complete. The fragmentary nature of our manuscripts is intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and ponderous volume running to about 150 sheets. Comparatively few would be in a position to procure such a costly work all at once. The other reason is that the New Testament itself is not a single book, but a series of different collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in the order of the several parts of the New Testament found in the manuscripts, and still, to a certain extent, in our printed editions. It is not exactly known who it was that first collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known as a πανδέκτης, and in Latin, _bibliotheca_. The parts into which the New Testament is divided are—

1. The four Gospels.

2. (_a_) The Acts of the Apostles. (_b_) The so-called Catholic
Epistles, _i.e._ those not addressed to any particular church or
individual, viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude.

3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews, fourteen.

4. The Apocalypse.

[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]

Among these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testament may be classed the so-called =lectionaries=—_i.e._ manuscripts containing only those portions read at church services. Following the custom of the Synagogue, in which portions of the Law and the Prophets were read at divine service each Sabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the Christian Church of reading passages from the New Testament books at services. A definite selection of such extracts was formed at an early date from the Gospels and Epistles, and the custom arose of arranging these according to the order of Sundays and Holy days, for greater convenience in use. A collection of selected passages from the Gospels was called a Εὐαγγέλιον, and in Latin _Evangeliarium_,[25] in distinction to the books containing the continuous text, which were called Τετραευαγγέλιον, while the selections from the Epistles were known as Ἀπόστολος or Πραξαπόστολος. These lectionaries, though mostly of later origin, are nevertheless important as indicating the official text of the various provinces of the Church. They show, moreover, how sundry slight alterations found their way into the text of the New Testament.

We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the Gospels are by far the most numerous, while those of the last book of the New Testament are the fewest. Among the Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and only 7 have the Apocalypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. א B K M S U, or, if we include Ω, only 7 are quite complete; 9 are almost so; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the remainder contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the Pauline Epistles, only 1 is entirely complete—viz., א; 2 are nearly complete, D G; 8 have the greater part. It is plain that our resources are not so great, after all, as the number of manuscripts given above would lead us to expect. Here also there are πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι ἐκλεκτοί.

Parchment.

The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of papyrus. It is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by Eumenes II. of Pergamum (197-159 B.C.). Pliny’s story,[26] which he gives on the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a library which should, as far as possible, excel that of Alexandria. To frustrate this intention Ptolemy Epiphanes prohibited the exportation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the list of principal exports of Alexandria, Lumbroso[27] mentions βίβλος and χάρτη in the second place after ὑέλια, and βιβλία in the seventh.) Eumenes was accordingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and hence its name, περγαμηνή. The name first occurs in Diocletian’s Price-list,[28] and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was διφθέραι,[29] or δέρρεις,[30] or μεμβράναι as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which last was taken from the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than papyrus, and was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin. But it gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came also the change from the roll to the “codex” form of book. If papyrus was the vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to mankind, and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time preserved. Origen’s library, which still consisted for the most part of papyrus rolls, was re-written in parchment volumes (σωμάτιον, _corpus_) by two priests shortly before the time of Jerome. Our principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one of these codices.[31] When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a certain number of Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire, he sent him, not rolls, but codices, πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις.

Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, asses, swine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible exhibit the finest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, _e.g._, displays the very finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size that only two sheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule, four sheets were folded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheets having been previously ruled on the grain side. They were laid with the flesh side to the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain side, beginning with the flesh side outermost, so that in each quaternio, pages 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with the lines showing in relief, while the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 were darker and rough, with indented lines.[32]

[Sidenote: Ink.]

For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three parts of lamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted with water. This ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not stick well to parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made of gall nuts. Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink. From its having been boiled the mixture was also called ἔγκαυστον, hence our word “ink” (encre). Many old recipes for making ink are still preserved.[33] Even in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks, especially red, were used. One of the most beautiful manuscripts extant is a Syriac Codex in the British Museum, of date 411, in which the red, blue, green, and yellow inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs, and Jerome makes mention of minium or vermilion. In times of great wealth parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver letters.

Papyrus.

Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the preparation of papyrus, in his _Historia Naturalis_, xiii. 11.[34] The sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the plant. This was cut into strips (σχίδας) as thin and broad, and, according to some, as long as possible. These were laid side by side as firmly as might be, to form the first layer (σχέδα). On this a second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with moisture or gum. The two layers were then compressed to form the writing sheet (σελίς), which was carefully dried and polished with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll (τόμος, κύλινδρος) consisted of a number of σελίδες joined together to make one long strip—sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even longer. The upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in which the fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll.[35] The under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity.[36] The first sheet (πρωτόκολλον) was made stronger than the rest, and its inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (ὄμφαλος), with a knob at the end (κέρας). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with cedar oil. The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment (σίττυβος or σίλλυβος). The separate rolls were enclosed in a leather case (διφθέρα or φαινόλης, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number of them kept in a chest (κιβωτός or κίστη).

On the literature cf. also Paul Krüger, _Ueber die Verwendung von Papyrus und Pergament für die juristische Litteratur der Römer_, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section, viii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, _Archiv für Papyrus-Forschung und verwandte Gebiete_, Leipzig, Teubner. F. G. Kenyon, _Palaeography of Greek Papyri_. C. Haeberlin, _Griechische Papyri_, Leipzig, 1897: “Nearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and 1806 Papyrus Fragments were discovered in the year 1752 at Herculaneum, in the Villa of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the pupil and friend of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. Then twenty-five years later the soil of Egypt, that home and nursery of literature, opened for the first time to vouchsafe to us a Greek Papyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a series of discoveries often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It was, perchance, not the only one of its kind; but out of the fifty rolls accidentally discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the neighbourhood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the possession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by their unsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the resinous odour that arose from their smoking pyre.”

Paper.

The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Archduke Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible. Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, _De Chartae vulgaris seu lineae Origine_, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1767, have been superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have been introduced into Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went by the name of _pergameno de panno_ to distinguish it from the _pergameno de cuero_. In the Byzantine Empire it was called ξυλοχάρτιον or ξυλότευκτον, as being a vegetable product. It came afterwards to be known as χάρτης Δαμασκηνός, from its chief place of manufacture. The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence it passed into Italy. After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of Genoa. European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern manufacture chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, _e.g._, which were unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments of Mark’s Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were written on bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus. Massei said it was cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be parchment. In many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and paper is found. This is so in the Leicester Codex, in which the leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner sheets of a quire are of parchment, while the three intermediate sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, _The origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887, p. 14 ff.

[Sidenote: Lead.]

Lead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde sees a reference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix. 24. He holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed as run into letters cut out in the rock, which would be a very unlikely thing to do, and a practice for which there is no evidence. He would therefore correct the text so as to read “with an iron pen on lead.” Hesiod’s Ἔργα, _e.g._, was preserved on lead in the temple of the Muses on Helicon.[37] A leaden tablet from Hadrumet contains an incantation showing strong traces of O.T. influence.[38] At Rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed with the 80th Psalm, which was used as a charm to protect a vineyard.[39]

[Sidenote: Clay.]

Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Strack has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the _Realencyklopädie_ (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of N.T. writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of which we have now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this sort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen. Several of these contain portions of literary works such as those of Euripides.[40]

[Sidenote: Linen.]

Linen was also written on.[41] It was used, _e.g._, for the Sibylline Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus: _Orac. Sib._ ed. Alexandre, ii., 159, 178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found on linen.

Paul’s “books.”

On Paul’s “books and parchments,” see Zahn, _Kanon_ ii., 938 ff. I am not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La Bibliothèque de l’Apôtre Paul (Chrétien Évang., 1897, v. 224-227). In the _Theol. Tijdschrift_, 1898, p. 217, the view that the μεμβράναι Paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question. The most natural explanation, certainly, is that they were.

Pen.

The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. By “the wild beast of the reeds” (Ps. lxviii. 31) the Rabbis understood the reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by קנה, and they took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who decided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen.[42] Luther, moreover, was not without precedent in speaking of “governors with the pen” in Jud. v. 14, as the Syriac version renders it in the same way. In Ps. xlv. 2, the Hebrew עֵט is rendered κάλαμος (LXX), σχοῖνος (Aquila), and γραφεῖον (Symmachus). It is also rendered σχοῖνος by the translator of Jeremiah viii. 8, where Aquila has γραφεῖον. Σχοῖνος must therefore be added to the Bible names for pen. Γραφίς for γραφεῖον, mentioned alongside of ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος in Jer. xvii. 1, seems to belong to the Spanish-Greek of the Complutensian, but is really classic, as also its diminutive γραφίδιον. According to the Rabbis, pens were among the things God made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They were also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an invention of the Deity.[43] According to Antisthenes[44] or Democritus,[45] a young man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, requires to have a βιβλιαρίου καινου (= καὶ νοῦ) καὶ γραφείου καινου καὶ πινακιδίου καινου. In Cyprus, the stilus is called ἀλειπτήριον, and the γραμματοδιδάσκαλος in like manner διφθεράλοιφος.[46] In the recently discovered fragments of Diocletian’s _List of Wares_, the section περὶ πλούμου (goose, swan, and peacock feathers) is followed by that περὶ καλάμων καὶ μελανίου, and then by that περὶ ἐσθῆτος. Ink costs 12 drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian κάλαμοι[47] cost 4 drachmae; and κάλαμοι δευτ[έρας] φώρ[μης] the same. Baruch, the ἀναγνωστής, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the Gentiles, in order to write his letter to Jeremiah (ἀποστείλας εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν [v. l. διασπορᾶς] τῶν ἐθνῶν ἤνεγκε χάρτην καὶ μέλανα [v. l. μελαν]).[48] Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver stilus. Boniface, _e.g._, had one of that sort sent him from England.

[Sidenote: Reading and writing.]

The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writing taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim to be complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath’s _Concordance to the Septuagint_.

ἀκριβόω, ἀναγιγνώσκω, ἀνάγνωσις, ἀναγνωστής, ἀντίγραφον, ἀποκαλύπτειν; βιβλιαφόρος (βιβλιο-), βίβλινος, βιβλιογράφος (Est. iii. 13, Complut.), βιβλιοθήκη, βιβλίον (βυ-), βιβλιοφυλάκιον, βίβλος (βυ-); γαζά, γράμμα, γραμματεία, γραμματεύειν, γραμματεύς, γραμματικός, γραμματοεισαγωγεύς, γραπτόν, γράφειν (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, ἐπι-, κατα-, συν-), γραφεῖον (σιδηροῦν), γραφεὺς (ταχινός), γραφή (ἀνα-, ἀπο-, συν-), γραφικός, γραφίς; διφθέρωμα, διώκειν; εἴλημα, εἰς- or ἐγχαράττειν, ἐπιστολή, ἑρμηνεύω, ἐπιστάμενος γράμματα; θησαυροφύλαξ; κάλαμος (καλαμάριον, _vide_ Field’s _Hexapla_ on Ezek. ix. 2) κάστυ, κεφαλίς; μαχθάμ, μέλαν, μελανοδοχεῖον, μίλτος, μνημόσυνον, μολίβος, μολίβδινος; ξυρός; ὄνυξ ἀδαμάντινος, ὀξυγράφος; πινακίς, πινακίδιον, πτύξ, πτυχή, πυξίον; σελίς, σμίλη, στηλογραφία, σφραγίζειν, σφραγίς, σχοῖνος; τόμος (χαρτοῦ καινοῦ μεγάλου, Isa. viii. 1; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for τόπος), τεῦχος, τύπος; χάρτης, χαρτίον, χαρτηρία.

Diastole and hyphen.

Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous letters were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunderstanding, they employed the ὑποδιαστολή as the mark of division (ὅ, τι, _e.g._), and the ὑφ’ ἕν as the mark of combination (Διό[σκ]ουροι, not Διὸς κοῦροι). Such marks are also found in manuscripts of the Bible, in the Septuagint, _e.g._, in the case of proper names. It goes without saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as the copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hermas (Visio ii. 1) says of the book given him to copy μετεγραψάμην πάντα πρὸς γράμμα· οὐχ ηὕρισκον γὰρ τὰς συλλαβάς.[49] For two instructive mistakes in the Latin interlinear version of Codex Boernerianus see p. 77.

Breathings and accents.

Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the Bible as early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century. They were inserted by the first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch (Swete’s F), which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century by Ceriani. They seem to have been added to the Codex Vaticanus by the third hand, probably in the twelfth century, and do not always conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting on the rival readings _filiis_ and _porcina_, in Psalm xvi. 14, says: “quod (porcina) alii codices habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia diligentiora exemplaria per accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendi more dissolvunt, obscurius est” (ii. 504-5, in Lagarde’s _Probe einer neuen Ausgabe_, p. 40). Similarly, speaking of the difference between ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ and ῥάβδου αὑτοῦ, Gen. xlvii. 31, he says:—“fallit enim eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur sive _eius_ sive _suae_; sed accentus [= spiritus] dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt, in codicibus non contemnuntur” (iv. 53 ed. Lugd. 1586, cited by Scrivener, i. p. 47).

[Sidenote: Abbreviation.]

The practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like Θ̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Α̅Ν̅Ο̅Σ̅ goes back to very early times. So, too, does the use of letters as numerals, Ι for 10, etc.

[Sidenote: Divisions.]

In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the rule of beginning each new line with a consonant. A good many exceptions occur however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of which have been corrected by a later hand. These are indicated in the third volume of Swete’s edition of the LXX. A good instance of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12, where the Vaticanus and Marchalianus both originally had προσ ενεγκωσιν, which in the former is corrected to προ σενεγκωσιν, and in the latter to προσε νεγκωσιν. For examples from the O.T. portion of the Codex Vaticanus see Nestle’s _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20.

Stichometry.

Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are provided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better manuscripts of the classics, as _e.g._ Herodotus and Demosthenes. In the N.T. it is found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back to the recension of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex Vaticanus has copied, in several of the books of the O.T., the stichometric enumeration which he found in his original, and the numbers show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much matter in a line as the one he himself wrote. See Nestle, _Septuagintastudien_, ii. 20 f.; Lagarde, _Die Stichometrie der syrisch-hexaplarischen Uebersetzung des alten Testaments_ (_Mitteilungen_, iv. 205-208). On the stichometric list in the Codex Claromontanus of the Pauline Epistles (D_{2}), see p. 76.

American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek N.T. In Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke 19,209. Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the N.T. See Schaff’s _Companion_, pp. 57, 176.

Graux (_Revue de Philologie_, ii.) has counted not only the words but the letters in the various books. The numbers are given in Zahn’s _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 76. They are as follows:—

Letters. Stichoi.

Matthew, 89,295 2480

Mark, 55,550 1543

Luke, 97,714 2714

John, 70,210 1950

Acts, 94,000 2610

3 John, 1,100 31

Apocalypse, 46,500 1292

For Philemon, Zahn 1,567 44
gives

In this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or including the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincide as near as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters to the stichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 complete lines which my edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters, that is, only 7 fewer. In Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi, while my edition shows exactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. For stichometric calculations, therefore, this edition will prove very convenient.

For a “Table of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New Testament,” see Scrivener, i. 68; also Westcott, _Canon_, Appendix D, xix., xx.; _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B, 4.

[Sidenote: Cola and commata.]

The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. The length of the latter was regulated according to the space (space-lines), that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence (sense-lines). On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White, _De colis et commatibus codicis Amiatini et editionis nostrae_, in the _Epilogus_ to their edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the stichometry proper see _Ibid._, p. 736, _De stichorum numeris in euangeliis_.

Manuscripts de luxe.

Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen of Sheba, who herself could both read and write.[50] Mani inscribed characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was drawn out the writing became invisible.[51] On gold and silver writing among the Syrians see Zahn, _Tatian, Forschungen_, 108, n. 1; also R. Wessely, _Iconographie_ (_Wiener Studien_, xii. 2, 259-279). The earliest mention of this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle of Aristeas,[52] σὺν ... ταῖς διαφόροις διφθέραις, ἐν αἷς [ἦν] ἡ νομοθεσία γεγραμμένη χρυσογραφίᾳ τοῖς Ἰουδαϊκοῖς γράμμασι, θαυμασίως εἰργασμένου τοῦ ὑμένος καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα συμβολῆς ἀνεπαισθήτου κατεσκευασμένης. In Alexander’s copy of the Pentateuch the name of God was written in gold letters.[53]

On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing see Chrysostom, _Hom. 32 in Joannem_: σπουδῆς περὶ τὴν τῶν ὑμένων λεπτότητα καὶ τὸ τῶν γραμμάτων κάλλος. Ephraem Syrus commended this Christian munificence, as is pointed out in the _Histor. Polit. Blätter_, 84, 2, 104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum on Ps. xlv. 10.

The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived from that in Jerome’s Commentary on Job, and he founds on this an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle.[54] In the Martyrium of Qardagh the Persian, particular mention is made of the remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment (σωμάτιον) on which he wrote his epistles.[55]

For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not only of rapid writers (ταχυγράφοι) but also of girls who could write beautifully (καλλιγράφοι). Cassiodorus pleads—qui emendare praesumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut potius ab _Antiquariis_ scriptae fuisse judicentur.[56] We also find him making proposals for expensive bindings in the _De Inst._, c. 30, a passage which, according to Springer,[57] has been overlooked in the literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.

On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, _Ueber die mit Gold auf Purpur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamiltonschen Bibliothek_, in the _Berliner Sitz.-Ber._, 7th March 1889, xiii. 143-156. Cf. _Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift_, 1889, 33, 34. This manuscript purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but was rather from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had the four Gospels written with the finest gold. Boniface requested his English friends to send him the Epistles of Paul written with gold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded Germans (Ep. 32, p. 99), a fact of which Gustav Freitag makes use in his _Ingo und Ingraban_, p. 476. (See _Die Christliche Welt_, 1888, 22.) _Cf._ also the manuscripts of Theodulf in Paris and Puy (see below, p. 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of gold and silver bindings or clasps (firmacula) and also of different colours.

[Sidenote: Illustration.]

Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manuscripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if H. Kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes Laertius, ii. 3, 8 (= Clem., _Strom._, i. 78, p. 364, Potter): πρῶτος δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ βιβλίον ἐξέδωκε σὺν γραφῇ (“with a picture”: formerly read as συγγραφῆς). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the obscene poems of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to exist of the works of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the botanist Dioscorides, of the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer Ptolemy. A description of the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by Victor Schultze in the _Daheim_, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good facsimiles. On the horses in the chariot of Elijah in a Greek manuscript of the ninth century in the Vatican Library, and on the pictures of the horsemen in the codex of Joshua also contained there, see F. aus’m Weerth in the _Jahrbuch des Vereins von Altertums-Freunden im Rheinland_, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.

Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus—_i.e._ a manuscript of the Old Latin Bible of large size—which contained pictures of the Tabernacle and the Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius entitled _Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex antiquitatibus Ebraeorum et Christianorum illustrata cum figuris_, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the same author, _Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen_, Lips. 1738, also _Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata_, Lips., 1741. See also Georg Thiele, _De antiquorum libris pictis capita quattuor_, _Marburg_, 1897.

Palimpsests.

Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quinisextum, 680-681), in its 68th canon, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐξεῖναί τινι τῶν ἁπάντων βιβλία τῆς παλαιᾶς καὶ νέας διαθήκης διαφθείρειν, forbids the sale of old manuscripts of the Bible to the βιβλιοκάπηλοι or the μυρεψοί, or to any persons whatever.[58] There was naturally a special aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews; but yet there were discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of Old Cairo, fragments of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had been afterwards employed to receive Jewish writing. Parchments of this sort were at first used only for rough drafts and such like, instead of wax tablets from which the writing could be erased again.

Punctuation.

A good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in Lk. i. 35, on which see p. 201. Compare also Lk. xxi. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 5, where Lachmann punctuates καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος. By a different punctuation in Heb. i. 9, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort make ὁ Θεός vocative and nominative respectively. In the former case the Messiah is God, in the other God is the one who anoints him. This difference was not observed at first by O. v. Gebhardt. Similarly there is a difference between the text and the margin of Westcott and Hort in verse 8, where by the insertion or omission of the two commas before and after ὁ Θεός the meaning is either that Messiah is God or that God is Messiah’s throne. Considering the importance of such marks of division, the rule laid down by Ephraem Syrus in the year 350, and again emphasized by Bengel and Lagarde, should be carefully attended to in the New Testament: εἰ κέκτησαι βιβλίον, εὐστιχὲς κτῆσαι αὐτό· μήποτε εὑρεθῇ ἐν αὐτῷ πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι ἢ μεταγράφοντι (see Nestle, _Bengel als Gelehrter_, p. 24). Compare also what Chrysostom says regarding punctuation on Mt. viii. 9: τινὲς δὲ καὶ οὕτως ἀναγινώσκουσι τουτὶ τὸ χωρίον· εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος ὤν, καὶ μεταξὺ στίξαντες ἐπάγουσιν· ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ στρατιώτας. See also Victor (or whoever it is) on Mk. xvi. 9. On the change of the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see below, pp. 204(7), 276. J. A. Robinson thinks it probable that ὁ Ἀγαπητός is a separate title of the Messiah, and would point ὁ υἱός μου, ὁ Ἀγαπητός in Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 on the authority of the _Ascensio Esaiae_ and the Old Syriac (see Hastings’ _Bible Dictionary_, ii. 501).

Contents.

On the contents of Bible manuscripts see Zahn, _GK._ i. 62 f. According to him Jerome’s Old Testament was in 14 volumes. In addition to some entire Bibles Cassiodorus had the Scriptures written out in 9 codices. Of these vol. VII. comprised the Gospels, VIII. the Epistles, and IX. the Acts and Apocalypse. Leontius speaks of 6 books of the New Testament, of which probably I. was Mt. and Mk., II. Lk. and Jn., III. Acts, IV. Catholic Epistles, V. Pauline Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a rule the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles made two codices.

In cod. א we find that the different parts of the New Testament display a different type of text, from which we may conclude that the codex was copied, not from a single manuscript but from several. Similarly, the singular type of text exhibited by cod. Δ in Mark would show that this codex, or that from which it was copied, was transcribed from different rolls or codices, each containing one Gospel. See Zahn, _GK._ i. 63.

Bibliotheca.

On the designation _Bibliotheca_ and _Pandectes_ for Bible manuscripts, see Zahn, _GK._ i. 65. On τεῦχος, _ibid._ 67. He informs us that the earliest mention of a Christian _bibliotheca_ and its _armaria_ is in the heathen protocol of the year 304, in the _Gesta apud Zenophilum_ given in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the Readers. In Ruinart’s _Acta Saturnini_ a certain Ampelius is mentioned as “custos legis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus conservator.” From Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at that time the few existing copies of the Scriptures were in the custody of the clergy, and were only to be perused in their presence. (_Zusätze zu einer nötigen Antwort._ Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this point see Zahn, _GK._ i. 140.

(_a._) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.

[Sidenote: א]