Chapter VIII: Part II: of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment (3)

tol. Written in the eighth century: this manuscript, which was written by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville to John, Bishop of Cordova, who presented it to the See of Seville in 988: it was afterwards at Toledo, and is now at Madrid. It was collated for the Sixtine Recension by Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use. (T in W.-W.)

In addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as cited by Wordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regularly used by them, and a great number are cited occasionally. For these reference must be made to their edition, and for further particulars to Berger’s incomparable work.

On the Latin Versions compare _TiGr._, 948-1108, 1313, and
especially Scrivener. The chapter on _The Latin Versions_ in the
Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J.
White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also _Urt._, 85-118,
which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the
_Old Latin Versions_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii.
47-62.

1. G. Riegler, _Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata_, Sulzbach, 1820;
Lean. van Ess, _Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im
Allgemeinen und zunächst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret_,
Tübingen, 1824; Kaulen, _Geschichte der Vulgata_, Mainz, 1868;
Berger, _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du
moyen âge_, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the
history of the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).

2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, _Die Lateinischen
Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus_,
Munich, 1879; Zycha, _Bemerkungen zur Italafrage_, in the _Eranos
Vindobonensis_, 1893, 177-184; Burkitt, _The Old Latin and the
Itala_ (_Texts and Studies_, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).

3. On the language see Rönsch (d. 1888), _Itala und Vulgata_, 2nd
Edition, 1875; also _Die ältesten lateinischen-Bibelübersetzungen
nach ihrem Werthe für die lateinische Sprachwissenschaft_, by the
same writer in the _Collectanea Philologa_, Bremen, 1891, 1-20;
Kaulen, _Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematische Darstellung ihres
Sprachcharakters_, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, _De Bibliorum S. Vulgatæ
Editionis Graecitate_, Quedlinburg, 1891.

4. Editions of the Text:—Among the earlier works the most important
is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the Old
Testament at least, _Bibliorum sacrorum Latinæ Versiones antiquæ,
seu Vetus Italica, et cæteræ quæcunque in codicibus MSS. et
antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri
Sabatier_, 3 vols. folio,[105] Rheims, 1743. Jos. Bianchini
(Blanchinus), _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, 2 vols. folio, Rome, 1749
(copies now cost about £4). After a long interval work in this field
has been resumed in the _Old Latin Biblical Texts_, published at the
Clarendon Press, Oxford, of which four parts have appeared:—1. _The
Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain MS._ (g_{1}),
_now numbered Lat. 11553 in the National Library at Paris, with
Introduction and five Appendices, edited by John Wordsworth, D.D._,
1883 (6/-). 2. _Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and
St. Matthew from the Bobbio MS._ (k), _now numbered G. VII. 15 in
the National Library at Turin, together with other fragments of the
Gospels from six MSS. in the Libraries of St. Gall, Coire, Milan,
and Berne (usually cited as n, o, p, a_{2}, s, and t). Edited, with
the aids of Tischendorf’s Transcripts and the printed Texts of
Ranke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with two facsimiles, by J. Wordsworth,
D.D., ... W. Sanday, D.D., ... and H. J. White, M.A._, 1886 (21/-).
3. _The Four Gospels, from the Munich MS._ (q), _now numbered Lat.
6224 in the Royal Library at Munich, with a Fragment from St. John
in the Hof-Bibliothek at Vienna (Cod. Lat. 502). Edited, with the
aid of Tischendorf’s Transcript (under the direction of the Bishop
of Salisbury), by H. J. White,_ _M.A._, 1888 (12/6). 4. _Portions of
the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistle of St. James, and of the
First Epistle of St. Peter from the Bobbio Palimpsest_ (s), _now
numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Edited, with the
aid of Tischendorf’s and Belsheim’s printed Texts, by H. J. White,
M.A., with a Facsimile_, 1897 (5/-). (See notice in the _Expository
Times_, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)

5. Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate is noticed by
Berger in the _Bull. Crit._, 1899, viii. 141-144. It may be added
here, as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to
the later history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one
representative of a recension so important as that of the University
of Paris in the thirteenth century might have been collated, and
perhaps also the first printed edition, “the forty-two line” Bible.

On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, _Ein
Jubiläum der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892_, in
_Marginalien und Materialien_, 1893; also printed separately.

An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published by
M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above, p. 25),
entitled _Novum Testamentum Vulgatae Editionis. Ex Vaticanis
Editionibus earumque Correctorio critice edidit Michael Hetzenauer._
Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may be
made to the same writer’s _Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik auf
katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
offziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt._ Innsbruck, 1900.

(_c._) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Next in importance to the Syriac versions from the East and the Latin from the West are the =Egyptian= versions from the South. Here too we find not one early version but several.

[Sidenote: Dialects.]

What used till lately to be called Coptic[106] is merely one of the dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was divided. And here we must distinguish three main branches—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and the Middle Egyptian.

[Sidenote: Bohairic.]

(1) =Bohairic=[107] is the name given to the dialect that was spoken in the Bohaira—_i.e._ the district by the sea and therefore Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was the principal dialect, and being that used for ecclesiastical purposes over the whole country, and, moreover, that with which European scholars first became acquainted, the versions written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The term Memphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect, because it was not till the eleventh century that the Patriarchate was transferred to Cairo—_i.e._ the district of Memphis, and in early times a different dialect was spoken there.

[Sidenote: Sahidic.]

(2) =Sahidic= is the name used to describe the dialect of Upper Egypt. It is sometimes and not improperly spoken of as the Thebaic in distinction to the Memphitic.

[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]

(3) Under the =Middle Egyptian=[108] we have to distinguish—

(_a_) The _Fayumic_, spoken in the Fayum—_i.e._ the district to the S.W. of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated from the valley of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert. It was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries were made which have enriched the libraries and museums of Europe.

(_b_) The _Middle Egyptian proper_, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect which has its home on the site of ancient Memphis.

(_c_) The dialect of _Achmim_, which preserves a more primitive form of early Egyptian than any of those already referred to.

In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius specifies three dialects of the Coptic language—the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third which he says was already extinct, and to which he gives the name of Bashmuric; but whether this last is to be identified with the dialects included above under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.

(1.) _The Bohairic Version._

[Sidenote: Bohairic.]

This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first used for the New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who was indebted for his knowledge of it to Marshall. It was afterwards employed by Mill for his edition of 1707. It was first published in 1716 by Wilkins (or rather Wilke), a Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, “Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum.” His edition was accompanied with a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel obtained a few particulars regarding this version from La Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the Gospels by Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death the Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boetticher, afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of de Lagarde. About the same time Tattam prepared a wholly uncritical edition of the entire New Testament, including the Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version.[109] Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version originated in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older foundation. The order of the New Testament books was originally: (1) the Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2) the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the seven Catholic Epistles, and (4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic manuscripts are preserved in the libraries of Europe, and from these an edition has been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).

The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded by present critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called Western additions.

(2.) _The Sahidic Version._

[Sidenote: Sahidic.]

It was a long time before this version attracted any attention. In his New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manuscripts, “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa,” and Woide in 1778 announced his intention of editing certain fragments of the New Testament “iuxta interpretationem superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur,” which were afterwards published by Ford in 1799. At the close of last century and the beginning of this, various other fragments were issued by Tuki, Mingarelli, Münter, Zoega, and Engelbreth, but it was not till more recent times that really important parts of the Old and New Testaments were published by Amélineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero, Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of the Apocalypse.[110] This version, like the former, contained the entire New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, and originally exhibited the Gospels in the same order—John, Matthew, Mark, Luke. Hebrews, however, stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek original was quite different from that of the Bohairic version. (See Plate VIII.)

(3.) _The Middle Egyptian Versions._

[Sidenote: Middle Egyptian.]

Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions of Matthew and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and Hebrews in the Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bashmuric dialect, were first published by Zoega in 1809, by Engelbreth in 1811, and especially by Bouriant (1889) and Crum (1893).

Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the _Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus des Erzherzogs Rainer_.

In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20 are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet, and these have been published by Crum. Whether these fragments are really parts of a separate version, or merely dialectical modifications of the Sahidic, is not quite certain.[111]

As to the =date= of these versions we have no definite information. It has been understood from certain passages in the Life of St. Anthony, who was born about the year 250, that in his boyhood he heard the Gospel read in Church in the language of Egypt, but that need not imply the existence of a written version, as the translation may have been made by a reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century, however, versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the South that the first attempts at translation were made. Our oldest known manuscripts, a Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii., and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude 17-20, date from the fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems to have been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a question requiring further investigation.

A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian versions is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules, the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism of the New Testament. For the Sahidic version in particular represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in the West, and looked upon as the outcome of Western corruption and licence, whereas it may really bear the most resemblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its agreement with the text of Codex D is remarkable. One might instance, _e.g._, the mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the insertion of the Golden Rule in its negative form in xv. 20, 29, the relation of the vision in xvi. 10, and the description of the stone which twenty men could not roll away in Luke xxiii. 53, all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic manuscript. The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented in European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule in the Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs—_i.e._ according to an era reckoned from August or September 284 A.D.

_TiGr._, 859-893. Scrivener^4, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with
additions by Headlam. H. Hyvernat, _Étude sur les Versions Coptes de
la Bible_ (_Revue Biblique_, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1
(1897) 48-74.) _Urt._, 144-147. Forbes Robinson, _Egyptian
Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. (1898)
668-673. W. E. Crum, _Coptic Studies_ from the _Egypt Exploration
Fund’s Report_ for 1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner’s
edition eclipses all others. It is entitled, _The Coptic Version of
the New Testament in the Northern dialect, otherwise called
Memphitic or Bohairic, with Introduction, Critical Apparatus, and
literal English Translation. Vol. I. Introduction, Matthew and
Mark_, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1898; _Vol. II. Luke
and John_, 548 pp., 1898. See notice by Hyvernat in the _Revue
Biblique_, 1899, pp. 148-150, and also W. E. Crum, _lib. cit._,
where reference is also made to the _Manuscrits Coptes au Musée ...
à Leide_, 1897. As Horner’s edition as yet only covers the Gospels,
the remaining portions of the New Testament must still be sought in
the two parts published by Lagarde after Schwartze’s death, _Acta
Apostolorum coptice_ (1852), and _Epistulae Novi Testamenti coptice_
(1852). On Brugsch’s _Recension_ in the _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vii. (1853) pp. 115-121, see
_ibid._, p. 456, and Lagarde, _Aus dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben_,
pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam’s Bohairic-Arabic edition was published by
the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in
Tuki’s _Rudimenta_ in 1778, and Woide’s editio princeps, announced
in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799.
Amélineau’s _Fragments Thébaines inédits du Nouveau Testament_ were
published in vols. xxiv.-xxvi. of the _Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Sprache_ (1886-1888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse were
issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his
_Studia Theologica_ (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and
Pseudepigraphical writings have also been discovered in recent
times, as, for example, the _Acta Pauli_ in a manuscript of the
seventh century, written in Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian
vocalisation. These are to be published by A. Schmidt. See
_Addenda_, p. xv.

See also Amélineau, _Notice des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque
Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament_, in
the _Athenæum_, No. 3601, p. 599.

The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the criticism of the text. There are, however, one or two others which, though inferior in value, are still interesting. Among these is—

(_d._) THE GOTHIC VERSION.

[Sidenote: Gothic.]

This is the work of =Ulfilas=—_i.e._ Wölflin—a Cappadocian by descent, who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first Bishop of the Goths.[112] While the tribe was still settled in the Crimea, he is said to have invented an alphabet, and translated both the Old and the New Testament for their use. In the Old Testament Ulfilas followed the Septuagint according to the Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), which circulated in the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament the text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of Latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the version, and which may either have existed from the first or been introduced at a later time, relate at most, perhaps, to matters of orthography.

(1) The Gothic version first became known through the so-called Codex Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella’s secretary, and Mercator the geographer saw in the Monastery of Werden in the sixteenth century. It was afterwards seen at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it was brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by Marshall de la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited in the library at Upsala, where it has since remained. Ten leaves were stolen from the manuscript between 1821 and 1834, but restored, after many years, by the thief upon his deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It now comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments of the four Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. It was published for the first time in 1665, from a transcript made by Derrer ten years before.

(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbüttel palimpsest already referred to as Q of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the Old Latin gue of Paul (see p. 118), contains some forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans. It was first published in 1762.

(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like Codex Carolinus, they are in all probability from the Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the Pauline Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations from Hebrews are also found in a theological work. No portion of Acts, (Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse has as yet been discovered. Editions of the Gothic version have been published by Gabelentz and Löbe (1836-1843), Stamm (1858), Heyne ^5(1872) ^9(1896), Bernhardt (Halle, 1875, 1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by Müller and Höppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.

LITERATURE.—On Ulfilas, see Scott, _Ulfilas, the Apostle of the
Goths_, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, _The Goths_, in the “Story of the
Nations” Series, 1888. Gwatkin, _Studies of Arianism_, 1882. _Urt._,
pp. 119-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, _Ulfilas
und die gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel_, in Westermann’s _Illustr.
Monatshefte_, Dec. 1892, 403-407; Jostes, _Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas
und der Uebertritt der Gothen zum Arianismus_ (_Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives
383 as the date of Ulfilas’s death. On the other side, see
Kauffmann, _Der Arianismus des Wulfila_ in the _ZfdPhil._, xxx.
(1897) 93-113; Luft, _Die arianischen Quellen über Wulfila_ in the
_ZfdAltert._, xlii. 4; Vogt, _Zu Wulfilas Bekenntnis und dem Opus
imperfectum_, _ibid._ Kauffmann, _Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der
gotischen Bibelübersetzung_ in the _ZfdPhil._; (ii.) _das N. T._
(xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) _das gotische Matthäusevangelium und
die Itala_; (iv.) _die griechische Vorlage des gotischen
Johannesevangeliums_ (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the same
author, _Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis epistula
de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang der Dissertatio
Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben._ Strassburg, 1899. P.
Batiffol, _De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la version
gothique des écritures_ (_Revue Biblique_, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572),
see also _ThLz._, 1900, No. i.; _LCbl._, 1900, No. 28. On the
relation of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see
Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. p. 131 ff., and
compare _Addenda_, p. xv.

On the Gothic language and writing, see Douse, _Introduction to the
Gothic of Ulfilas_. London, 1886; the grammars of Braune and Skeat,
and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt; see also
Luft, _Studien zu den ältesten germanischen Alfabeten_, Gütersloh,
1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek
alphabet and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas’s own invention. On R.
Löwe’s _Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer_ (Halle, 1896), see the
story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (_Th. St. und
Kr._, 1897, 784 ff.).

To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken directly from the Greek or influenced by one or other of those already described is still subject of dispute.

(_e._) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.

According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the Ethiopic version of the New Testament was made from the Greek previous to the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this as correct, but Gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or seventh century, and thinks that traces are discernible of Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the usual twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an Appendix consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books called the Synodos, so that the Ethiopian Church reckons in all thirty-five books in the New Testament. In later times the version was undoubtedly corrected from Arabic and Coptic texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in 1548-1549, but neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth.

At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late origin, exist in the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the oldest is preserved in Paris. It dates from the thirteenth century, and exhibits the Gospels in an unrevised text.

LITERATURE.—See _TiGr._, 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written
by Margoliouth. _Urt._, 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles,
_Ethiopic Version_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, i.
791-793. C. Conti Rossini, _Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle
Sacre Scritture in Etiopico_, in the _Z. für Assyriologie_, x. 2, 3
(1895). The view of Lagarde (_Ankündigung_, 1882, p. 28; _cf._ also
_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, lxi. 113), that this version may have
been made from the Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is
now generally rejected.

(_f._) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the “Queen of the Versions.”

Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence was supreme in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region first received the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the form of a translation from the Syriac. But in the year 433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning from the Synod of Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from Constantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alexandria, to have translated it into Armenian. According to another account this was done by St. Sahak (390-428) about the year 406. The first edition of the Armenian New Testament was brought out in Amsterdam in the year 1666[113] by Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years previously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a defective manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan supplied from the Vulgate. A better edition was published in 1789 by Zohrab, who used twenty manuscripts, and especially a Cilician Codex of the year 1310. He was of opinion that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before the eighth century. Zohrab’s text was collated for Tregelles by Rieu, whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his editions.

The Armenian manuscripts display variations of several sorts. In some John’s Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in others it is followed by the Apocryphal “Rest of St. John.” The Apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfth century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New Testament, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of the other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline Epistles, with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In Moscow there is a manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one written in the year 986 and bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century. In the last-mentioned Codex the words, “of Ariston the Presbyter,” are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows. (_See Plate IX._) We learn from this, what is evidently correct, viz., that the present conclusion of Mark’s Gospel is due to a certain Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion, the teacher of Papias in the second century. The earlier Armenian version also contained the two verses Luke xxii. 43, 44, which were omitted in the later.

LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C.
Conybeare, _Armenian Versions of N. T._, in Hastings’ _Bible
Dictionary_, i. 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, c. v.;
_The Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius_, in
_Texts and Studies_, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see _Expositor_,
1894, p. 241, and below, p. 295.

(_g._) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.

This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought to have been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though it may also be derived from the Armenian. It contains the pericope adulteræ (John vii. 53-viii. 11), but places it immediately after ch. vii. 44, which is the more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from vii. 44 onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first printed at Moscow in 1743.

Scrivener, ii. 156-158; re-written by F. C. Conybeare. _TiGr._, 922
f.

(_h._) THE ARABIC VERSIONS.

Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others from the Syriac and the Coptic, while there are also manuscripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at Alexandria in the thirteenth century, The New Testament was even cast into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran. As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars quoting various passages of the New Testament, particularly the sayings regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13, which they understood of Mohammed. He himself, however, knew the Gospel narrative from oral tradition only. The oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at Sinai, written in the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the text of Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. 1-ii. 9, in the _Studia Sinaitica_, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by Lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of various readings were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, this last, _e.g._, being adduced in support of a reading hitherto found only in D, one Old Latin (g), and the Lewis-Syriac: οὔκ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι ... παρ’ οἷς οὔκ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the Gospels appeared at Rome in 1591. [Sidenote: Other versions.] In common with the remaining versions of the New Testament, _Persic_, _Old High German_, _Anglo-Saxon_, _Bohemian_, and _Slavonic_, these secondary Arabic versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point of view of the history of language and culture, but they are also valuable here and there for the restoration of the original text. In the present work, however, we cannot enter more fully into them.

LITERATURE.—_TiGr._, 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. _Urt._,
150-155. F. C. Burkitt, _Arabic Versions_, in Hastings’ _Dictionary
of the Bible_, i. 136-138, where see literature. Burkitt thinks that
the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript
formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as Cod.
Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in _TiGr._, which is generally
assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter,
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac.
Fragments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles,
are all that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscripts
of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the
Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic
manuscript cited as Θ^h, of which only four leaves have been
preserved (see above, p. 72). On a Græco-Arabic MS. connected with
the Ferrar Group (211^{ev}), see Lake in the _Journal of Theological
Studies_, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied
by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the
year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions.
The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria,
by Hibat Allâh ibn el-Assâl, and a second towards the end of the
thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde’s edition are
derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic
Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered
154 in Mrs. Gibson’s Catalogue, is published by her in _Studia
Sinaitica_, vii. (1899).

For the remaining versions of the N. T., see Scrivener, ii. pp.
158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor
versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings’ _Bible
Dictionary_, under the general heading of Versions. See also _Urtext
und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_.

3. QUOTATIONS.

Our third source of material for the restoration of the text of the New Testament is =Quotations= found in other books. These are of great value, because they represent, for the most part, definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them, and also because a large number of them belong to a time from which no codices have come down to us. The value of their testimony depends, of course, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 32)—viz., that the author quoted accurately, and the copyist copied faithfully, and the editor edited correctly. Quotations made by _Jewish_ writers as well as by Christian will fall to be considered, only it is doubtful if in their case we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17. So, too, will the quotations made by _pagan opponents_ of Christianity, particularly those of _Celsus_ in the second century, and of the Emperor Julian. But here again we are not in possession of their complete works, which can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the Apologists.[114] The books of those Christian Churches which were isolated from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell us.

Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was not so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy printed editions.[115] In the case of longer passages and verbal quotations generally, indolent copyists were sometimes content with simply adding καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. In the _Apostolic Constitutions_, ii. 22, for example, where the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the copyist of a certain manuscript,[116] after writing the opening words from Κύριε down to δικαίου, omitted all the rest, amounting to thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς εὐχῆς ἃ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε. (See further, _Apost. Const._, i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8, 23; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 11; 29, 2). This, however, is not without its parallel in modern times. As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus. Another editor in Vienna, in preparing an edition of Cyprian’s Works, preferred those very manuscripts in which the Scriptural quotations had been accommodated to the current text of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an author several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, _e.g._, the context agrees with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural passages like the _Testimonia_ of Cyprian and the so-called _Speculum_ of Augustine are also taken directly from manuscripts of the Bible.

Francis Lucas of Brügge was the first to explore the writings of the Church Fathers for the express purposes of textual criticism. They are referred to in four notes found in the Complutensian Polyglot. In his edition of 1516, Erasmus cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses—Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen, Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been rendered for Tertullian by Rönsch, and for Origen by Griesbach. For Augustine, Lagarde is specially to be mentioned. Most of the Fathers were thus cared for by Burgon, who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen large volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after his death. The only pity is that the works of those very Fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily edited. All the more welcome, therefore, is the appearance of the Vienna Academy’s _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, of which forty volumes have been issued since 1867, and of the Berlin Academy’s edition of the Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of Origen have made their appearance.[117]

The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of the _Canon_. That is to say, their evidence must be taken simply as showing what New Testament writings they were acquainted with, and here the _argumentum ex silentio_ is to be applied with caution. This is the case with _Barnabas_ and _Clement_[118] in the first century, and _Ignatius_ and _Hermas_ in the first half of the second. Even with the much more extensive writings of _Justin_, there is still considerable dispute—_e.g._, as to what Gospels he made use of.[119] _Irenæus_ of Lyons is valuable on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be particularly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testament with him from Smyrna[120] and if his writings were extant in Greek, and not, as is the case with most of them, in Latin only. In Egypt _Clement of Alexandria_ holds a prominent place, but by far the most distinguished of all is the great Biblical scholar of antiquity, _Origen_ (d. 248). Already we find these writers appealing to manuscripts, and distinguishing them by such epithets as “good,” “old,” “emended,” “most,” or “few.” In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers their locality is an important consideration, whether Antioch, Cæsarea (_Eusebius_), Egypt, Constantinople (_Chrysostom_), or Cappadocia (_Theodore_), etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the so-called =Catenæ=, or continuous commentaries, in which the interpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously like the links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in these Catenæ that the words of one writer are cited under the name of another. The evidence afforded by the writings of the Heretics is no less valuable, if we except those passages, which are not numerous, in which they are understood to have altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of _Marcion_ have been preserved for the most part in Latin by _Tertullian_. They have recently been collected and restored by Zahn. The Latin translator of Irenæus also belongs, in all probability, to the time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This unknown translator seems to have preserved the Scriptural quotations of Irenæus with greater fidelity than the later Church Fathers who cite them in the Greek. Of Latin writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian, those of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are _Cyprian_, _Hilary of Poictiers_, _Ambrose of Milan_, _Augustine_ and his opponent _Pelagius_, and for the Apocalypse, _Tyconius_ and _Primasius_. From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected no fewer than 29540 quotations from the New Testament in addition to 13276 from the Old.

Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian writers. It is only with their assistance, _e.g._, that it has been possible to restore one of our oldest authorities—the Diatessaron of Tatian—which dates from the second century.

(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature of
manuscripts and printed editions.

We find, _e.g._, in the voluminous commentary of the so-called
Ambrosiaster,[121] the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii.
9:—“Eye hath not seen, etc.”—“hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae
in apocryphis.” In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and
all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur—_i.e._ prior
to the year 1690—have “in Esaia propheta aliis verbis.”

Compare also what Zahn says in his _Einleitung_, ii. 314. “A
comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered
more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written
by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the
O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in the
N. T. _Cf._, also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah xii. 10,
found in John xix. 37.” The same writer says (p. 465): “In the
Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manuscripts
save one assert the peaceful death of John (ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀνεπαύσατο),
but this one says the very opposite, μαρτυρίου κατηξίωται, and goes
on to make certain other additions.” On the other hand, we must not
forget in this connection the testimony preserved by Eusebius to the
scrupulous care taken by Irenæus for the propagation of his writings
in the identical form in which he wrote them. According to that
historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works the following
note:—Ὁρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, ἧς ἔρχεται
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, ἵνα ἀντιβάλλῃς ὃ μετεγράψω καὶ κατορθώσῃς
αὐτὸ πρὸς τὸ ἀντίγραφον τοῦτο ὅθεν μετεγράψω ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον
τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψῃς καὶ θήσεις ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.[122]

(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the
unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited.
How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by the
discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations in
the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see _Urt._, 76, 94; Preuschen,
in the _ThLz._ for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin
edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural
quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means
of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages from
the first volume of Origen recently published will show this, and
prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been hitherto.
This first volume of Koetschau’s new edition of Origen opens with
the _Exhortation to Martyrdom_ (εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικός), a work
which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of previous
editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel written in the
sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself a copy, and a
not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript written in the
year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen (P = suppl.
grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not transcribed with
sufficient accuracy, or the print was not superintended with
sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first printed
edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript (M = Venetus
Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now established that the
writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great number of
passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision of
Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, _e.g._, in citing a passage
gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The
_Panegyric_ of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this
manuscript omitting about 100 out of some 1200 lines of print. And
these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for
our Patristic quotations! To take an example:

On τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh
edition gave τοὺς ἐμούς (= my followers) as the correct reading,
observed that this reading, without λόγους, was supported by Dael
Or., i. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness
with which the quotation from Origen is employed here—sed præcedit
ουτε επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους λογους αυτου. But if we turn up this
passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 9
ff.): ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον η τους οικειους αυτου η τους λογους
αυτου, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order
frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark
viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as
well as the words in the context, η τους οικειους αυτου. But now
everything is in order. The words ουτ’ επαισχυντεον αυτον refer to
οστις δ’ αν απαρνησηται με in Matt. x. 33; η τους οικειους αυτου to
ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους in Luke ix. 26; and η τους
λογους αυτου to ος γαρ αν επαισχυνθη με και τους εμους λογους, in
Mark viii. 38. So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions,
Tischendorf was obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen’s
context and his peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new
edition serves to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the
same time that we can accept it on the authority of this very
passage, as against a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the
verse in Luke is found in the newly-employed manuscript also with
the words τους εμους λογους. That the editor should have put λογους
in the first passage within brackets, or at least have pointed out
the discrepancy between it and the quotation further down, would
have been too much to expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen
gave no manner of ground for doing so; it is the duty of those who
investigate the Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to
such things. But there are also passages where the editor has
actually gone in the face of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered
the text of his Scriptural quotations, having evidently allowed
himself to be influenced by the printed text of the N. T., and
paying too little respect to the manuscripts.

An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke ix.
26, τους εμους = my followers, which is now established for Origen,
is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by
three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian
Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the
Sinai-Syriac could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis; see
_Some Pages_, p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the
passage in Origen’s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue’s
edition): ο μεν γαρ Ματθαιος ανεγραφε λεγοντα τον κυριον ... ο δε
Λουκας ... ο δε Μαρκος· ἀββᾶ ὁ πατὴρ, δυνατά σοι πάντα· παρένεγκε
κ.τ.λ. The passage is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly
with the earlier printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark
xiv. 36. But in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus
shows us, the Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows
elsewhere, reads the words in the order δυνατὰ πάντα σοί, which is
exactly the order of the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no
other Greek manuscript with the solitary exception of the cursive
473.[123] But there are even passages where Koetschau follows the
printed text of the N. T. in the scriptural quotations in despite of
both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt.
x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts after πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε the clause
δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσητε from Matt. x. 19, on
the supposition that these words may have dropped out of the
archetype of M P on account of the homoioteleuton. But they are also
omitted in Cod. D of the N. T. And this, moreover, is not the only
point of agreement between this manuscript and the text given in
this quotation. There is, _e.g._, the omission of δέ in v. 17, the
reading παραδώσουσιν in v. 19, which Koetschau has altered to the
more grammatical παραδῶσιν, again without sufficient reason and in
defiance of both his manuscripts, and the omission of ὑμῶν in v. 20,
of which there is no mention in Tischendorf (see the Collation of D
in my _Supplementum_). Origen also agrees with D, though not
verbally, in reading κἂν ἐκ ταύτης διώκωσιν φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην
further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to me to have
unnecessarily inserted τὴν, which is omitted in his principal
manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where Origen
agrees with D in reading φέρωσιν (Luke xii. 11) instead of
εἰσφέρωσιν, read by our critical editions on the authority of א B L
X, or προσφέρωσιν by the _textus receptus_ with A Q R, etc. Both
concur, also, in the omission of the first ἢ τί in the same verse.

What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with
Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript
discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript
confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had χριστὸν
and not κύριον or θεὸν in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we
did not know—viz. that χριστὸν was the only reading known to Origen,
and that κύριον in the _Synodical Epistle_ addressed to Paul of
Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_,
iii.^2 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for
χριστόν. This is made out by Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180,
who concludes by saying that Clement, _Ecl. Proph._, 49, should not
be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that κύριον ought never again
to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put κύριον in their text
without so much as mentioning χριστόν in the margin, or among the
Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words
(Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a
consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let κύριον
stand in the text, but I have put χριστόν in the margin, as
Tregelles also did. In this instance the _textus receptus_ is
actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is
again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered
testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327),
pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly evident, as any
discerning person might have known, that many important readings
which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long
prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also
among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official
recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of
Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the
editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the
employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with
risks. See Koetschau, _Bibelcitate bei Origenes_, _ZfwTh._, 1900,
pp. 321-378.

(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a
_Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels_, on the ground of
Burgon’s Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this work
(Matthew v. 44) is given in his _Present State of the Textual
Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels_, which was printed for
private circulation, and may be had of the author.[124] In this
little pamphlet he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in
the _De Oratione_ 1 (De la Rue, i. 198; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22)
quotes from Luke (vi. 28) or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the
latter. Koetschau is of the opposite opinion, giving “Luke vi. 28
(Matthew v. 44).” In the case of Patristic quotations, it will be
seen that matters are frequently very complicated. It must be borne
in mind, too, that the various writers did not use the same copy of
the Scriptures all their life long. At different times and in
different localities they must necessarily have had different copies
before them.

(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial
writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine
against the Manichæans, the question must always be considered
whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made
by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the
writings they assail or refer to; and also whether the quotations
have been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the
works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without
acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in olden times
than it is even at present.

In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (_Stromata_,
ii. p. 476), and partly also in the _Epistle of Polycarp_ (c. 2), we
find the following quotation:—“Be ye merciful that ye may obtain
mercy: forgive that ye may be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be
done to you: as ye give, so shall it be given to you: as ye judge,
so shall ye be judged: as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to
you: with what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you.” We find
also in Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria
(_Stromata_, iii. p. 561), the quotation: “Woe to that man: it were
good for him if he had never been born, rather than that he should
offend one of my elect: it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea,
than that he should offend one of my little ones.” Neither of these
quotations is found literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly,
Rendel Harris concludes from the testimony of these various
witnesses that they must have been taken from an Urevangelium, now
perished (_Contemporary Review_, Sept. 1897). This view is combated,
it seems to me rightly, by H. T. Andrews in the _Expository Times_
for November 1897, p. 94 f. He thinks it probable that Clement of
Alexandria and Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome.[125]

(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of
the Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for
the textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections,
both ancient and modern, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate
the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been
scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not
yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to
elucidate the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted
at present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and
locality, of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to
ἀντίγραφα. In the new volumes of Origen, _e.g._, we find two such
references—κατά τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου (i.
113), and κατὰ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων (ii. 52).[126] The other
desideratum is a collection of all the passages in the biographies
of the Saints where mention is made of the writing of Biblical
manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius, _e.g._, in the _Historia
Lausiaca_ (c. 28 in Preuschen, _Palladius_, p. 111), εὐφυῶς γὰρ
ἔγραφε τὸν ὀξύρυγχον χαρακτῆρα, and the preparation of Biblical
manuscripts is also referred to in the _Vita Epiphanii_ (ed. Petav.
ii.), and in Cassiodorus, _De Institutione Divinarum Literarum_ (see
above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony see
the section _De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis_ in _TiGr._, 1129-1230.
An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon’s
_New Testament_, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates
of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions
of the N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174.[127] See also
_Urt._, p. 22, 56 f., 94. On the Old Latin _Didascalia_, see Ed.
Hauler in the _W.S.B._, 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ff., and the
_Mitteilungen_ of B. G. Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52.[128] On the
Biblical text of Filastrius (_C.S.E._, vol. xxxviii., 1898), see
Kroll in the notice of Marx’s edition in the _Berlin. Phil.
Wochenschrift_, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see _TU._, New Series, ii. 1,
etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian (Pseudo-Cyprian)
see Harnack in _TU._, xiii. 4.

Footnote 18:

Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_, i. 652; _Einleitung_, i. 153.

Footnote 19:

From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the
_Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie_ 29 (1887), 453.

Footnote 20:

The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s “Tabellen
zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht über die
Codices in denen die N.T. Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897.
Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33).

Footnote 21:

See _e.g._ Plate I.

Footnote 22:

See _e.g._ Plate X.

Footnote 23:

See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, _Göttinger gelehrte Nachrichten_,
1898, i. 98-112.

Footnote 24:

_TiGr._, pp. 1233 ff.; Warfield, _Textual Criticism of the N.T._, p.
47.

Footnote 25:

To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name
Evangeliarium. Εὐαγγελιστάριον means a Table of Lections. (See
Brightman, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, 1900, p. 448, and
now Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. p. 334 f.)

Footnote 26:

_Nat. Hist._, xiii. 11.

Footnote 27:

_Egitto_, 2nd ed., p. 125.

Footnote 28: