JU/. (2^^^<-^^^ /2^^/^^^^^€i2^ , 
 
 
 /^ 
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CRITICISM 
 
 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
CatrArfils^ ' 
 
 PRINTED B\- C. J. CLAY, M. 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CRITICISM 
 
 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 THE INTRODUCTION TO AN EDITION OF THE 
 
 CODEX AUGIENSIS AND FIFTY 
 
 OTHER MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 REV. FREDERICK HENRY SCRIVENER, M.A. 
 
 PERPETUAL CURATE OF PENWERRIS, FALMOUTH. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. 
 LONDON: BELL AND DALDY. 
 
 1859. 
 
CHAPTER I, 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 The term ''Comparative Criticism" has been happily applied to that delicate 
 and important process of investigation whereby we seek to trace the relative 
 value and mutual connexion of the authorities upon which the Greek Text of the 
 New Testament is based, whether they be manuscripts of the original, early 
 versions, or citations by the Christian Fathers. Our accurate acquaintance with 
 these authorities is very limited, much that we know about them being due to 
 the exertions of scholars yet living: but we are sufficiently aware of the extent 
 of the subject^, and the minute and perplexing inquiries which beset the Biblical 
 student at every step, not to seize with hearty welcome any clue that may pro- 
 mise to guide us through a labyi'inth thus dark and doubtful. To this natural 
 feeling, far more than to any external evidence or internal probability of the 
 theories themselves, I would ascribe the favour extended to the schemes of 
 recension promulgated by Griesbach and his imitators in the last generation. 
 Men wislied such compendious methods of settling the sacred text to he true, and 
 as demonstrated truths they accordingly accepted them. These systems, bold, 
 ingenious, imposing, but utterly groundless, I have elsewhere discussed at length 
 (Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. Chap, i.); it were needless to revert to 
 them, for I believe that no one at the present day seriously entertains any one of 
 them. 
 
 As Griesbach's scheme and its subsequent modifications were gradually aban- 
 doned by critics, a more simple, but (I am persuaded) a no less mistaken theory 
 grew up in its place, which, under the seemly profession of recurring to ancient 
 authorities alone for the remodelling of the text, deliberately refuses so much as 
 to hearken to the testimony of the vast majority of documents that freely offer 
 themselves to the researches of patient industry. This certainly appears a short 
 and easy road to Scriptural science, but, like some other short routes, it may 
 
 1 I can hardly estimate the number of copies 
 containing the Gospels alone (including Evangelis- 
 taria) to be much under a thousand, nineteen- 
 
 twentieths of which arc for critical purposes as 
 good as uncoUated, 
 
Is PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 prove the longest in tlie end: yet it is recommended to us by names I cannot 
 mention Avitliout deference and respect. The countenance which Dr Davidson 
 lends to this principle is neither unreserved, nor supported by arguments he can 
 well deem conclusive. Tischendorf practically adopted it in his earlier works, 
 but even then made concessions amounting to nearly all a discreet adversary 
 Mould be disposed to claim: in Dr Tregelles, however, it finds an advocate 
 learned, able, imcompromising\ In my endeavour to refute what I conceive to 
 be erroneous in his views on this subject, I trust I shall not be betrayed into one 
 expression that may give him pain. I honour the devotion and singleness of 
 purpose he has brought to bear on these divine pursuits ; I am sure that his 
 edition of the New Testament hy reason of the large accession it vnll maize to our 
 existing store of critical materials, and of its great accuracy so far as it has yet 
 been tested, will possess, when completed^, what he modestly hopes for it, " dis- 
 tinctive value to the Biblical student:" I am not the less earnest in hailing the 
 fruits of his long and persevering toil, because I fear that, as a clergyman of the 
 English Church, I differ from him on matters of even more consideration than 
 systems of Comparative Criticism. 
 
 I. For Dr Davidson a short notice will suffice. In his chapter (an excellent 
 one on the whole) entitled " General Observations on MSS." he tells us that 
 " The first thing is to collate the oldest thoroughly and accurately, publishing 
 the text in fiicsimile or otherwise, so that they need not be re-examined. All 
 the rest, or the great mass of juniors, may be dispensed with. They are scarcely 
 needed, because the uncials are numerous. At present they do nothing but 
 hinder the advancement of critical science, by drawing oflT to them time and 
 attention which might be better devoted to older documents" (Davidson, p. 328, 
 &c.) He then states (I am not concerned to say how truly) that Scholz, from 
 attempting too much, accomplished little, and adds, " Critics have discovered a 
 better way than Scholz's diffuse perfunctory method." No profound discovery 
 surely: that it is better to do a little well than much carelessly is an axiom 
 tolerably familiar to most^of us. Yet why must what is well done be of necessity 
 but little? 
 
 Dr Davidson's judgment with regard to the order in which the work should be 
 executed must be assented to by every reasonable person. Of course there is a 
 presumption beforehand that the older MSS. written in uncial characters will 
 prove of more weight than comparatively modern copies in cursive letters : the 
 
 ^ I refer to Davidson's "Treatise on Biblical 
 Criticism," Vol. Ii. 1852; Tischendorf s Prolego- 
 mena to liis manual Greek Testament, Lips. 1849; 
 and Tregelles' "Account of the Printed Text of 
 the Greek New Testament," 1854. These three 
 works I shall cite throughout the present chap- 
 
 ter, 
 names 
 
 simply by the page affixed to their authors' 
 
 ^ At present (July 1S58) but one part of this 
 laborious work has issued from the press, for the 
 use of Subscribers only. It contains the Gospels of 
 St Matthew and St Mark. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 3 
 
 rule of common sense is to examine first what promises the most richly to reward 
 om- pains. Yet has not tJiis been done ? Which of the uncial codices of the 
 Greek Testament not previously published in full, has escaped the unwearied 
 zeal of Tischendorf on the continent, of Tregelles at home ? I really know of 
 none, except those printed in my present and former volume, and four Evango- 
 listaria in England (Barocc. 202, Canonici Grseci, 85 and 92 in the Bodleian, and 
 Wheeler 3 at Lincoln College), and perhaps a few abroad. Now respecting 
 Evangelistaria and Lectionaries, Dr Davidson holds that *' till the ancient codices 
 are collated and applied, it were better not to meddle with them. They must 
 have been oftcner copied, and therefore are more liable to errors of transcription." 
 I may question alike his fact, his inference and his conclusion on this point, yet 
 at any rate we have here a reason, satisfactory to himself, why the whole process 
 of collation should not be suspended till a few Evangelistaria shall be examined, 
 hardly any of which date higher than the tenth century. 
 
 But the mass of juniors, he tells us, are scarcely needed, '^because the uncials 
 art numerous." On a first perusal I was fairly at a loss to account for such a 
 statement from so well-informed a source. At length I came to recollect that 
 "numerous," like some others, is only a relative term, conveying to different 
 minds widely difi^erent ideas. One person will think it a " long distance" from 
 London to Lancashire ; another uses the same expression when speaking of the 
 space between this earth and 61 Cycni, some sixty- three billions of miles. We 
 shall therefore best see Dr Davidson's meaning when we come to simple numbers. 
 In the Apocalypse the uncial MSS. are three: one of first-rate consequence, com- 
 plete and well-known (A) ; another very ancient and well-known, but a mere heaii 
 of fragments (C) ; the third of late date, hastily collated, and now virtually inac- 
 cessible (B). These, I conceive, are not so " numerous" as to tempt us to dispense 
 Avith further information, when we fortunately have it within our reach. In the 
 case of the Acts and Epistles matters are not much better. In the Acts, three 
 MSS. are very old (ABC) ; the last of them a fragment : two incomplete (DE) 
 exceedingly precious, but not so early; one (F^) a fragment containing just seven 
 verses; one (I) of 42 verses: two (GH) imperfect copies of the ninth cen- 
 tury ; in all nine. In the Catholic Epistles we find four entire MSS., one frag- 
 ment. The list for the Pauline Epistles is nominally thirteen ; from which deduct 
 E a mere transcript of D, make allowance for the intimate connexion subsisting 
 between F and G (see below. Chap. ii. 1,) and reckon several as mere fragments, 
 three of but a few passages (F^IL): not one of the thirteen is complete. 
 
 Dr Davidson will probably tell us that he used the term "numerous" with 
 reference to the uncial MSS. of the Gospels ; if so the fact should be stated, lest 
 we be induced to throw aside the cursive copies of other parts of the New 
 Testament as if they might be " dispensed with," Yet I I'eally know not that 
 his case is materially strengthened even in the Gospels. True, the list of 
 
 B2 
 
4 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 uncials is formidable enough at a rapid glance. Tischendorf s catalogue (N. T. 
 7th edition, 1856) extends to thirty-two: let us briefly analyse its contents. In 
 the first place Ave notice ten which consist of only a few leaves, some of but a 
 few verses (F*JXOR'TWYi0A) : they are beyond all price as specimens of the 
 state of the text at periods varying from the sixth to the tenth century, yet 
 I doubt whether all put together contain as much matter as St Luke's Gospel. 
 PQZ exhibit larger fragments, Z indeed a considerable portion of the single 
 Gospel of St Matthew : these three may contain about as much as the sum of the 
 other ten. The Nitrian palimpsest R consists of fragmehts of St Luke on 
 45 leaves : the two Bodleian MSS. r and A are considerable, and between them 
 contain about as much matter as one complete copy (see Tischendorf. Anecdota 
 Sacra et Profana, pp. 4 — G). Then we must in fairness deduct six, which, being 
 not earlier and some of them decidedly later than the tenth century (GHMSUX), 
 are entitled to no more weight than many "junior copies" of the same age. This 
 observation applies, though with diminished force to five (FKVrA) ascribed to 
 the ninth, and even to three (ELA) of about the eighth century. There will then 
 remain but the four primary authorities ABCD, of which B alone is complete, 
 A and C being seriously mutilated. I cannot imagine that many will judge this 
 apparatus criticus so comprehensive, as to render further investigation super- 
 fluous. 
 
 Notwithstanding the sentiments on which I have commented, it were wrong 
 to regard Dr Davidson as a wilUng advocate for the suppression of all manuscript 
 evidence not written in uncial letters. I shall presently have occasion to confirm 
 my own argument by statements of his respecting the importance of the cursive 
 or later codices, quite as full as anything I could hope to say. The fact is that 
 Davidson, himself no mean example of the dignity of intellectual toil, despairs of 
 a thorough collation of all existing materials from the languid students of our 
 age. "It is sufficient for one man to collate well several important documents, 
 whether they be versions, MSS., or patristic citations. It exhausts his patience 
 and enei'gy" (Davidson, p. 105). So discouraging a representation of energy and 
 patience exhausted by a few slight efforts cannot, must not, be true of the younger 
 school of Biblical critics in our two great Universities ; I will leave Dr Dobbin, 
 the editor of the Codex Montfortianus, to speak for that of Dublin. These men 
 will not surely much longer suffer the manusci'ipt treasures of their public 
 libraries to lie neglected or unapplied. The very repulsiveness of this task, at 
 its first aspect, is to the earnest student only one reason the more for prosecuting 
 it with ever-growing interest ; 
 
 Et non seutitur sedulitate labor. 
 
 II. The reputation of Tischendorf is so firmly grounded on his editions of 
 the famous Codices Ephraemi and Claromontanus, on his Monumenta Sacra 
 Inedita and other learned works, that his opinion on the great questions of 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 4> 
 
 sacred criticism cannot fail to be regarded with considerable interest. In his 
 manual edition of the N. T. 18-i9 his practice must be regarded on the whole as 
 adverse to me. His list of authorities in the Gospels is limited to the uncial 
 MSS., and to a few of the cursive whose variations from the common standard 
 text are most conspicuous (e.g. 1, 13, 33, G9, 102, 131). Occasionally indeed he 
 estimates (very roughly of course) the number of later copies supposed to 
 countenance a reading of his uncials, yet I nowhere perceive that he gives much 
 weight to such testimony in the arrangement of his text. The edition of 1849, 
 however, must be considered as quite superseded by another (which, reckoning 
 several little known in England, Tischendorf calls his seventh), now issuing in 
 parts from the Leipsic Press. This, the latest fruits of his persevering toil, is far 
 more comprehensive in plan and (experto crecUte) more accurate in execution 
 than its predecessor. In compiling it he has freely availed himself of the labours 
 of others in this field of Biblical research, has cited the cursive MSS, as much 
 perhaps as is expedient in a volume intended for general use, and in exercising 
 his judgment on the materials he has brought together, has produced a text (as 
 Dr Wordsworth has observed before me) much more closely resembling the 
 textus receptus than that he had formed before^ I cannot help believing this 
 gradual and (as it would appear) almost unconscious approximation to the views 
 I am advocating, into which more exact study and larger experience have led so 
 eminent a scholar, to be no slight assurance that those views are founded in 
 reasonableness and truth^. 
 
 1 Thus, for example, Tischendorf s 7th edition, 
 in St Matthew alone, returns to the received read- 
 ings he had rejected in 1849 J° ^'^ ^^^^ ^^^^ '^7 
 passages. The instances in which he abided by the 
 common text in 1 849, but subsequently deserts it, are 
 56 in St Matthew's Gospel, but about nine-tenths of 
 them consistof Alexandrine forms (e. g. etdap, etirav, 
 T^\dav &c.) which he now prefers to the common ones. 
 
 2 It has been said indeed ("Journal of Philolo- 
 gy, Vol. IV. March 1858, p. 207") that "the im- 
 pression that Tischendorf is now beginning to 
 entertain some respect for the textus receptus is 
 quite unfounded. Many of his present readings 
 accidentally coincide with the 'received' readings, 
 but that is all. It is not that he prefers the bulk 
 of late evidence to the weight of early evidence : 
 but that he makes the worst or at least very bad 
 evidence, if supported by a canon of probability, 
 outweigh the best evidence standing alone." On a 
 point of this kind there is nothing like coming 
 to the test of facts. I select the third chapter of 
 St Matthew partly for its brevity, partly because the 
 loss of cod. A (the first-rate authority which most 
 resembles the later text) in this chapter, will so far 
 
 assist the learned reviewer's case. Exclusive of 
 his constant use of v ectteKKvariKov and oirws (v. 15), 
 Tischendorf in his edition of 1 849 departs from the 
 textus receptus 13 times : in his seventh edition he 
 returns to it seven times out of the thirteen. Now 
 one of these seven instances I think favourable to 
 the reviewer : certainly there is considerable, per- 
 haps even preponderating evidence (for versions 
 can be relied on in such a variation) for adding 
 voTd/jicp to 'lopSavT) in v. 6 ; Tischendorf now re- 
 jects it, as if it were borrowed from Marc. i. 5. 
 The other six passages seem fatal to the notion 
 that internal evidence, not diplomatic authority, is 
 the operating cause which is bringing Tischendoif's 
 text so much nearer what we believe to be the true 
 one. These passages are v. 2 Kal restored before 
 X^7w;' ; v. 7 avrou restored after pdirTia/jLa ; v. 14 
 'I(j}dvvris restored ; v. 15 irpbs avrbv of the common 
 text replaces avT(^ ; v. 16 koI ^airTiadeis replaces 
 ^avTicrdeh ')i; v. 16 Kal is restored before ipx/jfJ-evov. 
 In each of these texts Tischendorf in 1849 rejected 
 the common reading on the slender testimony of a 
 single uncial B, countenanced by one or more of 
 the Egyptian and Latin versions or Fathers, and 
 
6 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 Yet even in the Prolegomena to his edition of 184!) (no critical Introduction 
 to his 7th edition has yet appeared) I find little from which I should withhold my 
 assent. " Text us" he observes "petendus est unice ex antiquis testibus, et 
 potissimum quidem e graccis codicibus, sed interpretationum patrumque testi- 
 moniis minimc neglectis" (Proleg. p. xii). The drift of this self-evident proposition 
 appears from the next sentence: "Itaque omnis textus nostri confirmatio ab ipsis 
 testibus proficisci dcbebat, non a recepta quam dicunt editione." Very true: I 
 for one see nothing in the history or sources of the received text to entitle it, of 
 itself, to peculiar deference. I esteem it so far as it represents the readings best 
 supported by documentary evidence, and no further: if in my judgment the 
 Elzevir text approaches nearer on the whole to the sacred autographs than that 
 formed by Tischendorf, it is only because I beUeve that it is better attested to by 
 the very Avitnesses to whom Tischendorf himself appeals ; the MSS., the versions, 
 the Primitive Fathers. I enquire not whether this general purity (for it is but 
 general) arises from chance, or editorial skill, or (as some have piously thought) 
 from Providential arrangement : I am content to deal with it as a fact. Perhaps 
 Dean Alford's plan is preferable (iV. T. Proleg. p. C9, Vol. I. 1st edition), who, in 
 difficult cases, where testimony seems evenly balanced, would give " the benefit 
 of the doubt" to the Textus Receptus ; but the practical difference between the 
 two principles will be found, I imagine, very slight indeed. 
 
 And now recurs the question what we shall understand by "antiqui testes" in 
 the case of Greek Manuscripts ? In the first rank Tischendorf justly places those 
 dating from the fourth to the ninth century ; and among them, to the oldest he 
 attributes the highest authority. "Haec auctoritas ut magnopere augetur si 
 interpretationum ac patrum accedunt testimonia, ita non superatur dissensione 
 plurimorum vel etiam omnium codicum recentiorum, i.e. eorum qui a decimo 
 sajculo usque ad decimum sextum exarati sunt" (p. xii). If this canon is to 
 extend only to cases wherein the most ancient witnesses in competent numbers 
 unanimously support a variation from the common text, I do not conceive that 
 any judicious critic would object to its temperate application : though he may 
 reasonably suspect that where the earliest available evidence is thus overwhelming, 
 a portion of the later manuscripts will always be found to accord with it. What 
 we do resist is a scheme, which, however guardedly proposed, shall exclude the 
 cursive MSS. from all real influence in determining the sacred text. This is 
 Dr Tregelles' avowed principle : that it is not Tischendorf's (however much he 
 may have once seemed to countenance it by his practice) plainly appears from 
 his own distinct assertions : " codices post octavum vel nonum soeculum scriptos 
 
 by a very few cursive MSS., sometimes by none at 
 all ! Surely it is because he has seen the insufficiency 
 of such evidence, that he has judiciously retraced 
 
 his steps, rather than from "an increasing ten- 
 dency to set private canons above the authority of 
 manuscripts, versions, and Fathers." 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 7 
 
 ncgHgendos aiit parvi acstiniandos non esse recentiorum codicum lectiones 
 
 quas easdem antiquissimi interpretes ac patres tcstimonio suo confirment, antiqui- 
 tatis commendatione minime destitufas esse" (Proteg. p. xiii). On this grdund he 
 praises the design of Reich, " prsestantissimis codicibus minusculis denuo exami- 
 nandis," declaring of it " ea perquam utilia fore arbitror et ad historiam et ad 
 
 EMENDATIOXEM TEXTUS (p. XXXIII. not.). 
 
 III. I am unfeignedly anxious to present to the reader a clear and even 
 forcible statement of the principles of textual criticism maintained in Dr 
 Tregelles' " Account of the Printed Text of the Greek Testament :" I assure him 
 I do not criticise his book unread^, or reject his theory without patient examina- 
 tion. I presume he would wish it to be enunciated in such terms as the 
 following : I 
 
 The genuine text of the Greek New Testament must be sought exclusively 
 from the most ancient authorities, especially from the earliest uncial copies of the 
 Greek. The paramount weight and importance of the last arises not from the 
 accidental circumstance of their age, but from their agreement with the other 
 independent and most ancient authorities still extant, viz. the oldest versions and 
 citations by the fathers of the first four centuries. 
 
 To which proposition must^e appended this corollary as a direct and neces- 
 sary consequence : 
 
 "The mass of recent documents [i.e. those written in cursive characters from 
 the tenth century downwards] possess no determining voice, in a question as to 
 what we should receive as genuine readings. We are able to take the few docu- 
 ments whose evidence is proved to be trustworthy, and safely discard from 
 present consideration the eighty-nine ninetieths, or whatever else the numerical 
 proportion may be" (Tregelles, p. 1.38). 
 
 In the ordinary' concerns of social life, one would form no favourable estimate 
 of the impartiality of a judge (and such surely is the real position of a critical 
 editor) who deemed it safe to discard unheard eighty-nine witnesses out of ninety 
 that are tendered to him, unless indeed it were perfectly certain that the eighty- 
 nine had no means of information, except what they derived from the ninetieth : 
 on that supposition, but on that supposition alone, could the judge's reputation 
 for wisdom or fairness be upheld. That mere numbers should decide a question 
 of sacred criticism never ought to have been asserted by any one ; never has been 
 asserted by a respectable scholar. Tischendorf himself (Proleg. p. xii.) cannot 
 condemn such a dogma more emphatically than the upholders of the general 
 integrity of the Elzevir text. But I must say that the counter-proposition, that 
 
 1 "Let me request any one who may -wish to I &c" (Tregelles, Addenda, p. 2). A moderate re- 
 iinderstand the principles of textual criticism which quest certainly, but I should hope it was hardly 
 I believe to be true, to recul what I have stated, I needed. 
 
8 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 numbers have " no determining voice," is to my mind full as unreasonable, and 
 rather more startling. I agree with Dr Davidson (p. 333) in holding it to be "an 
 obvious and natural rule" that the reading of the majority is so far preferable. 
 Not that a bare majority shall always prevail, but that numerical preponderance, 
 especially where it is marked and constant, is an important element in tlio 
 investigation of the genuine readings of Holy Scripture. For on what grounds 
 shall we justify ourselves in putting this consideration wholly aside? Is the judge 
 convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence of the eighty-nine is drawn 
 exclusively from that of the ninetieth ? It has never I think been affirmed by any 
 one (Dr Tregelles would not be sorry to affirm it, if he could with truth) that 
 the mass of cursive documents are corrupt copies of the uncials still extant: the 
 fact has scarcely been suspected in a single instance, and certainly never proved. 
 I will again avail myself of Davidson's words, not only because they admirably 
 express my meaning, but because his general bias is not quite in favour of the 
 views I am advocating. " Cceteris paribus," he observes, "the reading of an ancient 
 copy is more likely to be authentic than that of a modern one. But the reading 
 of a more modern copy may be more ancient than the reading of an ancient one. 
 A modern copy itself may have been derived not from an extant one more 
 ancient, but from one still more ancient no longer in existence. And this was 
 probably the case in not a feiv instances'" (p. 101). No one can carefully examine 
 the readings of cursive documents, as represented in any tolerable collation, with- 
 out perceiving the high probability that Davidson's account of them is true. But 
 it is not essential to our argument that the fact of their being derived from 
 ancient sources now lost should be established, though internal evidence points 
 strongly to their being so derived : it is enough that such an origin is possible, to 
 make it at once unreasonable and unjust to shut them out from a "determining 
 voice" (of course jointly with others) on questions of doubtful reading. I confess 
 that Tregelles is only following up his premises to their legitimate conclusion in 
 manfully declaring his purpose in this respect; but we are bound to scutinize 
 with the utmost jealousy and distrust a principle which involves consequences so 
 extensive, and he must forgive me if I add, so " perilous." 
 
 It is agreed then on all hands that the antiquity of a document is only a pre- 
 sumption, a prima facie ground for expectation, that it will prove of great critical 
 importance. "The oldest MSS." writes Dr Davidson again, "bear traces of 
 revision by arbitrary and injudicious critics. Good readings make good aianu- 
 SCRIPTS" (p. 101). " It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and 
 again," insists Dr Tregelles, whose reviewers I suppose were Sva^iadta-repoi, " that 
 the testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence 
 (not mere assertion); and that the distinction is not between the ancient MSS. 
 on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other, — but between the united 
 evidence of the most ancient documents — MSS., versions, and early citations — 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 9 
 
 together witli that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on the 
 one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other" (Tregellcs, Addenda, p. 2). 
 Very well : this immeasurable superiority claimed for the early uncials over all 
 later authorities (so that the former shall be every thing in criticism, the latter 
 absolutely nothing) rests not on an axiom intuitively true ; it has to be j)roved 
 by an induction of scattered facts ; and we are bound to watch the process of 
 proof with the greater care, from our previous knowledge that when once esta- 
 blished it will inevitably lead us to conclusions which seem hardly consistent 
 ■with even dealing towards a whole legion of honest and reputable witnesses. 
 
 Now Dr Tregelles produces no less than seventv-two passages from various 
 parts of the New Testament (pp. 133 — 147), as a kind of sample of some two 
 or three thousand which he reckons to exist there, wherein " the more valuable 
 ancient versions (or some of them) agree in a particular reading, or in which 
 such a reading has distinct patristic testimony, and the mass of MSS. stand in 
 opposition to such a lection, [while] there are certain copies wliich hahituallij 
 uphold the older reading" (Tregelles, p. 148). Of course I cannot follow him 
 step by step through this long and laboured catalogue; an adequate specimen 
 taken icithout unfair selection will amply suffice to shew my opponent's drift and 
 purpose. I will therefore transcribe all the j)laces he cites from the Gospel 
 of St Mark (they amount to seven), making choice of that Gospel partly for its 
 shortness, partly because I wish, in justice to Dr Tregelles, to discuss in pre- 
 ference those texts which remain unmutilated in the four uncial codices of the 
 first class (see above, vide supra, p. vi.); in the following list they all are complete, 
 except C in Mark xiii. 14 alone. As Tregelles "for the sake of brevity" has 
 laid before us these passages " without any attempt to state the balance of 
 evidence" (p. 148), I have ventured to supply within brackets an omission which 
 I cannot help considering a little unfortunate. 
 
 (I). " Mar. iii. 29. Common text, aloaviov Kpiaems. Vulg. has, however, ^ reus erit 
 wterni delicti;' so too the Old Latin [a, 6. c. e.ff^. g^. I. Tregelles N. T., 1857], 
 the Memph., Goth., Arm. ; and this is the reading of Cyprian [bis, Treg. N. T.], 
 Augustine, and Athanasius. Corresponding with this BLA, 33 (and one other 
 MS. [28; add 2P^j), read alcoviov ay^aprrifxaTos, and C* (ut videtur), D, G9 (and two 
 others [13. 346]), have alcovlov dfiaprias, a perfectly cognate reading." (p. 141). 
 
 [But Kplaecos is found in AC** (whose primitive reading seems quite doubtful) 
 EFGHKMSUVr^ being all the other uncials that contain the jiassage. Of the 
 
 ^ Of the uncials cited for these texts B (Tre- 
 gelles' favourite) is least accurately known. ACD 
 LA have been edited in full ; EFGHKMSUXr 
 have been so repeatedly collated (recently by 
 Tischendorf or Tregelles or both) that when they 
 are not cited as supporting variations so marked 
 
 as those under discussion, their testimony even 
 sub silcntio in behalf of the received text may 
 be fully relied on. In these seven texts, how- 
 ever, they are expressly cited by Tischendoi-fs 
 seventh edition for the readings here ascribed to 
 them. 
 
10 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 cursive copies nil go with the received text, except the six named above, and three 
 which have Ko\a(7ecos. The Pcshito Syriac reads U~»? jndicii: thus also the Har- 
 clean Syriac of the 7th century, the ilithiopic (" in condemnatione"), the Codex 
 Brixianus /. of the Italic (or Old Latin), the Codex Toletanus of the Vulgate, 
 and any Fathers not named by Tregellcs, many of whom must have cited this 
 remarkable passage.] 
 
 (2). "Mar. iv. 12. to dixapTiJuara of the common text is omitted by Origen 
 twice; by one MS. of the Old Latin [two b. i. in Trog. N. T.], the Memph., and 
 Arm., with BCL, 1 (and some other MSS.)" [i.e. "22. 118. 209. 251. 340^- al" 
 Scholz : ra irapanTaaara Theophyl. and eight MSS.], 
 
 \ra nfxnpWjfiiiTn is read in ADEFGHKMSUVA (Jdaf. T), all cursives not named 
 above, Syrr. both Pcsh. and Hare, iEthiopic, Gothic, Vulg., all Italic MSS. except 
 two]. 
 
 (3). "Mar, iv. 24. roTj aKovova-iv omitted by the Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., 
 Mth., with BCDLA, and some other copies." [credentibus/. Goth., Treg. N. T.]. 
 
 [Tischendorf, even in his seventh edition, adds G (Harl. 5684), but on refer- 
 ence to the MS., I find he is wrong. Griesbach adds "item 13. 69 semel," yet 69 
 in this verse reads toIs dicovovcriv, as do AEFGHKMSUV {Jiiat. F), all other cursive 
 MSS., both Syrr.]. 
 
 (4). "Mar. x. 21. apn^ rhv a-ravpov Omitted by the Old Latin in most copies 
 [b.c.f.ff.g'' 1:1 Treg. N. T.], Vulg., Memph. [by Schwartze], (so too Clem. 
 Alex, and Hi).), with BCDA." [L is here defective, and so for the first time 
 deserts its allies : add to the list Scholz's 406]. 
 
 [(ipas Tov tjTavphv is read in AEFHKMSUVXF, the whole mass of cursive copies, 
 the Harclean Syriac, Wilkins' Memphitic and the Gothic. The words are placed 
 before beiipo in G 1. 13. 69. 118. 124 and four other cursives; in Peshito Syr., 
 ^Eth., Arm., the Vercelli MS. a. of the Old Latin, and Irenaeus]. 
 
 (5). "Mar. xii. 4. Xieol^oX^a-avres omitted by Old Latin, Vulg., Memph , [Theb., 
 Treg. N. T.]. Arm., with BDLA, 1, 33 and four other copies." [i.e. 28. 91. 118, 299.] 
 
 [But Xido^.Aja-avTfs is found in ACEFGHKMSUVXF, all other cursive copies, 
 both Syrr., Goth,, M(h.]. 
 
 (3). "Mar. xii. 23. orav avaa-Taa-iv om. some copies of Old Latin [h (ut vid ). 
 ((•). (A). Treg. N. T.], Memph., Syr., [i. e. Peshito; Treg. N. T. adds Theb. yEth.] 
 with BCDLA, 33.' 
 
 [orav dvacTTwcTiv is read in AEFGHKMSUVXF, all cursives but one (13. 69. 346 
 alio ordine), Vulg., a.ff.g"^. i. of Old Latin, Harclean Syr., Goth., Arm.]. 
 
 (7). " Mar. xiii. 14. to prjdeu viro AavtrjX rov TTpocpjrov om. most copies of Old Latin 
 [a. Jf. fj\ only in Treg. N. T., where he adds Theb.], Vulg., Memph , Arm , also Au- 
 gustine expressly, with BDL." [Scholz adds " nee attingunt Victor et Theophylact."] 
 
 [The words are read in AEFGHKMSUVXFA, all cursives (with some varia- 
 tion in my y and eight others), both Syrr., IPAh., c. Jc. of Old Latin]. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 11 
 
 I do not think the render will desire more than these specimens, transcribed 
 as they ure consecutively from Dr Tregelles' list loithout the iJOSsibiUtij of undue 
 selection: I fully believe him that tliey may be increased twenty-fold. It is time to 
 offer a few renjarks on the facts that have been alleged by each of us. Meanwhile 
 I must beg that the design of my learned opponent in producing his examples 
 be carefully borne in mind. He does not so much aim at shewing that the read- 
 ings of Codex B and its adherents are prefer;ible to those of the received text 
 (though this lie imjilies throughout), as at demonstrating that the united testi- 
 monies of early uncials, primitive versions, and ecclesiastical authors of the 
 first four centuries form together such a mass of evidence as will overbear the 
 voice of the vast majority of witnesses of all ages and countries. We may grant 
 that his favourite documents are entitled to great weight in the process of critical 
 investigation, and this I admit fully and without reserve : we might even prefer 
 many of their readings to those of the received text, which on the whole 
 I am not quite disposed to do : and yet we must demur as firmly as ever to 
 the claim of paramount and exclusive authority he sets up for them. With 
 these preliminary observations I pass on to an analysis of the state of evidence 
 in the passages Dr Tregelles has brought to our notice. 
 
 (1). First then it is obvious that the uncial documents, even the earliest of 
 them, are much divided in every place he has cited. I hardly know why the 
 Alexandrine MS. (A) has come to be considered a little younger than the Codex 
 Vaticanus (B); we have free access to and minute knowledge of the one; through 
 the jealousy of the Papal librarians our acquaintance with the other is still very 
 imperfect^; much doubt hangs over many of its readings; it seems barely certain 
 
 1 Since writing the above I have examined 
 Cardinal Mai's long-expected edition of the Va- 
 ticanus (5 Tom. Romse 1857) t^® text of which 
 was ten years passing through the press (1828 — 38), 
 and was then kept back from publication till 
 within the last few months. I regret that I can- 
 not even now modify my statement of the pre- 
 cariousness of our knowledge of this great docu- 
 ment : I must needs add my voice to the loud 
 chorus of disappointment this work has called 
 forth throughout Europe. It is impossible to 
 study Vercellone's letter to the reader, prefixed 
 to the first volume, without seeing the strange 
 incompetency both of Mai and of himself, for the 
 task they had undertaken : in fact, Vercellone's 
 frank admission of the great Cardinal's inaccuracy 
 would be amusing if it were not most vexatious. 
 Finding his sheets full of errors and misrepresen- 
 tations of the Codex Vaticanus (some of them 
 inserted from printed books !), Mai tries to get 
 rid of them as well as ho can, sometimes by can- 
 
 celling a few leaves, sometimes by manual cor- 
 rections made in each copy ; while he reserves 
 the mass for a table of errata, to be placed at the 
 end of each volume. In this unpromising state 
 was the work found by Vercellone after Mai's 
 death in 1S54, when, anxious to decorate the Car- 
 dinal's memory "novd usque gloria atque splen- 
 didiore corona" (Tom. I. p. in), he drew up the 
 tables of errata projected by his predecessor, and 
 at length submitted this deplorable performance 
 to the judgment of Biblical scholars. His lists 
 of errata are obviously most imperfect ; as regards 
 oithography he only professes to give us "selec- 
 tiora," for Mai, it seems, did not care much 
 about such points ; at any rate it was not worth 
 while to delay publication on their account : and so 
 "reliqua quae supererunt eruditis castiganda permit- 
 timus ; immo ut summa aKpi^eiq, castigentur opta- 
 mus" (ib. p. xiii). Add to all this that the lacunae 
 throughout the MS. are supplied from later sources ; 
 that even accidental omissions and errors of the 
 C2 
 
12 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVK CRITICISM. 
 
 whether its accents and breathings are prima or secundd manuK We will adopt 
 however the usual opinion about them: no competent critic places A later than 
 the fifth, or B earlier than the fourth century^ Noiv in each of these seven places 
 A sides with the Eherir text against B. Is it an argument in favour of B that its 
 readings are ancient ? The same plea might be entered for those of A. And 
 their divergencies, it will be noted, are not merely accidental exceptions to a 
 general coincidence, but perpetual, almost systematic. While I confess freely 
 the great importance of B, I see not why its testimony ought, in the nature of 
 things, to be received in preference to that of A. I cannot frame a reason why 
 the one should be listened to more deferentially than the other. 
 
 (2). In the next rank, yet decidedly below A or B, stand the palimpsest frag- 
 ment C (Codex Ephrsemi) and the Codex Bezae or D. This latter is generally 
 considered much the least weighty of the four great MSS. of the Gospels (see for 
 instance Alford, N.T. Proleg. on D.) : and that not so much on account of its 
 later date (perhaps about the middle of the sixth century), as from the violent 
 corrections and strange interpolations wherewith it abounds. " Its singularly 
 corrupt text," observes Davidson, " in connexion with its great antiquity, is a 
 curious problem, which cannot easily be solved" (p. 288)^ Now in the seven 
 passages under consideration C accords with B in four cases, with A once ; once 
 its reading is doubtful, once its text has perished. Codex D agrees with B five 
 times, much resembles it once, and once sides with A, Thus these documents 
 of the second class favour B rather than A, C however less decidedly than D, 
 
 pen are corrected in the text, though noted in 
 the margin ; that the breathings, accents, and 
 t subscriptum are accommodated to the modern 
 fashion ; and that a slight Preface of a few pages 
 by Mai supplies the place of the full Prolegomena 
 once promised and so urgently required. 
 
 1 On this point however Vercellone's testimony 
 should be heard. After correcting Birch's state- 
 ment that the breathings and accents are primd 
 manu, he adds, "etenim amanuensis ille, qui 
 cunctas totius codicis litteras, vetustate palles- 
 centes, atramento satis venuste, servat^ vetere 
 forraS,, renovavit, idem accentus etiam spiritusque 
 imposuit, qui nulli fuerant a primfi manu ; ut illse 
 codicis particulse ostendunt, quas certis de causis 
 (id est vel quia repetitas in codice vel ab eo impro- 
 Latas) non attigit. Eei hujus veritatem codicis 
 spectatores ipsi per se deprehendent." (Cod. Vati- 
 can. Tom. V. p. 499.) I presume it is for this 
 reason that while the facsimile of one column, Mark 
 i. r — 9, prefixed to Tom. v. of Mai's edition con- 
 tains no breathings or accents, they are represented 
 in the splendid plate of the three columns of the 
 
 first surviving page (commencing Gen. xlvi. iS 
 TToXiv) prefixed to Tom. I. 
 
 2 I find no traces in Mai's Codex Vaticanus of 
 the absurd opinion once imputed to him, that this 
 MS. dates as far back as the second century ; Ver- 
 cellone acquiesces in the date usually assigned to 
 it, that of the fourth or early in the fifth century, 
 but refers to Hug for the proof. 
 
 ^ Dr Tregelles, indeed, in partial reference to 
 Codex D, is good enough to say, " Some people 
 rest much on some one incorrect reading of a MS., 
 and then express a great deal of wonder that such a 
 MS. could be highly valued by critics. The expo- 
 sure of such excessive ignorance as this might be 
 well dealt with by one who knows Greek MSS. 
 as well as Mr Scrivener" (p. 137 note). Thus appealed 
 to I will reply, that, putting aside the case of mere 
 errors of the scribe, I do think that the admitted 
 corruptions and deliberate interpolations which we 
 all recognize in the Codex Bezse, have a natural 
 tendency to detract from the credibility of its testi- 
 mony in more doubtful cases. 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 13 
 
 (3). When we descend to uncials of the third rank, from the eighth century 
 downwards, the case is entirely reversed. One of them indeed (L of the eighth or 
 ninth century) edited by Tischendorf (Monumenia sacr. ined. pp. 57 — 399) is here 
 and elsewhere constantly with B: A also (Codex Sangallensis of the ninth century, 
 which will be spoken of in Chapter ii.) supports B five times, A only twice^ ; 
 while all the rest extant (EFGHKMSU and X where it is unmutilated) unani- 
 mously support A. Some of these are as ancient as L, several quite as valuable 
 as A. 
 
 (4). On coming down from uncial to cursive MSS. the preponderance is enor- 
 mous, Dr Tregelles does not object to the rough estimate of ninety to one; and 
 those few copies which often maintain the readings of BL are by no means stedfast 
 in their allegiance. Yet even here the resemblance to A or B or to each other 
 is but general. The materials accumulated in the present volume and elsewhere 
 shew isolated readings of the most recent codices, even of those which approach 
 nearest to the Elzevir edition, for which no ancient authority can be produced 
 except the Codex Vaticanus. No one who has at all studied the cursive MSS. 
 can fail to be struck with the individual character impressed on almost every one 
 of them. It is rare that we can find grounds for saying of one manuscript that 
 it is a transcript of some other now remaining. The fancy which was once taken 
 up, that there existed a standard Constantinopolitan text, to which all copies 
 written within the limits of that Patriarchate were conformed, has been "swept 
 away at once and for ever" (Tregelles, p. 180) by a closer examination of the 
 copies themselves. Surely then it ill becomes us absolutely to reject as unworthy 
 of serious discussion, the evidence of witnesses (whose mutual variations vouch 
 for their independence and integrity) because their tendency on the whole is to 
 uphold the authority of one out of the two most ancient documents against the 
 other. 
 
 (5). One of the arguments on which Dr Tregelles lays most stress is the 
 accordance of the oldest versions with Codex B rather than with A. So far as 
 the Latin versions are concerned the passages he has alleged must be admitted 
 to prove the correctness of his assertion. The Vulgate agrees Avith A but twice, 
 with B five times. The Old Latin translations (for the term Italic it seems is 
 obsolete), though in six instances some of them countenance A, give a clear 
 majority for B. I do not like to speak of the Coptic or Armenian translations, 
 as I am totally ignorant of the languages wherein they are written : Tregelles, I 
 perceive, labours under the same disadvantage (p. 17 1), and will be as reluctant 
 
 ^ Observe, however, that "The text of St Mark's 
 Gospel is that which especially gives this MS. a 
 claim to be distinguished from the mass of the later 
 uncial copies." (Introductory Notice to Tregelles' 
 N. T., 1857, p. iv.); which intimates that our 
 
 selection of the passages in St Mark's Gospel is 
 peculiarly favourable to Dr Tregelles, so far as A 
 is concerned. Elsewhere its readings are much 
 nearer the teodus receptus. 
 
14 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 as I am to dogmatise about matters on wliich we are both disqualified from pro- 
 nouncing a trustworthy opinion. Certainly these versions incline powerfully to 
 the Latin, if we may rely on the common representation of them, and one of the 
 editors of the Armenian (Zohrah) denies the correctness of the suspicion revived 
 by Tischendorf, *' yEtate multo seriori [than its origin in the fourth or fifth cen- 
 tury] armcnos codices passim ad latinam versionem correctos esse, virorum 
 doctorum opinio fert" (^Proleg. p. LXXViii). 
 
 It is time to turn to the Queen of the primitive versions, the graceful and 
 perspicuous Peshito Syriac. Here, at any rate, there is no ambiguity as to the 
 preference bestowed on Codex A: it is supported by the Syriac in six cases out 
 of the seven. Nor is this the result of mere accident in the Gospel of St Mark : 
 no one who has studied its i-eadings will question that a like proportion is steadily 
 maintained throughout the New Testament. Here then is a venerable transla- 
 tion, assigned by eminent scholars to the first century of our ajra, undoubtedly 
 not later than the second, which habitually upholds the readings of one of the two 
 oldest uncial copies, of the later uncials, and of the vast majority in cursive 
 characters. Our conclusion shall now be drawn, mutatis mutandis, in the words 
 of Tregelles, when lie sums up the results of his induction of the seventy-two 
 passages I have so often alluded to. " Here then is a sample of very many 
 passages, in which, by the testimony of the most ancient "version, that such a 
 reading was current in very early times, the fact is proved indubitably; so that 
 even if no existing MS. supported such readings, they would possess a strong 
 claim on our attention : and such facts might have made us doubt, whether the 
 old translators were not in possession of better copies than those that have been 
 transmitted to us. Such facts so proved might lead to the inquiry, whether 
 there are not some MSS. which accord with these ancient readings; and when 
 examination shews that such copies actually exist (nay that they are the many 
 in contrast to the few), it may be regarded as a demonstrated point that such 
 MSS. deserve peculiar attention" (Tregelles, p. 147) .... But here I pause ; it is 
 enough that I claim for Codex A and its numerous companions "peculiar atten- 
 tion" by reason of their striking conformity with the Peshito Syriac. I ask not, I 
 have no right to ask, that Codex B and its scanty roll of allies, strengthened as 
 they are by the Latin, perhaps by other versions, should be overlooked in 
 forming an estimate of the merits of conflicting readings. I am content to lay 
 myself open to the poet's humorous reproof, 
 
 VTjTTioi, oiibe la-aacu oa(o vrXfov ijfiKTV Trairof. 
 
 How is this divergency of the Peshito version from the text of Codex B 
 explained by Tregelles ? He feels of coarse the pressure of the argument against 
 him, and meets it, if not successfully, with even more than his wonted boldness. 
 The translation degenerates in his hands into "the version commonly printed as 
 the Peshito" (p. 170). Now let us mark the precise nature of the demand here 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 15 
 
 made on our faith by Dr Tregclles. He would persuade us that the whole 
 Eastern Church, distracted as it has been and split into hostile sections for the 
 space of 1400 years, Orthodox and Jacobite, Nestorian and Maronite alike, those 
 that could agree about nothing else, have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order 
 to substitute in their monastic libraries and liturgical services another and a 
 spurious version in the room of the Peshito, that sole surviving monument of the 
 first ages of the Gospel in Syria! Nay more, that this wretched forgery has 
 deceived Orientalists profound as Michaelis and Lowth, has passed without 
 suspicion through the ordeal of searching criticism, to which e\ery branch of 
 sacred literature has been subjected during the last half-century ! We will require 
 solid reasons indeed before we surrender ourselves to an hypothesis as novel as it 
 appears violently improbable. 
 
 And what is the foundation on which our opponent rests his startling con- 
 jecture ? The reader is aware that besides the Peshito, several other Syriac 
 versions, some grounded upon it, and therefore implying its previous existence and 
 popularity (e.g. the Philoxenian, executed A.D. 508, and Cardinal Wiseman's 
 Karkaphensian), others seemingly independent of it (e.g. Adler's Jerusalem 
 Syriac, and a palimpsest fragment lately discovered by Tischendorf) have been 
 more or less applied to the criticism of the New Testament. About the year 
 1847 Canon Cureton, in his most fruitful researches among the MSS. purchased 
 for the British Museum from the Nitrian monasteries, met with extensive 
 fragments of the Gospels, which Tregelles has collated, and found to contain 
 "altogether ancient readings," and thus to be "an important witness to the 
 ancient text" (p. 161). As this MS., assigned to the fifth century, is still 
 unpublished, we can only say at present that it affords us "an hitherto unknown 
 version;" certainly not "tJie version commonly printed as the Peshito" with mere 
 various readings^ To this version has been given the appellation of the 
 
 ^ As this sheet is going to press (July i8,s8) 
 Dr Cureton's " Kemiiins of a very antient recen- 
 sion of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto un- 
 known in Europe," has at length appeared. The 
 Syriac text had been printed in 1S48, but was 
 doubtless withheld by the learned editor in the hope 
 of finding leisure to write Prolegomena more full, 
 and possibly containing more definite conclusions, 
 than those with which he has favoured us. It 
 would ill become me to express a hasty judgment 
 respecting theories on which so eminent a scholar 
 has bestowed thought and time and much labour. 
 He will naturally expect Biblical critics to hesitate 
 before they implicitly admit, for instance, the 
 persuasion which he hardly likes to embody in 
 words, that we have in these precious Syriac frag- 
 ments, at least to a great extent (Preface, p. xciii), 
 
 the very Hebrew original of St Matthew's Gosj^el, 
 so long supposed to have been lost, that even its 
 existence has been questioned. P)ut topics like 
 this are sure to be warmly debated by abler pens 
 than mine : I will confine myself to those points 
 that concern my argument, the relation these frag- 
 ments bear to the Peshito. And here I would say 
 in all humble deference (for my knowledge of 
 Syriac, though of long standing, is not extensive) 
 that my own hurried comparison of the Curetonian 
 and Peshito texts would have led me to take them 
 so far for quite separate versions. Even Dr Tre- 
 gelle.s, who, through the editor's kindness, has been 
 enabled to use the text for years, and whose bias 
 is very strong, can only venture to say "the dif- 
 ferences are great ; and yet it happens not un- 
 frequently that such coincidences of words and 
 
16 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 Curetonian Syriac, and long may it bear that honoured name : but for regarding- 
 it as the true Peshito, in the room of that commonly so known, I perceive at 
 present no cause whatever except the strong exigency of Dr Tregelles' case. 
 
 Yet has not the Peshito Syriac been suspected by previous writers of exhibit- 
 ing a corrupt or modernised text ? Undoubtedly the reconciliation of the Maronites 
 with the see of Rome, and the channels through which its earlier editions were 
 conveyed to us, induced certain critics to hazard a conjecture that this version^ 
 like the Armenian, had been tampered with, in order to bring it into closer con- 
 formity with the Latin Vulgate. This, however, is a change in precisely the opposite 
 direction to that ivhich Tregelles hypothesis demands: his complaint against the 
 Peshito is not its accordance with the Latin, but its consent with Codex A and 
 the junior MSS. against it. I vouch not for the correctness of this surmise as 
 regards the Armenian ; its injustice towards the Peshito is demonstrated by the 
 evidence of that old MS. Rich 7157 in the British Museum, of the eighth century, 
 a period long anterior to that when a "foedus cum Syris" was possible on the part 
 of the admirers of the Vulgate. This precious document has been collated 
 throughout by Tregelles; together with several others of high antiquity in the 
 Museum, it has been carefully examined by Dr Cureton, by Mr Ellis, and two 
 German scholars (Bloomfield, Preface to N. T., ninth edition, p. viii, note). The 
 reports of all concur to the same effect: these venerable MSS. exhibit a text, 
 singularly resembling that of the printed editions ; which last were consequently 
 drawn from purer and more ancient sources than, reasoning from the analogy of 
 the Greek text, the warmest advocates of the Peshito had been led to anticipate. 
 
 (6). We have little to say about citations from the Fathers. That the Latin 
 ecclesiastical writers should accord with the Latin versions is nothing strange : 
 perhaps some of them could not read, none of them used familiarly the Greek 
 original. As witnesses for the readings of the Italic or Vulgate they are of 
 course valuable : unless in the very rare instances where they expressly appeal to 
 the Greek, their influence upon it is but indirect and precarious. As regards the 
 Greek Fathers I am bound to state, that no branch of Biblical criticism has been 
 
 renderings are found (and that too, at times, 
 through a great part of a passage) as to shew that 
 they can hardly be whoUij independent" (Tregelles, 
 Home's Introcl. p. 268). To the same effect also 
 Dr Cureton speaks: "It seems to be scarcely 
 possible that the Syriac text published by Wid- 
 manstad, which, throughout these pages, I have 
 called the Peshito, could be altogether a different 
 version from this. It would take up too much 
 space to institute here a comparison of passages to 
 establish this fact, which, indeed, any one may 
 easily do for himself" (Preface, p. Ixx). I heartily 
 
 I wish that Dr Cureton had fully investigated the 
 subject ; he might have removed the diflBculties at 
 least of those who love truth, and are ready to em- 
 brace it wherever they shall find it. As it is, we 
 can but say with Tregelles, " Such a point as this 
 cau only be properly investigated after the publi- 
 cation of this version shall have given sufficient 
 time to scholars to pursue a thorough investigation" 
 (Tregelles, uhi supra). In the mean while neither 
 he nor I are at liberty to assume the truth of that 
 hypothesis which may happen to harmonise best 
 with our preconceived opinions. 
 
PIlI^■ClPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 17 
 
 SO utterly neglected as the application of their citations to the discussion of various 
 readings ; indeed I know almost nothing that has been seriously attempted with 
 respect to it, except Griesbach's examination of the quotations of Origen in his 
 Symholce Criticce. The whole question, however, is so replete with difficulties, 
 that Bishop Fell {N. T. Oxon. 1675) thought the bare allusion to them sufficient 
 to absolve him from entering upon it at all. The ancient Fathers were better 
 theologians than critics ; they often quoted loosely, often from memory ; what 
 they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change on the part of 
 copyists : their testimony therefore can be implicitly trusted, even as to the MSS. 
 which lay before them, only in the comparatively few places where the course of 
 their argument, or the current of their exposition, renders it manifest what 
 reading they support. At present we have many intimations in our critical 
 editions that this or that ecclesiastical author countenances a variation from 
 the Textus Receptus, but few cases, very few indeed, are recorded in which they 
 agree with it: the latter point being confessedly no less essential to our accurate 
 acquaintance with the state of the evidence than the former. Any enlarged 
 discussion on this head of our argument must at any rate be postponed till we 
 possess more reliable information on the facts it involves : most thankful should 
 I be to any student who has leisure and disposition to enter upon this wide yet 
 almost unoccupied field. Meantime I am constrained to admit that many 
 examples have been established by Griesbach and his successors, wherein 
 Origen agrees with Codices BL against Codex A and the received text, one 
 or both. I will not dissemble, I strive not to evade, the force of such early 
 testimony where it is unambiguous and express : let such readings be received 
 with " peculiar attention," let them never be rejected without grave and sufficient 
 reason. Yet the support given to B or L by Origen is very far from being 
 uniform or ''habitual." While I can well understand the importance of his 
 confirmation where he countenances the readings they exhibit, I fail altogether 
 in apprehending what service he can do them, where he is either silent or 
 positively hostile ^ 
 
 Those who have followed me through this prolonged investigation (which I 
 knew not how to abridge without sacrificing perspicuity to conciseness) will readily 
 anticipate my reply to Dr Tregelles' "statement of his case," comprehended in the 
 following emphatic words: "It is claimed that the united testimony of versions, 
 fathers, and the oldest MSS. should be preferred to that of the mass of modern 
 
 ^ e.g. Origen sides with the received text or with 
 A against B, Matth. xxi. 29 cited by Tregelles 
 (p. 107), and in the course of the next few chapters 
 in XXV. 27 ; 29; xxvi. 48 ; 53 ; xxvii. 3 ; 11 ; 54 
 lis; xxviii. 15 ; 18. I could multiply references 
 
 Icctoris ad fastidium. It may tend to shew the 
 precariousness of patristic testimony if I add that 
 in five of the above-named passages Origen's au- 
 thority may be cited on hoth sides. 
 
18 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 copies; and farther, that the character of the few ancient MSS. which agree 
 M'ith versions and fathers, must be such (from that very circumstance) as to make 
 their general evidence the more trustworthy" (p. 141). Unquestionably, I rejoin, 
 your claim is reasonable, it is irresistible. If you shew us all, or nearly all, the 
 uncials you prize so deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text 
 which is recommended by all the best versions and most ancient Fathers, depend 
 upon it we will not lu-ge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number 
 of the cursive copies, be they ever so unanimous on the other side. But are we 
 not discussing a purely abstract proposition ? Do we ever find the "united" 
 testimony of the ancients drawing us one way, that of the juniors another? 
 I will not assert that such instances may not occur, though at this moment 1 can 
 hardly remember one : it is enough to say that principles broad as those laid 
 down by Tregelles must be designed to meet the rule, not the exception. In 
 the seven texts we have been reviewing, in the sixty-five that remain on his 
 list, in the yet more numerous cases he tells us he has passed over, the uncial 
 MSS. are not unequally divided ; or where there is a preponderance, it is not 
 often in our adversary's favour. The elder authorities being thus at variance, 
 common sense seems to dictate an appeal to those later authorities, respecting 
 which one thing is clear, that they were not copied immediately from the 
 uncials still extant. Such later codices thus become the representatives of 
 others that have perished, as old, and (to borrow Davidson's suggestion, p. viii) 
 not improbably more old than any now remaining. These views appear so 
 reasonable and sober, that they have approved themselves to the judgment even 
 of Dr Tregelles : for he does not by any means disdain the aid of the few 
 cursive copies {e.g. 1. 33. 69. &c.) which "preserve an ancient text," whereby 
 of course is implied one coinciding with his preconceived opinion of what an 
 ancient text ought to be^ 
 
 Perhaps I shall be expected to say a few words respecting the scheme 
 devised by Bentley for settling the sacred text on a firmer basis, since both 
 Tregelles and his precursor Lachmann (iV. T. Proleg. Vol. i. p. xxx) have 
 sheltered their practice of recurring exclusively to the most ancient extant docu- 
 ments beneath the shadow of that great name. We shall all agree on one 
 point, that no authority, however imposing, can supply the place of argument 
 in enquiries of this kind ; nor do I scruple to confess that were I disposed to 
 swear allegiance to any earthly teacher, it would be to that illustrious scholar. 
 
 1 Dean Alford had constructed the text of his 
 first volume of the Greek Testament (ist edition) 
 on nearly the same plan as Tregelles would, and 
 thoroughly was he dissatisfied with the result. 
 "The adoption of that text," he writes with ad- 
 
 mirable frankness, "was, I do not hesitate to 
 confess, a great mistahe. It proceeded on altogether 
 too high an estimate of the most ancient existing 
 MSS., and too low an one of the importance of 
 internal evidence." {N. T. Vol. ii. PrcAaj. p. 58.) 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 10 
 
 whose learning and genius shed a bright ray across the darkness of his evil 
 generation. It is painful to say of the most highly gifted man that ever devoted 
 himself to the study of Biblical criticism, that his leading principle was taken 
 lip hastily and on precai'ious grounds ; yet if the fact be so, why need we hesitate 
 to avow it ? Bentley's theory, as most of my readers will remember, was built 
 on the idea, that the oldest MSS. of the Greek original and of Jerome's Latin 
 version, resemble each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the 
 words, that by means of this agreement he could restore the text as it stood 
 in the fourth century, " so that there shall not be twenty words, or even 
 particles, difference!" "By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope's 
 [Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephens's [1550], 
 I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under nine 
 hundred years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first 
 amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree 
 better." Thus wrote Bentley to Archbishop Wake in 1716: the tone of his 
 " Proposals," in 1720, after considerable progress had been made in the work 
 of collation, is not materially less confident. Yet to those who have calmly 
 examined the subject, the wonder is not the closeness of agreement between 
 the Greek and Latin Codices, but that a man of so vast erudition and ability 
 should have imagined that he perceived it, to any thing approaching the extent 
 the lowest sense of his words demands. Accordingly when his collations came 
 to be examined, and compared,, and weighed, keen indeed must have been 
 the disappointment of our English Aristarchus. With characteristic fearlessness 
 he had been at no trouble to select his materials (at least I trace no indication 
 of such choice in his surviving papers), and thus the truth would burst upon 
 him all the sooner, that the theory on which he had staked a noble reputation, 
 in the face of watchful enemies, must either be abandoned or extensively 
 modified. We can well understand the struggle which silently agitated that 
 proud spirit. Had the subject of his labours been Terence or Milton, it were 
 easy to conjectm-e the course he would have adopted : if MSS. refused to support 
 his system, they must have been forced to yield to it. But Bentley, with all 
 his faults of temper, was an honest and a pious man; he dared not make 
 the text of Holy Scripture the victim of his sportive ingenuity ; and so, soon 
 after the year 1721, we come to hear less and less of his projected Greek 
 Testament. Though he lived till 1742, it does, not appear that he ever made 
 serious progress in arranging the stores collected by himself and his coadjutors. 
 As I have turned over his papers in the Library of Trinity College, with a heart 
 saddened by the spectacle of so much labour lost, I could not persuade myself 
 that the wretched dissensions which embittered his declining days had, of them- 
 selves, power enough over Bentley's mind to break off in the midst a work 
 that he had once regarded as his best passport to undying fame. 
 
 J ) 2 
 
20 PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 
 
 From the facts we have been discussing I feel entitled to draw two or 
 three practical inferences. 
 
 (a). That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely 
 be derived from any one set of authorities, whether MSS., versions, or Fathers, 
 but ought to be the result of a patient comparison and careful estimate of the 
 evidence given by them all. 
 
 (6). That where there is a real agreement between all the documents 
 prior to the tenth century, the testimony of later MSS., though not to be 
 rejected unheard, is to be regarded with much suspicion, and, unless supported 
 by strong internal evidence ^ can hardly be adopted. 
 
 (c). That in the far more numerous cases where the most ancient docu- 
 ments are at variance with each other, the later or cursive copies are of great 
 importance, as the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as 
 early, possibly even earlier, than any now extant^. 
 
 I do not lay down these propositions as any new discovery of my own, 
 but as being (even the second of them) the principles on which all reasonable 
 defenders of the Textus Beceptus have upheld its general integrity. 
 
 IV. I have a good hope that the foregoing investigation of the laws of 
 Comparative Criticism will have convinced an impartial reader, that the cursive 
 or junior copies of the Greek New Testament have, in their proper place and 
 due subordination, a real and appreciable influence in questions relating to 
 doubtful readings. If I have succeeded thus far, it results that the time and 
 pains I have bestowed on studying them have not been wasted: the collations 
 I have accumulated cannot fail to be of some service to the Biblical critic, 
 even though he may think I have a little exaggerated their value and importance. 
 I am not so sanguine as to the degree of popular acceptance my views may 
 obtain, nor (without affecting absolute indifference on the subject) am I by 
 any means so anxious on this head. I have always thought that the researches 
 and labours of the scholar — of the theological scholar above all others — are 
 
 ^ If I have liitherto said nothing on the im- 
 portant head of internal evidence, it is from no 
 wish to disparage its temperate and legitimate use. 
 Yet how difficult it is to hinder its degenerating, 
 
 strained into a summary neglect of more recent 
 witnesses, as necessarily offering nothing worthy 
 of notice :" finely adding, "The critic should not 
 suffer himself to be encumbered by prepossessions 
 
 skilful hands, into vague and arbitrary | or assumptions, nor bind himself to the routine of 
 
 conjecture ! 
 
 ^ Even Mr Green, from whom I fear I differ 
 widely on some of the topics discussed in this 
 chapter, does not shrink from saying, "In a re- 
 view of authorities special regard will reasonably 
 be paid to antiquity ; but this must not be over- 
 
 a mechanical method of procedure. If he allows 
 himself to be thus warped and trammelled, instead 
 of ever maintaining the free employment of a 
 watchful, calm, and unfettered mind, he abandons 
 his duty and mars his work" (Course of DevelojKcl 
 Criticism, Introduction, p. x.). 
 
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM. 21 
 
 thcii' own highest and purest reward^. Let me plead guilty to having read 
 with sensations akin to scorn, the manuscript note appended by Caesar de Missy 
 (a person who might have known better) to the copy of Hearne's scarce edition 
 of the Codex Laudianus (published in 1715), now preserved in the British 
 Museum. To Hearne's miserable list of just forty-one subscribers to his book, 
 De Missy subjoins the sarcastic comment "Apres cela, Docteur, va pdlir sur la 
 Bible !" Yet why should he not have grown pale in the study of God's Word ? 
 Why not have handed down to happier times a treasure of sacred learning 
 which the princes and prelates of George the First's reign (that nadir-point of 
 public virtue and intellectual cultivation in England) were too slothful to ap- 
 preciate, too negligent even to despise? The pin-suits of Scriptural criticism 
 are so quiet, so laborious, that they can have few charms for the votary of 
 fame, or the courtier of preferment: they always have been, perhaps they 
 always must be, the choice employment mainly of those, who, feeling conscious 
 (it may be) of having but one talent committed to their keeping, seek nothing 
 so earnestly as to use that one talent well. 
 
 ^ I should have wished to add some noble senti- { face, p. xx.) on this point, but that I trust they are 
 ments of Dr Dobbin {Codex Monffortianus, Pre- \ known to my readers, as thej' well deserve to be. 
 
CHAPTEE IL 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS COLLATED BY 
 F. H. SCRIVENER. 
 
 The following contributions to the criticism of the Greek Testament are now 
 submitted to the Biblical student. 
 
 I. A transcript of the uncial Codex Augiensis GRiECO-LATiNus of St Paul's 
 Epistles, The importance of this venerable document, no less than its countless 
 variations from the printed text in both languages, seems to make a full publica- 
 tion of its contents very advisable. No pains or diligence has been spared to 
 render the copy here exhibited a faithful representation of the original manu- 
 script. 
 
 IL A full and exact collation of eight manuscripts of the Gospels (three 
 being Evangelistaria in uncial letters), of fifteen containing the Acts and Catholic 
 Epistles, of fifteen copies of St Paul's Epistles, and thirteen of the Apocalypse, 
 few of which have been previously used for critical purposes. 
 
 I have set down the variations of these fifty-one documents from the standard 
 text (Elzevir, 1624) with a minuteness not before deemed necessary by others, or 
 indeed by myself in my " Collation of Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels." Not 
 only have I noted the various readings strictly so called, but every peculiarity of 
 gi-ammatical inflexion or breathing, every erasure or error of the pen, every 
 remarTcahle change, whether of accent or punctuation, will be found recorded in 
 these pages. In adopting this plan, I have acted not so much on my own 
 judgment, as the earnest desire of several scholars, who have wished my labours 
 to present them with as true an image as possible of the original codices. Un- 
 doubtedly the real value of our materials, the degree of care exercised by the 
 respective scribes, together with many interesting and significant peculiarities of 
 each document, may thus be preserved for the curious inquirer: nor in consulting 
 a book of reference like the present can any one be seriously incommoded by 
 what he may think an error of excess on my part. A portion of my task whose 
 usefulness is less open to dispute is my anxiety to state, in the case of every 
 important variation, not only which of my authorities differ from the received 
 text, but which of them agree with it, 
 
 I proceed to lay before the reader, as clearly and briefly as I may, some 
 account of the manuscripts I have collated, beginning with that whose transcript 
 covers so many of the following pages. 
 
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS, &C. 
 
 23 
 
 I. The Codex Augiensis is a Greek and Latin Manuscript of St Paul's 
 Epistles, written in uncial letters, probably of the ninth century, deposited in the 
 Librai-y of Trinity College, Cambridge (b, 17. 1), to the Master and P'ellows of 
 Mhich society I am deeply indebted, as well for the munificent aid they have 
 afforded me in the publication of this volume, as for their liberal permission 
 to use this and other precious documents at my own residence. The Codex 
 Augiensis is written on 136 quarto leaves of fine vellum, 9 inches long by 7^ 
 broad, and has a rude binding in wood, such as was common in Germany and the 
 Low Countries some centuries ago: on the leathern back are stamped the initials 
 of one of its late owners (G. M. W.). Each page contains 28 lines and is 
 divided into two columns, wherein the Ijatin version is set alongside of the 
 Greek text, the Latin column being always placed outside. This copy com- 
 mences, Rom. iii. 19, fia Xeyet, and the Greek ends, Philem, v. 20, ev xp(o. There 
 also occur the following hiatus in the Greek; 1 Corinth, iii. 8 to v. 16, ot/cei ev 
 vixiv. ibid. vi. 7 to the end of v. 14: and Coloss. ii. 1, after \ao8tKta to v. 8, 
 Koa-fiov^. In all these places after Rom. iii. 19, the Latin version is complete, 
 being carried on to the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but the very same 
 hiatus are found in the Greek text and Latin version of the Codex Boernerianus 
 {JSIatthcei, 1791), although this latter document contains portions of the Epistle 
 to the Romans before the place where the Codex Augiensis begins. 
 
 The recent history of our manuscript may be traced by means of the inscrip- 
 tions and notes at its beginning and end, which I have copied below, p. 272, and 
 need not here repeat. It Avas first the property of the monastery whence it 
 derives its name, that of Augia Major, or Augia Dives, Reichenau [rich meadow) 
 on a fertile island in the lower part of Lake Constance in Baden ; not Augia 
 Rheni, Rheinau {meadow of the Rhine) on an island near the cataract of SchafF- 
 hausen, as Michaelis and others state (Reeves' edition of Adamnan's " Life of St 
 Columba," Pref. p. xxii) : Bentley's note " Monasterium Augiae, in Belgis, ubi 
 institutus est Goddeschalchus" seems to point to Orbais in the diocese of Soissons 
 and modern Department of the Marne, some thirty miles east of Paris. If Wet- 
 stein be right in supplying " Concilii" after *' Basiliensis" [a.d. 1431] in the 
 earliest inscription, p. 272, the book must have belonged to that monastery in 
 the fifteenth century; whence it came into the possession of G. M. Wepfer, of 
 Schaff'hausen, and then of L. Ch. Mieg, who permitted Wetstein to examine it. 
 Wetstein induced Bentley to purchase this Codex at Heidelberg in 1718, the 
 German bookseller parting with it at cost price (250 Dutch florins) in considera- 
 tion for the fame and learning of the prince of English scholars^. Bentley, as 
 
 ^ Eight leaves of the Codex Augiensis, which 
 ought to follow fol. 55, have been placed by the 
 binder after fol. 102. 
 
 2 Or rather perhaps as Bentley states the case 
 when writing to Wetstein at the time {Bentley Cor- 
 respondence, p. 541), "ob beneficia a uie partim 
 
24 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 will be seen from his manuscript notes, formed a high estimate of the Codex 
 Augicnsis, and used it for his projected edition of the Greek Testament. I have 
 compared his colhition (consisting of the Greek text only) with my own tran- 
 script, and extracted {infra, p. 284) the few notes interspersed with it from the 
 margin of his copy of the Oxford Greek Testament 1G75, now preserved with his 
 other papers and books in Trinity College Library (b. 17. 8). The first published 
 collation of our manuscript was that of Wetstein, in whose notation it is marked 
 F of the Pauline Epistles ; but as this was easily seen to be very imperfect, it was 
 again examined by Tischendorf in 1842, and by Dr Tregelles in 1845, for their 
 editions of the Greek Testament. The result of Tischendorf's labours appears 
 in his manual N. T. of 1849, but it is obviously impossible in so small a volume 
 to do anything like justice to such a document as this : indeed I may fairly apply 
 to his case the language of Matthaei respecting the kindred Codex Boerneri- 
 anus: " Etenim nee Kusterus nee Wetstenius satis accurate omnia hujus Codicis 
 singularia notaverant, nee vero etiam, nisi totum transcribere voluissent, potuerant. 
 Plura enim pi'orsus singularia nuUus inter Codices N. T. habet, nisi fortasse 
 Evangeliorum et Actuum Bezae seu Cantabrigiensis" [Prcef. Cod. Boern. p. iii.)^ 
 I should add that Tischendorf was the first to pay attention to the Latin trans- 
 lation in F (denoted by f), remarkable and in some measure perplexing as 
 it is. " Primus contuli et passim citavi " is his statement {^Nov. Test. Proleg. 
 Pi Lxxxii.) ; yet his citations are comparatively few (no less than eight varia- 
 tions being omitted in liom. viii.), and convey no adequate representation of 
 its peculiar charactei'. I have reason to know that this defect will be supplied 
 in his seventh edition. 
 
 In estimating the age and country of this manuscript we are scarcely left 
 to conjecture. The style of writing both in its Latin and Greek columns, its 
 manifest connexion with the Codex Boernerianus, and consequently with the 
 Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels (A) published in lithograph facsimile by 
 Rettig (Turici, 1836) ; no less than the extraneous matter it contains, written in 
 the same hand as the sacred text, all seem to point distinctly to the West of 
 Europe, and the middle of the ninth century. 
 
 This foreign matter consists of a Latin Prologue to the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (infra, p. 252), the only Argument in the Codex Augiensis, and a 
 kind of Epilogue to the same Epistle (pp. 2G8 — 272), having however but 
 little reference to it. Both the Prologue and Epilogue are found in the works of 
 Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died a.d. 856, and is justly 
 termed by Dean Waddington (History of the Church, p. 259, first edition) 
 
 acceptH,partim adhuc sperata:" yet who would not i tinet commemorare." This was in 1 791, yet the 
 
 gladly impute their courtesy to the higher motive ? j Cod. Augiensis was then at Trinity College, having 
 
 1 "Nam de Augiensi," Matthaei strangely been placed there in 1787, after the death of 
 
 adds, "quia ubi nunc lateat, ignoratur, uon at- ! Richard Bentley the nephew. 
 
OF THE GREKK TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 " the most profound theologian of the age." The Proh)gue is prefixed to that 
 prelate's Commentary on the Hebrews (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, Paris, 18-51 ; 
 liabani Opera, Tom. vi. p. 711); the Epilogue is annexed to llabanus' Treatise 
 " De Modo Poenitentice," comprising the twenty-third and concluding chapter of 
 that work, with the title " Dicta Abbatis Pinopiii" (Migne, Patrologia, Tom. 112, 
 p. 1329); yet, as in the case of the Codex Augiensis, it has no special connection 
 with the preceding matter, only that it was manifestly familiar to Rabanus, who 
 has employed its sentiments, and sometimes its very words, throughout his own 
 Treatise^ Now when we consider that both the Prologue and Epilogue are found 
 in the volumes of Rabanus, it need not materially modify our estimate of the date 
 of the Codex Augiensis were we to learn that one or both of them has been 
 traced scparateJi/ to an earlier source. The Prologue is read almost verbatim, 
 in the Codex Amiatinus edited by Tischendorf (1850, 1854), the most venerable 
 existing MS. of the Latin Vulgate, whose date is the sixth century: while a 
 marginal note has been affixed by a modern hand to the Epilogue in our 
 MS. (fol. 139, p. 2)^ directing our attention to Cumianus, an Irish writer of the 
 middle of the seventh century. On comparing the passage cited (BibliotJieca 
 Patrum Maxima, Lugduni 1677, Tom. xii. p. 42) with our Postscript, the resem- 
 blance between them appears so slight an(J general that it is hard to believe that 
 the writer of the note could have ever read both pieces throughout: in the few 
 opening sentences alone is there any real similarity. There seems, therefore, at 
 present no reason for distui'bing the general opinion which has assigned the 
 date of our Manuscript to the next generation after Charlemagne. 
 
 We are led to much the same conclusion when we regard the Codex Augiensis 
 in connexion with the Codices Sangallensis and Boernerianus : I name them 
 together, for no one that has read Rettig's elaborate Prolegomena to the former 
 (Cap. IV. pp. 18 — 23) will hesitate to consider them as portions of one and the 
 same document. The close affinity subsisting between the Codices Augiensis 
 
 ^ The Codex Augiensis should be used for cor- | remit Origenes Homil. ii. in Levit." A later 
 
 recting the text of Rabanus : thus, both it and the , scribe adds, "imo potius conveniunt iis quse Cu- 
 
 Cod. Amiatinus supply an important sentence in | mianus habet in 1. de Poenitentiarura niensura" 
 
 the Argument to the Hebrews, and it confirms [ qui auctor vixit an 640. et iis quse extant B. Patr. 
 
 Migne's conjecture "elemosinai-um/'fol. 140, p. i, 1 T. xii. p. 42." For habct in Tischendorf reads 
 
 col. I, 1. 6. Aft«r "jam non recordabor," fol. 141, 1 Rabani, for hahet Mr Hort (in Tregelles' Home, 
 
 p. I, col. 2, I. I, there is no resemblance between i p. 198 note) reads Fata or Fota, and obligingly 
 
 our MS. and the "Dicta Pinophi," either in the points out to me that "Fota" or "the Long" 
 
 words or sense. For this Abbot Pinophus I have ■ was the sobriquet of Cumianus or Co;nmin (nat. 
 
 searched in vain every index of mediasval litera- | A.D. 592; Cave, Histor. Literar. Tom. i. p. 584, 
 
 ture I could meet with. I must k-ave him to j O.Kon. 1740). I believe, however, that when he 
 
 some one who may be more foi-tuuate. ; shall next consult the MS., he will find my read- 
 
 '■^ I subjoin the whole note, the cramped hand- j ing of the word con-ect. I have placed an ;is- 
 
 writing of which has perplexed more readers than j terisk on p. 268, at the pLice whoic this ra.-.r- 
 
 one: "respondent stec [sequential] quadantonus | ginal note begins, 
 variis illis rcmittcudi peccata modis. quorum me- I 
 
26 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 and Boernerianus has indeed no parallel in this branch of literature, for the 
 Codex Sangcrmancnsis of St Paul's Epistles (E) is nothing but a bad copy of the 
 great Codex Claromontanus (D), and having as such no critical value whatever, 
 ought long since to have been expunged from the list of authorities. No 
 suspicion of this kind can be reasonably entertained in the present case. The 
 Latin versions in the two copies are essentiaUij different, and though the circum- 
 stance that the same hiatus are met with in the Greek text of each, and their 
 intimate correspondence even in errors of the scribe, abundantly prove that they 
 are derived from the same Greek prototype'(" ejusdem veteris exemplaris apo- 
 graph©," as Bentley expresses it, ivfra, p. 284), yet the supposition that the one 
 was immediately derived from the other, will be found quite irreconcileable with 
 ascertained phenomena. I have made an accurate collation of the Codex Augi- 
 ensis with INIatthaji's edition of the Codex Boernerianus, which was lately ascer- 
 tained by Bottiger to be very exact, and have placed its results at the foot of 
 each page in my transci-ipt in the following pages. Hence it appears that the 
 two documents vary from each other in 1984 places; whereof 579 are mere 
 blunders of the pen; 968 itacisms, or changes of one vowel into another^; 166 
 relate to a similar interchange of consonants; 71 to grammatical or ortho- 
 graphical forms; while the real various readings amount to 200, of which 32 arise 
 li"om the omission or insertion of the article. Elsewhere the Greek texts of these 
 manuscripts are identical, coinciding in the minutest points. 
 
 , The 166 instances of interchange of consonants are chiefly corrections in 
 the Codex Boernerianus of anomalies found in the Codex Augiensis; yet many 
 remain common to both, from which might be drawn up a catalogue to the 
 full as curious as that of Rettig in his Prolegomena to the Codex Sangallensis, 
 and much of the same character. A few examples loill suffice for a thousand, and 
 it is quite evident that the scribe who adopted them had a most imperfect 
 acquaintance with Greek. Thus A and e are perpetually confused in F; e.g. 
 avbpaiTos, Gal. iii. 15; v. 3; Eph. vi. 6; Phil. ii. 7; Col. iii. 22: but adeXKpos 
 Phil. ii. 25; iii. 1; 13; 17; iv. 1 ; 21; Coloss. i. 1 ; 2; 1 Thess. iv. 10, bis; 
 13 ; V. 1 p.m.; 4 p.m.; 12 p.m.; 1 Tim. iv. 6 p.m.; v. 1; 2; aXrjbuiv, 1 Tim. iv. 3 
 
 jy.m.: aycoviCofieSu, ibid. v. 10 pm.; irapa^iKriv, 2 Tim. i. 12: \vbabrjv (pro avOahri), Tit. 
 
 i. 7. So N and n, rovnavTiov, Gal. ii. 7: avvvveKpi-B-qa-av, ibid. V. 13: \vveiTai, Ephcs. 
 iv. 30: Trpfvei, V. 3: Treptvarire, ibid. V. 8: especially kovos (pro koitos), 2 Cor. x. 15; 
 xi. 23 ; 27, passim. Thus also T and e are interchanged, evfixea-rai, 2 Cor. xi. 
 4: anoXoyovpeTa, xii. 19 p.m.: KadapTiCfo-dai, xiii. 11: avdea-TTjv, Gal. ii. 11. Similarly 
 with C and I, Rom. vii. 11 has fCrjTraTrja-ev both in F and G; but Phil. iii. 8 
 f^TjpticvBrjv: see also F in Col. i. 29; iii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 3; 
 
 ^ In both MSS. the vowels are interchanged 
 as much as in any copy I know, none perhaps so 
 frequently as o and w : yet I would not quite 
 
 assert with Tregelles (Home, p. 198), that the 
 writer of F " used them without discrimination. 
 The interchange of e and t] is nearly as frequent. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 27 
 
 1 Tim. i. 6 ; Tit. i. 2 ; ii. 9. H and N are constantly interchanged in G, and some- 
 times in F, e.g. Eph. i. 17; iii. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 13. The confusion of fi and v, 
 noted by Matthaei in G, is also found in F, e.g. Kom. xv. 2G ; 1 Cor. i. 9 ; as is the 
 more natural error of A for A (1 Cor. iii. 19), A for A (Tit. i. 7), A for A (2 Cor. 
 xii. G). The decided Latinism n for P (e.g. 1 Tim. ii. 1) and vice versa is very 
 frequent: o-pfpua, Rom. ix. 7: napapTafiaTt, xi. 11: ayaprjroi, 1 Cor. X. 14: p.m.: but 
 Tr\T]Tro(fiopf<Tov, 2 Tim. iv. 5. Mutations of tt and /3 (1 Tim. iv. 14), of k and x 
 (especially in eKdpos and eKdpa, e.g. Rom. v. 10; viii. 7; xii. 20), of ^ and x (Rom. 
 xi. 14, G; 1 Cor. vi. 2, F; 2 Cor. iii. 18, F; 1 Tim. i. 15) of vx for yx {(nr\avxva, 
 Philem. vv. 7; 12) constantly occur, and need not here be further cited. 
 
 There are no signs of the ordinary breathings and accents in this manuscript. 
 Codex F occasionally, and G more often places a straight line nearly horizontal 
 over the initial vowel of a word, which may be designed for the aspirate, but is 
 found in some few places where the vowel takes the lenis (i8lov, 1 Cor. vi. 18; 
 vii. 4; 37; Lo-a-a, Phil. ii. 6; see also 1 Tim. iv. 15). This mark is of some im- 
 portance from the circumstance that both in F and G it is placed over OC in 
 1 Tim. iii. 16, for which various reading in the place of eC these codices are 
 well known to be the chief, I had almost said the only unequivocal witnesses. 
 Yet I do not believe that the line was intended to denote that OC was the 
 familiar abbreviation for deos, for not only is there not the faintest trace of such 
 a line ivithin the O as shall make it become O', but the line is placed over too 
 many initial and aspirated omicrons to render it probable that anything more 
 was intended here (1 Thess. i. 9 F G ; 1 Tim. iii. 1 G; iv. 14 G; 15 FG ; vi. 
 15 his FG). Another pecuharity of these codices is the strange and sometimes 
 indeed the absurd manner in which the words are separated from each other. 
 The continuous mode of wiiting, with no space or division between the words, 
 which prevailed in the elder Greek uncial copies, was by this time laid aside, 
 and the scribe of the Codex Augiensis seems to have intended to place a middle 
 point or stop (•) after the last letter of each word he wrote. These points I 
 have faithfully retained in my transcript, and though the penman neglects them 
 in some passages (about fol. 12 and elsewhere they almost disappear for a while), 
 yet on the whole they are found pretty uniformly in all parts of the MS. Parts 
 of the same word, originally separated, are often linked {p.m. as it would seem) 
 by a curve („), the point once between them being partially or wholly erased. 
 In the Codex Boernerianus few such stops are found, but an interval is left 
 between the several words much in the fashion of modern writing. Now the 
 point I would draw attention to is this : that while the mode in which the words 
 
 ^ Of course I speak of the Codex Augiensis 
 from close and repeated examination, and the 
 reader will judge for himself by the photogr.apli 
 
 contained in this volume. The facsimile of this 
 passage from the Codex Boernerianus is given in 
 Matthici's Greek Tcstnment, Vol. i. p. 4. 
 
 e2 
 
28 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 arc divided in each copy displays much ignorance on the part of the penman, 
 there is no striking resemblance in the actual blunders : the two documents 
 therefore were derived separately from some early codex, in which there was 
 probably no interval between the words ; and consequently in those places where 
 F and G agree, they must not be estimated as two distinct authorities, but as 
 one; the surviving representatives of a manuscript now lost, perhaps a century or 
 two older than themselves. 
 
 This is true as regards the Greek text : their respective Latin versions are 
 quite independent and even more interesting than the Greek to a Biblical critic. 
 " Codex Augiensis latinam interpretationem eamque veterem vulgatam adscriptam 
 habet, Boernerianus vero grascis superscriptam eamque veterem italam," is 
 Tischendorf's decision (Proleg. N. T. p. lxxiii). Tregelles again terms the Latin 
 version of F a very good copy of that of Jerome, "far superior to that generally 
 current" (Tregelles' Home, p. 198). I am not sure whether Dr Davidson has 
 closely examined this subject, as his description of this copy is not quite free from 
 error, 3'et I conceive his view of the version to be more correct, w hen he regards 
 it as " patched and mended so as to be a mixture of the Old Latin and Jerome's" 
 {Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Vol. 11.). But in fact the internal history of the 
 Latin Vulgate translation, and its relation to the Italic or old Latin, under the 
 various forms wherein the latter has been pi'cserved to us, remain yet to be 
 investigated, nor is this the place to venture on so large a field of inquiry. The 
 Latin portion of the Codex Augiensis (called f by Tisehendorf) will I believe 
 prove very useful to the scholar who shall undertake the thorough examination of 
 this question: for the present it shall suffice to offer a few general remarks. 
 
 Our version then will be found to approximate much nearer to the Clementine 
 Vulgate, or to the best MSS. of Jerome's version, such as the Codices Amiatinus 
 and Fuldensis, in those parts of the manuscript where the Greek is lost : indeed 
 to differ from one or more of them only in affbrding some good various readings. 
 There is wider divergency in other places, yet even there it very much consists of 
 readings assimilated to those of the Greek text in the parallel columns, or of 
 changes in the order of words, Avhich are thus made to approach to that of the 
 original, a tendency too natural under the circumstances to excite surpi-ise. 
 Sometimes, when the variation in order is more extensive than usual, marks are 
 placed over the Greek words, referring them to the corresponding Latin (e.g. Rom. 
 xi. 22). In some parts of this MS. (e.g. 1 Cor. x.) the divergences of the Latin 
 version in our copy from the Vulgate are considerable : its renderings approaching 
 nearer to those of the Italic MSS. In many passages, however, the Latin reading 
 agrees with the printed Vulgate against the Greek (e.g. Rom. xii. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 
 2; 24; xiv. 18; xv. 51; 2 Cor. i. 20; iii. 13; v. 3; 19; xi. 23; Gal. i. 6 p.m.; 
 v. 25 ; Ephes. vi. 19 ; Phil. ii. 11 ; iii. 8 ; 17 ; 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; iv. 22) : while in 
 some instances it departs from the Greek and present Vulgate text jointly (e. g. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 29 
 
 Rom. ix. 4 ; 1 Cor. x. 1; 29 ; xv. 23 ; Eph. iii. 11 ; Phil. iii. 7; 1 Tim. v. 1 ; 2 Tim. 
 i. IT) bis); and often sides with the Greek against the Vulgate (e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 
 ix. 24; X. 2; 19; Gal. v. 22; et passim). 
 
 Throughout the whole MS. many Latin words -will be seen placed o^ er the 
 Greek, probably by a later', certainly by an ancient hand, a large portion of 
 which, viz. 86 cases out of the whole 106, are derived from the interlinear 
 version of the Codex Boernerianus-: of the remainder, one rendering " ivaltet" 
 1 Cor. vii. 4 is in German, which was doubtless the native language of this scribe. 
 Either therefore a later hand must have corrected the Cod. Augiensis by its 
 kindred copy (which from other improvements in the Greelc may be deemed 
 not impossible), or the interlinear Latin in both documents was taken from their 
 common prototype, which in that case must have exhibited the old Italic and 
 not Jerome's revised translation. The Latin version in F is somewhat carelessly 
 written, at least in parts (e.g. foil. 49, 50). I have thought it my duty to retain 
 in my copy all the original errors of the pen. 
 
 I would not positively assert that the Codex Augiensis is the work of a single 
 scribe: certainly when the misplaced leaves 56 — 63 are seen in the later part of 
 the MS. after fol. 102, the contrast in style of writing is rather striking. Yet 
 those who are most conversant with palaeography will often feel the most diffident 
 in pronouncing judgment on this point, so greatly does the hand change in the 
 course of a long task ; and so much is it influenced by the prospect of an abund- 
 ance or scarcity of vellum or paper. Yet in a case like that before us, where the 
 same document was faithfully copied at the same time and place, the question 
 respecting the identity of the copyist is hardly worth discussing^ 
 
 Wetstein, I believe, was the first to speak of the Anglo-Saxon form of the 
 Latin characters (N. T. Proleg. Tom. ii. 8), but I perceive no real difference 
 between the style of this MS, and of many of the same date which abound in 
 public libraries (e.g. Bodleian, Douce, 322). Hence I would rather acquiesce in 
 the statement of the late accomplished John Wordsworth (infra, p. 272) : " This 
 MS. is not written in Anglo-Saxon characters, as has been described, but in 
 the renovated minuscule of the Caroline period." While the Greek portion is 
 executed in a neat but rather rude uncial character, the Latin is in a cursive 
 hand, the intervals between the words well marked, and the whole ap^Dearance 
 one of singular elegance and clearness. The reader will observe from my copy 
 
 ^ pota ilium, Rom. xii. 20, and perhaps some 
 other words, are clearly p. m. 
 
 2 From which, I presume, h was inserted be- 
 fore vrroKpiaei, Fol. 118, p. 2, 1. 18. 
 
 3 I am quite willing to acquiesce in Dr Tre- 
 geUes' statement, in his edition of Home's IrUro- 
 duction, Vol. II. p. 189 : " If different parts of the 
 Code.x Augiensis are compared, it may seem as if 
 
 it had been -written by several hands from the 
 variety in the character of the Greek ; but if the 
 leaves are looked at consecutively (and not in the 
 order in which some of them are now transposed) 
 [vid. supra, j). xxiii, note i.], it will be seen that the 
 clianges are so gradual as to indicate the same 
 hand having become more practised (or more 
 wearied) in tracing Greek letters." 
 
30 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 that prepositions, &c. are often joined closely with the following Avord. Here 
 again a few of the consonants are repeatedly interchanged, b with p\ d with 
 t, c with s, X with ch (1 Cor. xii. 31), and p with r in xps or xpc, both which 
 forms perpetually occur, the latter perhaps the more frequently. The letter 
 r has often the shape of f, and twice (Rom. ix. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 17) r is used 
 where P is plainly meant. On the other hand, a few Latin letters and forms 
 have crept into the Greek text, as in Gal. v. 24; 1 Tim. iv. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 4 
 p.m.; iv. 1. Indeed v, u and y are much confounded: the genitive t for ov 
 occurs 2 Cor. ii. 15; v. 10; 1 Tim. iv. 6; Philem. 9 p.m.: i for the pi. nom. oi, 
 1 Cor. ix. o; xv. 48; 2 Thess. iii. 8: t? for ois, 1 Cor. xvi. IG : k is read in 
 karissimus, but not (I think) elsewhere. 
 
 The abbreviations or contractions in the Greek text ai-e confined to the 
 words, deos, Kvpioi, iTjo-ovs, xptfTor, rraTTjp, Trvevfia, and their oblique cases ; these are 
 common to most uncial copies. The Codex Augiensis however (thus resem- 
 bling the Cod. Boernerianus) is peculiar in reading irjv, irjv, xpv> XP"- although 
 the more usual forms iv, iv, ^f, x^ ^^'^ often met with. It also sometimes 
 reads s for ov. All these peculiarities I have, of course, studiously retained. 
 
 The Latin version has many more contractions, though these are so unequally 
 distributed that on many pages (especially near the beginning) there are 
 scarce any. The page Ave represent in photograph exhibits an average num- 
 ber. Most of them will be found in other MSS. of about the same date, but 
 since I have not exhibited them in my transcript except for special reasons, 
 I have been the more careful to draw up the following complete list of them. 
 
 Both in the middle and end of a word — over a letter denotes m: over m it 
 stands for en (e. g. am), over t or v for er (e. g. talit), over the last written 
 
 1 Since Reichenau, like St Gall and other 
 neighbouring foundations, was much frequented in 
 the ninth century by Irish monks and pilgrims, 
 the Codex Augiensis has been thought to have been 
 written by a scribe of that nation. I note however 
 a considerable difference both in style of writing 
 and in neatness between the Latin of this MS., and 
 the rude coarse hand of the Codices Sangallensis 
 and Boernerianus, which strikingly resemble the 
 interlined copy of the Lord's Prayer appended to 
 the Reichenau MS. of the Life of St Columba, 
 founder of Hy [Icolmkill] by Adamnan, and pub- 
 lished with it in 1857 for the Irish Archaeological 
 Society by Dr Reeves, the Celtic scholar, to whom 
 we were indebted ten years ago for the interpreta- 
 tion of the Irish stanzas at the foot of fol. 23 of 
 the Codex Boernerianus. The learned editor has 
 also laboriously collected from this MS. of Adam- 
 nan (which he assigns to the eighth century), from 
 the Book of Armagh (a.D. 807) and other kindred 
 
 sources, those orthographical peculiarities which he 
 considers to characterise Irish MSS. of about the 
 ninth century (Preface, p. xvi). I believe that his 
 list would have been more useful had he excluded 
 mere errors of the pen, and made it rather more 
 select : some of his forms, e. g. -is for -es, c and t 
 interchanged, adinpletus for adimpletus, are common 
 to all ages and MSS. Yet not a few of his ex- 
 amples occur in the Codex Augiensis, e. g. h for p ; 
 p for 6 (prespiter) ; f for ph; t for d ; habunde ; 
 cclesia ; ohoedientia ; and especially the coherence 
 of the preposition to the word it governs, so con- 
 stant in our MS. Dr Reeves (Preface, pp. xx. xxi.) 
 incidentally states that the capricious sub-division 
 of words, of which we see so much in the Greek 
 of the Codex Augiensis, is a marked peculiarity of 
 old Irish writing. But in our Latin version (f) we 
 find nothing of this kind, nor am I on the whole 
 inclined to impute it to an Irish scribe. 
 
or THE GREEK TESTAMENT 
 
 31 
 
 letter of a verb for the terminations it, at, or unt. The mark z above the 
 last written letter of a verb is for ur; the termination us is often represented 
 by an apostrophe (e.g. man'), rarely by u (Hebr. xiii. 4), u« or u', or even 
 by s for the apostrophe. The mark x seen on 11. 18 and 27 of the photographed 
 page is for the ending urn of the genitive plural; b is for the termination bis; 
 h; b' or b; for bus final. A comma uridei- e (1. 17 photograph) is for ae diph- 
 thong, and though it is often found under e in cdum, yet that word when written 
 in full is always spelt ccelum not ccelum: so also penitentia, pp. 268, 269. What 
 is meant by the comma over e (which I retain whenever it is found) I know 
 not. A kind of flourished tail appended to h, m, or n stands fori Te e- h )• 
 ns, nt are often written ]N , IS ; a is sometimes written small below the line 
 and connected with the other letters by a species of flourish as a^ h 
 for as, ha\ 
 
 In the subjoined hst of abuidged words the aiopcnded reference shews that 
 the form occurs only in the passages cited : 
 
 aetu (Hebr. vii. 21) (sternum. 
 
 aliqd aliquid or aliquod. 
 
 ajjls, apsis apostolus. 
 
 au, aut (au& Ephes. vi. 21) autem. 
 
 c, 3 con prepos. 
 
 dns (d 1 Cor. iv. 5), dni &c Dominus ^c 
 
 ds, di, do, dm Deus S^t. 
 
 eccla, eclsae, eclani ecclesia Sjc. 
 
 H (Hebr. xii. 20 ; xiii. 17) enim. 
 
 eplis epistolis. 
 
 epm (Tit. i. 7) episcopum. 
 
 g° •• ergo. 
 
 e or -^ est. 
 
 ee, eet, cent esse, esset, essent. 
 
 & (even joined with other lettei's), or 7 et. 
 
 evang (Eph. vi. 19) evangelii. 
 
 fr, frt, frem, fres, fribus f rater Sjc. 
 
 gla, glae gloria &;c. 
 
 gra, grae, gram, gras gratia S<;c. 
 
 hierlm (Hebr. vii. 22) hierusalem. 
 
 ihc or ihs (ih 2 Thess. ii. 8), ihu.ihra. J^e«i«* S^c. 
 
 Tmentu (1 Cor. iii. 7) incrementum. 
 
 ibis terve "*• 
 
 ^^■^^'•1 IsraheL 
 
 kmi (Eph. V. 1; Phil. ii. 12) carissimi. 
 
 micda, miserda, miae, miam . . . misericordia S^-c. 
 
 ms (Hebr. x. 38) „j^„^_ 
 
 ^ non (ne p. 270, I. 27?) 
 
 m-, nra, nrm, nrorum, mis nosier S^c. 
 
 nurnqd or numqd numquid. 
 
 nc~(Hebr. ix. 24) nunc. 
 
 obsecral (Eph. vi. 18) obsecratione. 
 
 omis, oms, ome, omi, oma omnis &c. 
 
 P per. 
 
 p' (only in Hebr. and Postscript) post. 
 
 p (even joined with other letters) . . . prce or pre. 
 
 pbros (once in Postscript) presbyteros. 
 
 p' mu (Eph. iv. 9) primum. 
 
 p (1. 20 photograph) pro. 
 
 qd, qd or q'd, qu'd quid, 
 
 quid quidem. 
 
 q quce. 
 
 q^ quce or quam. 
 
 qui^or q*a quia. 
 
 q", q's or qu's, q", q* qui, quis, quo, qua. 
 
 ^ E. g. puynas, i Tim. vi. 4 ; halitam, ib. 16; fiabcam, 1 Tim. i. 3 ; hahllavlt, ib. 5 ; crliaiaatores, iii. 3. 
 
32 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 qd or qu°d quod. 
 
 quo, qm, quom quon'mm. 
 
 q' q; q' que. 
 
 sclin, sacla (scl gen. 1 Cor. ii. 6) &c. seeculum S^c 
 
 scs, sea, scm, see, seorum, seis &ic..snnctus S;c. 
 
 scdm or secdm secundum. 
 
 r, or 3d sed. 
 
 sic sicut. 
 
 simil (1 Cor. vii. 4) similiter. 
 
 .sps, spin, spu spiritus &;(: 
 
 8 sunt. 
 
 V vd. 
 
 v° ( h 1 Cor. xi. 15) vero. 
 
 _ o 
 
 vr, vestr, vrae, vrum, vrs &c vester S^c. 
 
 xpc or xps, xpi, xpo, xpm Christus S^r. 
 
 The liturgical matter, numbers of Ke({)akaia, marginal annotations, &e. of the 
 Codex Boernerianus are totally wanting in the Codex Augiensis, which contains, 
 however, a few marks at the foot of the second pages of folios 95, 111, 119, 
 127, and of the first page of 1132. The stops in F are the full point (•) between 
 the Greek words, and a note of interrogation ? often employed in the Latin, 
 where the colon also prevails. The other chief marks are the horizontal line 
 discussed above (p. xxvii.), double or single points or commas over i and v, a larr/e 
 comma, and a kind of circumflex ^ sometimes placed over a Greek vowel or 
 diphthong (usually ^ or ei), on no regular principle that I can make out. The 
 sign 7 or 7 7, which perplexed Matthaei in the Codex -Boernerianus, is rarely 
 found in F, nor can I throw any light upon it. The titles and initial lines 
 of each epistle, as also the first letter of each Kecj^aKaiov, are in rubric and 
 s^cundd manu, though many of the last are still wanting, letters being placed 
 in the margin (often p.m.) to guide the rubrician, and a few are placed erro- 
 neously, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 1; 13; 2 Thess. ii. 1; iii. 1. No trace exists in F of 
 that strange announcement with which G concludes, llpos \aov8aKr]cras apxeTcu 
 eirtaroXT), which raises our curiosity as if only to baulk it. Some writers have 
 observed that F resembles the Codex Bezas in adopting the abbreviations 
 Xps, ~i^, &c. instead of the more usual forms x^j 'f» ^c. But, as I intimated 
 above, the latter occur in this manuscript scarcely less often than in the 
 former: see 1 Cor. viii. 6 and many other places. Both in the Greek and 
 Latin texts I have often hesitated whether a letter somewhat larger than 
 the rest should be printed as a capital; and on this minute point my judgment 
 has probably been sometimes at f\\ult. 
 
 I had purposed to lay before the student a selection from the remarkable 
 readin"-s and extraordinary grammatical inflexions which abound in this Codex, 
 but in plain truth they are innumerable, and, at the same time, of such 
 
 1 Matthffii Cod. Boerner. p. loi, describes a 
 similar abbreviation in that MS. as t for aut : yet 
 both in the Cod. Augiensis (e. g. fol. I02, p. 1) 
 and in his own facsimile of the Cod. Boerner. 
 I Tim. i. 3, the letter is clearly I for vel. 
 
 2 I do not under.stand pa on fol. 113, or on fol. 
 
 1 27 repetit. The numerals ly on fol. 95, tS ou fol. 
 Ill, te on fol. 119, and tr on fol. 127, occur at in- 
 tervals of eight leaves, and shew that the MS. 
 consisted originally of 143 leaves, of which 8 are 
 misplaced after fol. 102, and the first seven (pro- 
 bably including a title-leaf) lost. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 a character that they will be sure to arrest the interest and reward the best 
 attention of every one into whose hands this volume is likely to fall. 
 
 As the Codex Augiensis exhibits throughout many traces of erasures and 
 corrections, the reader will please, while using it, to make constant reference 
 to the Annotatioxes Editoris {infra, pp. 273—284), in which these alterations 
 are carefully recorded. I only hope my notes may prove serviceable to others, in 
 some proportion to the pains and anxiety I have expended on them. But no 
 one versed in these studies is ignorant how much doubt and uncertainty 
 often exists, as to whether a change has been introduced by the first penman, 
 or by some later hand^ I have arranged these corrections into three classes, 
 those prima manu, those secundd manu, and those again recenti manu, accord- 
 ing as I conceive them to have been made by the original scribe, by a second 
 yet ancient corrector (and to him i impute the great mass of these changes), 
 or by a recent critic, whose judgment should have no weight whatever. 
 Alterations of the last kind are easily detected, but for the others I am 
 sensible that another eye will often decide differently from mine. I have 
 taken no notice of a mala seges of Latin annotations scribbled over the 
 earlier leaves of this Codex by some one who must have been profoundly 
 unconscious of its value ; from the similarity of handwriting I fear the culprit 
 is Mieg, one of the former possessors of this priceless treasure. Several places 
 are also disfigured by grotesque sketches in ink, such as often offend the 
 reverential student of Biblical MSS. I am inclined to think, however, that 
 they are least frequently found in copies of the Holy Gospels^. 
 
 My transcript of Cod. F has been compared with the original six times, 
 before it was submitted to the reader. For the photograph copy of the page 
 containing the important variation in 1 Tim. iii. 16, I am indebted to the 
 skill and Christian kindness of my friend and neighbour, the Rev. R. F. B. 
 Rickards, Vicar of Constantine. 
 
 II. 1. I proceed to describe the eight copies of the Gospels which have 
 been collated for this volume. 
 
 (i) Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 17. This manuscript and the next but one 
 belong to the Library of Trinity College, and although they are not in the list of 
 Bentley MSS., since they never passed into the younger Richard Bentley's posses- 
 sion, are said in the general catalogue to have been " brought from Mount Athos, 
 
 ^ " Passim difficile dictu est utrum emendatio 
 ad ipsum auctorem an manum ejus sequalera, an ad 
 correctorem posteriorem sit referenda," is Tisehen- 
 dorf's admission as regards the Codex Aniiatinus 
 (Proleg. p. xxxir. 1850). 
 
 2 One of the lea-st repulsive examples of this 
 
 evil habit I have met with occurs in the Bodleian 
 MS. Canonici Graeci no of the Acts and Epistles, 
 wherein a poor priest is portrayed in a humor- 
 ous and triumphant attitude, pointing to i Tim. v. 
 19, a text which had doubtless proved of some use 
 to him when in difficulties. 
 
34 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 purchased by Dr Bentley, and bequeathed by him to the College." Unques- 
 tionably they are both paged and the modern chapters noted by his hand. 
 My attention was first drawn to them by Mr Field, the editor of Chrysostom's 
 Homilies, and I have found them both well worthy of the labour bestowed 
 upon them. This copy is on vellum, quarto, on 317 leaves (exclusive of G leaves 
 of paper at the beginning) with 20 lines in a page, written in a neat set 
 style, and in good condition, though the ink has faded in parts. I should 
 assign it to the 13th century. The binder has happily lettered it " Hymni in 
 dies festos." The paper leaves contain Liturgical matter and an vnodfais to 
 St Matthew (the other Gospels have none) in a good hand, though somewhat 
 more recent than that of the MS. itself. Here also, and on the last page 
 of vellum we have an illegible scrawl in modern Greek, seemingly about the 
 owner, one Sylvester. The vellum MS. contains KfcpaXaia majora before each 
 
 Gospel, and (foil. 311 — 317) the ordinary yvaa-is tov evayyeX. tov 6\ov eviavrov, 
 
 including the Saints' Days. On the ample margin of this fine copy are found 
 the numbers of the Ammonian sections and capitals to each (but no Eusebian 
 Canons, or Epistola ad Carpianum or Eusebian tables) ; apxr), reXos constantly in 
 the text; the titles of the KftpaXma majora and beginnings of lessons at the 
 top and foot of each page : all these in bright red. 
 
 As Codex i presents us with a pretty fair specimen of the character of 
 such itacisms as prevail in MSS. of this date, I have formed a list of them, 
 stating how often each occurs. We meet with a for o, 109 times; o for w, 105; 
 et for J/, 81; rj for ei, 78; i for ei, 35; ei for i, 36; e for m, 41; m for e, 35; e for t], 
 11; ;; for e, but twice^ j? for (, 84 times (with ttio-tj]! always); t for rj, 76; ei for oi, 
 4; oi for et, once; t for v, 5 times; v for i, 4; v for oi, 4; ot for u, once; v for t], 14 
 times; rj for u, 3; ft for v, once; v for a, 4 times; oi for t, 7; i for oi, twice; ot for rj, 
 5 times; rj for ot, twice; o for ot, once; a for ov, 4 times; ov for «, 4 : total in the 
 four Gospels 759 itacisms. The v fcjjfXKva-riKov is read 171 times (chiefly with 
 enrev), but is SO unequally distributed that there are only nine after Luke viii. 29. 
 No I ascript is met with, but t subscript is as often inserted as omitted (28 times 
 in Matth. i — iv.), not rarely where it has no place, e. g. /xfyaX??, Matth. vii. 27, 
 Ke(t>aXr], ibid. xiv. 11, and in 15 other passages. 
 
 The breathings in i are a little irregular, though much less so than in some 
 other copies : we often find oxXos, oXiyos, o'i8a, 68ovTav, ocrreav, atVeo), &c. and verbs 
 whose initial letter is tj improperly aspirated: on the other hand, dpna^cn, trepos, 
 eracpos, oXos, elaTrjKei. &c. The accents are somewhat inaccurate, and occasionally 
 neglected, especially in 8ia or npos before articles and nouns ; yet vei'bs compounded 
 with prepositions frequently have both parts of the compound accented. I have 
 noted ten cases where the circumflex is thrown upon the ante-penultima, e.g. 
 ofSnTf, Matth. XXV. 13. Of grammatical and orthographical pecuharities this MS. 
 has no great number ; the following list is I beheve pretty complete: oTrocrTaXfifvovs 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 35 
 
 Matth. xxiii. 37 ; Luc. xiii. 34 ; XeXaftf, Marc. iv. 37 ; napeXdrjvai, vi. 48 ; (itiCo} (for 
 
 -0)1') ix. 34; xii. 31; TrapedaKtjcrav, XV. 10; (finpoade, Luc. V. 19 p.m.; fo-Kanovv, vi. 9; 
 
 Siaufpta-fitpoi, xii. 52 ; icoirpiav (with some editions), xiii, 8 ; dvyarepav, ibid. 16 ; 6vpa 
 {acCUS.) ibid. 25 his; a-apti, XV. 8; apoTpiowra, xvii. 7; eKaOepiadriaav, ibid. 14; x'?pa 
 (accus.), xviii. 5 ; fiaa-dot, xxiii. 29; yaXXiXata, xxiii. quinquies ; Kpifiav, xxiv. 20; ttoXXos, 
 Johan. vii. 12; bo^audrj, xv. 8. In the two earher Gospels we usually find payi^i, 
 ^apa^as. We mostly read dhe, always I think ujSpaap, ovtms, ijXiay, ovx- Other forms 
 
 which frequently occur are iopoKa, diarovro, Kariblav, hiairavTos, apa (for apa), i^evav- 
 
 vpav, coaavTds, or av, err' av. A few proper names in T are followed by the apo- 
 strophe, e.g. vaCapfT, eKia-ajBeT : v is occasionally rejected so as to generate the 
 hiatus, e.g. Johan. xiii. 26, and 6 other places. 
 
 Of various readings Codex i supplies a large variety, and is somewhat partial 
 to glosses: it will occasionally be found to accord with the received text, in 
 passages where few MSS. support it. Though not negligently written, it exhibits 
 at least 16 omissions from the opoiorfXevrov. j]pf is and vp.fis are confounded in 
 about 25 places. A reviser's hand has been somewhat busy with this document, 
 and a few corrections are very late. The rubric portions are not quite contem- 
 porary with the MS,, for some letters are erased that they may be rewritten in 
 red ink. On the last page of the vellum, after the Synaxarion, or table of 
 lessons, we read the following rubro: 
 
 TOV CaKTvXoi? ypU-y^aVTU, TOV K€KTT],a€VOU 
 
 Tov avayivwaKovTa ixbt evXajSein^ 
 (puXarre tov<s Tpei'S r} Tpia-i TpKToXjSiMS. 
 
 I subjoin a list of a few principal readings of Cod. i. which will be seen to be 
 in frequent agreement with the Codex Leicestrensis, to be described hereafter, 
 and with Codd. cgpy and sometimes 1 of my " Collations of the Gospels," Matth. 
 vii. 14 p.m. {Ehev.y, x, 36; xiii, 10; 14 (c); 15; 17 (y); xix, 28; xx. 23; xxvii. 6; 
 Marc, iv, 21; 29; 38; v, 9; 15; vi, 29; vii, 4; 8; 13 ; 15 ; 20 ; xii. 29; xiv. 
 33 ; 44 (cy); Luc, i, 23; 59; iii. 23 {stops); v, 6; 36; vi. 7 (Elzev.); vii. 4 (g) ; 42 ; 
 viii. 50; x. 2; 22; 36 (Ehev.); xvii. 26; 27 (g); xix. 8 (g); 21; xxii. 10; 65; 
 Johan. i. 27; v, 12; 16; vi. 1; xvii. 11; 13 (p); xviii. 5 (y); 40(g); xix. 21; 
 41 (y); XX. 26(c); 31. 
 
 (v)^ Cantab, Mm, 6, 9 is a copy of the whole Greek Testament except the 
 Apocalypse, and belongs to the University of Cambridge ; it was lent me for 
 collation from the Public Library through the kind offices of the Vice- Chancellor 
 for the years 1856 — 8, the Rev, Dr Philpott, Master of St Catharine's College, 
 
 ^ As I have elsewhere designated by v the 
 readings of one of the Lambeth MSS, (ti8o) in 
 Marc. i. i — Iv. i6 ; Johan. vii. 53 — viii, 11 ; I have 
 
 in these places distinguished the Cambridge MS. 
 by the notation v. 
 
 f2 
 
36 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 It Avas doubtless once the property of Dr More, Bisbop of Ely, for it was pre- 
 sented to the University by George I. in 1715, with the other books of that 
 prelate; a royal gift which provoked one of the wittiest epigrams in our language. 
 It is.written on 294 leaves of vellum (foil. 233, 234, and 235, 236 being misplaced 
 by the binder) in small quarto (7 inches by 51), each page containing 28 lines in 
 a minute, clear, neat and regular hand, of the 12th or 13th century. This copy is 
 numbered by Scholz, 440 in the Gospels, 111 in the Acts, 221 in St Paul, but he 
 collated only six chapters, and those so hastily, that out of 101 various readings 
 they contain, he has neglected 34 and misstated 4. 
 
 While engaged on the Epistles I soon detected the identity of this MS. with 
 Gl of Griesbach, the unknown English copy indicated by Hal, whose readings 
 that critic transcribed from the margin of Mill's own copy of his Greek Testa- 
 ment preserved in the Bodleian, and published for the first 17 chapters of St 
 Matthew and all the Epistles in his Symholce Criticce, Tom. i. pp. 247 — 304. 
 Whether these readings had been collected by Mill or Hearne, they must not be 
 regarded as a complete collation, since full three variations out of every four are 
 passed by unnoticed. On comparing the result of my own labours with the 
 readings exhibited by Griesbach, and consulting the original MS. wherever we 
 differed, I find that Hal. or 61 agrees with Cantab. Mm. 6. 9 in about a thousand 
 passages, and (excluding a few obvious misprints in the Symboke Criticce) differs 
 from it only in 24^, most of which may be fairly imputed to the circuitous route 
 by which the extracts from Hal. have come round to us. No one will question 
 that the two authorities are identical who shall weigh the many strange readings 
 wherein they stand quite alone, or compare them at Matth. xii. 32 ; 1 Cor. vii. 35 
 (where a is mistaken by the collator for ev); 1 Tim, i. 10. These instances (to 
 which many might be added) ai'e quite decisive. 
 
 The Eusebian canons in rubric cover the first nine pages, but the Epistola 
 ad Carpianum is wanting. Three pages which follow and eight others throughout 
 the MS., originally left blank, are scribbled over with tables of Church lessons in 
 a recent hand. There are no tables of Ke4>a\aia majora before the several books, 
 but each KefpaXaiov and its contents are written in bright red at the head of their 
 proper pages. In the Gospels the Ammonian sections (but no references to the 
 Eusebian Canons) are placed in the margin in red, and throughout the MS. the 
 beginnings, endings and initial words of the Church lessons are fully given rubro, 
 sometimes indeed the initial words have crept into the body of the text in black 
 ink: to each lesson is prefixed a rubric capital. There is no preliminary matter 
 except iiTTodfaeis to the Catholic and first eight Pauline Epistles; after the Acts, 
 
 ' I subjoin a list of these texts, that 6i may no xvii. 25 ; Eom. vii. 23 ; i Cor. vii. 35 ; 2 Cor. i. 6; iii. 
 
 longer be falsely cited for readings it does not con- 6; 7; Gal. i. 21 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Phil. iv. 12 ; 1 Thess. 
 
 tain ; in each case the true reading is given in the i. 9 ; i Tim. i. 8 ; vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. i ; Heb. ii. 8 ; 
 
 following pages : Matth. i. 4 ; ii. 3 ; v. 28 ; vii. 22 ; 9 [•] > vi. 9 ; vii. 2 ; xi. 8 ; i Johan. v. 20; Jud. v. 1. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 37 
 
 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John and before the Romans large hlarik squares are ruled in 
 red, apparently to I'eceive subscriptions. The hands of two separate correctors 
 can be traced both in the text and margin; the one being the original scribe or 
 else the person who wrote the rubric portions, the other much later: a few 
 changes were made by the recent hand which wrote the ecclesiastical tables : 
 the modern chapters are noted and the leaves numbered b}' a yet later writer, 
 whom I believe to be Bentley. Not fewer than 28 instances of omission by 
 ofioioTekfVTov occur, some of them extensive ; on the whole the accents and 
 breathings are accurately represented: only that there is a tendency to throw 
 them somewhat out of place. We find t suhscriptum twice in Matth. v. 39: t 
 ascriptum Luc. ii. 25 ; Johan. xii, 12 : nowhere else. N fcfxXKva-TiKov occurs before 
 a consonant 98 times : but is wanting before a vowel 30 times. The itacisms are 
 not particularly numerous ; I count 445 in all, chiefly of the ordinary character ; 
 e.g. o interchanged with w, rj with et and t, e with at. A large portion of these is 
 met with in the last 22 leaves (comprising 2 Thess. to Hebrews) the text of 
 which is quite different from that of other parts of the volume, either because the 
 scribe had grown careless, or was copying from a different exemplar. On these 
 leaves are found several remarkable readings, for which there exists no other 
 authority than Griesbach's 61 Act. and Paul: e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 9; 16; Hebr. iv. 8; 
 ix. 9?; 28?; x. 3: see also 1 Cor. xv. 11; Eph. iii. 8. The mixed character 
 of its text attracted Scholz's attention, as he observes that in the Gospels it is 
 " ex familia utraque confiatum." In fact, without exhibiting such perpetual and 
 conspicuous variations as are found in the Cod. Leicestrensis and a few others, it 
 abounds in readings either peculiar to itself or attested only by a few of the most 
 ancient documents: this is especially true for St Luke's Gospel, the Acts and the last 
 six Pauline Epistles. In Johan. vii. 53 — viii. 11, and some other places it closely 
 resembles the MS. I shall presently denote w : it often supports the Cod. Leices- 
 trensis, and eg of my previous collations. Throughout the Acts and Epistles it is 
 very much with our b (Lambeth 1183) in passages where they stand quite alone. 
 Few unusual forms, either of orthography or inflexion, are met with in this 
 document: we read however xeipa", Matth. xii. 10; Biav, Act. xiv. 12; eavpav, ibid. 
 v. 19 ; yj^vxci, 2 Cor. xi. 27. The reduplication is sometimes lost, Johan. xi. 52; Act. 
 xi. 11 ; Hebr. ix. 6; xi. 5 : sometimes the augment, Luc. iii. 18; vii. 32 ; 1 Tim. vi. 7- 
 12 ; 17 ; 2 Tim. i. 16. The punctuation often differs from that of the printed books, 
 but the scribe has been too negligent in this respect to deserve much attention 
 where he is unsupported (e. g. ; and • are frequently put for each other) : I have 
 noted such peculiarities as seemed of any importance. This MS., though a beauti- 
 ful specimen of caligraphy, contains an unusual proportion of contractions, some of 
 them rather uncommon ; yet all may be read with certainty after a little practice : 
 T) and V almost interchange their shapes. The colophon merely "consists of the 
 words acoaov /Lie kj 6 ds fiov • (toxtov [xe ks ruhro on the last page. Far in the margin 
 
38 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 on fol. 151, p, 2, we read, ayios 6 6s in a later hand. Occasionally, though not 
 often, citations from Scripture &c. are indicated by rubric marks in the margin, 
 Tlie last few leaves are dirty and somewhat damaged. Here, as elsewhere, we 
 
 meet with dlBpaofi, ovtus ITniformly, ta-rr], rjXias, dpafia, 6pi(ov, opKOS, wpa, ara mostly, but 
 
 orav, £o5e more frequently than dde, St av. We see p.rj, but only joined with ov 
 or used interrogatively ; sometimes 6 p(v, 6 8e, re, t^', eV, ou^'. No one who shall 
 attentively examine the readings of this MS. will hesitate to regard it as one 
 of the most important of its date, and to deem it well worthy of the minute 
 examination to which I have subjected it. 
 
 (w). Trin. Coll, Cantab. B. x. 1G, the remaining manuscript of Bentley's 
 collection, contains, like the last, the whole New Testament, with the ordinary 
 exception of the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles as usual following the Acts. 
 It is written on thick oriental paper, in small quarto, on 363 leaves, containing 28 
 lines on a page. Its date is fixed by a note at the end of St John's Gospel : airr] 
 
 r'l /3i/3Xoy riyovv to ayiov evayyfkiov, opoicos km 6 airocrToXos eypaiprjaav ev tw opci tco 
 ayico aiva, eu6a pavarjs oi8ev [si'c] tt]V dyiav j3aTov KUi fde^uTO top vopov' €ypa(f)T)aav 
 
 Se 61/ eTT] twkS, 8m x"P°f ^1^°'" apaproAov laKon^ov Upopovaxov {ccbtera eracluntw). 
 Though written so late as a. d. 1316 [6824 of the Greek sera], it was doubtless 
 copied from one of those more antient volumes, wherewith the region of Mount 
 Sinai abounded, as it is rich in various readings of high value. Mr Field, in an 
 obliging communication, notices its frequent resemblance to the Codex Cyprius 
 (K of the Gospels), on which Scholz, and more recently Tischendorf and 
 Tregelles, have bestowed so much pains: but in the other parts of the N. T. 
 also, it will be found in company' with the best authorities, and with the Lambeth 
 MSS. acd. The Liturgical matter in this document is pretty copious. The table 
 of Eusebian canons, the vnodea-is and Kf(f)aXaia majora to St Matthew seem to be 
 lost, for the margin of every page in the Gospels contains the numbers of the Eu- 
 sebian canons, in their proper place under the Ammonian sections : while the three 
 later Gospels have the larger KicjiaXaia prefixed to them in rubric, and references 
 are made to them in the margin throughout. The beginnings, endings and proper 
 days for the Church lessons are given at the top and foot of each page in rubric. 
 This copy is in fair condition, being only a little torn about Hebr. xi. 18; 32, 
 33, and portions of the first six leaves of the Acts being restored in a late hand, 
 which I have indicated by 1c; see especially Acts vii. 48 — 60. Otherwise the 
 whole MS. seems written by one scribe (in no very elegant style), only that in the 
 Acts and Epistles the words are much abridged, I suppose because paper was 
 running short {vid. supra, p. xxix). A second hand has been busy throughout 
 the volume ; the erasures are numerous, and many curious glosses are found in 
 the margin, together with some variations otherwise well vouched for ; so that 
 it is clear the corrector derived them from a good source. The itacisms of this 
 MS. are much fewer than those of Cod, i, the instances of v t^ikKvarLKov far more 
 
OP THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 39 
 
 frequent (in einev almost uniform) in the Gospels, but much more rare afterwards. 
 In the Gospels t ascript occurs 67 times (mostly with the article), i subscript but 
 thrice in the whole MS. A remarkable feature of w is the capricious, or at least 
 unusual arrangement of its breathings, in this respect much resembling the 
 Parham Evangelistarium (P) hereafter to be described : the irregularities of i 
 being nothing in comparison. The penman seems to aspirate all initial etas with 
 verbs, most omicrons and omegas : e. g. 771/ (imperf.) often, rjXdov, riKovaa, i^KoXovdei : 
 
 so 6(pda\fios, eviavTOS, (ov, a'lyiaXos, aiTea), alria, i]8t], alyvmos, o^etXw, avpiov, inaivos, oktw, 
 OTTicrw, Sx^os, ovofia, Syjre, oylroixai^, &C. but mostly wSe, flcTTTjuei, ivfKev, olrives. When 
 
 a word begins with p, he puts the aspirate over the first vowel, as p^para : he reads 
 a^paap, laaaK, TjXtas, the last two not uniformly. As in Cod. i, the accents are not 
 very correct; sometimes they are placed over each part of a compound word, some- 
 times the preposition and noun are treated as one word. We often have i8ov, iiiav, 
 ovTcas (for ovTU)) : in Matth. ix. 3.5 v and /3 are confounded [depanf^oov) : so Acts iv. 
 36 sec. man. &c. The hiatus is not rare, e.g. Matth. xvii. 23, and 14 other places. 
 Grammatical peculiarities are not many : such are (inav, Matth. xvi. 14 ; Johan. 
 vii. 20; 52: avraXayfia, Matth. xvi. 26; Marc, viii. 37 : awKaetjufvos, Marc. xiv. 54: 
 
 enpofCpTiTeviTev, LuC. i. 67 : apidp-qvrai, xii. 7 : Tr}V 6vpa, Johan. Xviii. 16 : evpoiav, Act. 
 
 xvii. 27 ; avadoa-avTes, xxiii. 33 : ijpepa [accus.), xxvi. 7 : fiTTa, ibid. 15 ; Hebr, iii. 10 : 
 ■jravTode, Hebr. ix. 4 : ai/reKareo-rjjre, xii. 4. The augment is omitted in Act. xiii. 14 ; 
 XV. 14; xxiii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 10. This copy contains its share of SpoioreXevTa, of 
 which I have noted 14 examples : for peculiarities in punctuation see (among 
 others) Matth. x. 42 ; Act. v. 39 ; xvi. 12 ; Jac. v. 3 ; Jud. v. 20 ; Rom. vi. 10 ; 
 xiii. 4; 1 Cor. v. 1; Gal. iii. 6; iv. 10; 16; Eph. vi. 6; 19; Phil. i. 4; ii. 28; 
 1 Thess. V. 25 ; Hebr. iii. 10. The celebrated passage Johan. v. 4 is marked 
 with an obelus in the margin ruhro, as in dk among my "Collations," the uncials 
 S A &c. Besides much foreign matter of an ordinary character before the three 
 later Gospels (Hsts of Ke(pa\aia majora, prefaces of Cosmas Indicopleustes, rude 
 
 iambic verses &;C.), foil. 161 175 contain eKkoyadiv tcov 8 €vayyeXicrTO}v...6poioiS Kai 
 
 Tov anoa-ToXov, including avva^apiov tov oXov iviavrov (fol. 166). The Acts have no 
 preface, but on fol. 219 is irpoXoyos tcov KodoXiKcov eTnaToXcou, each of which and all 
 the Pauline Epistles have inodeaecs prefixed. Fol. 333, p. 2 to fol. 363 consist of 
 supplementary matter. (1) Lives of the Apostles, pp. 5. (2) Another eKXoyaSiv 
 
 TCOV 8' ivayyfXi(rTcov...TeXeiovv ev tco prjvoXoyico pp. 14. (3) crvva^apcov aw 6co ap^op-evov 
 
 ano prfvos creivTip^piov pp. 7. (4) The Omitted or lost preliminary matter to St 
 Matthew, Ke(f)aXaia majora, iambic lines, preface of Cosmas &c. (5) On the same 
 leaf 350, a Life of St James, Bishop of Jerusalem, liturgical tables, canonical 
 questions, virodeais ttjs ^i^Xov Tcav wpa^ecov (fol. 355), prayers and miscellaneous 
 
 1 In Matth. xxiii. ■21, 2^, we find opLvvei, but I that it is vain to look for consistency: thus in 
 d/xocra's, though opoaas had been given in v. 20, so | Luc. vi. 41, ocpdaXpu and dcpdaXpu both occur. 
 
40 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 pieces, to fol. 3G3, where the MS. concludes abruptly, being mutilated at the 
 
 end. 
 
 In tlie following passages Cod. w will often be found to agree not only with the 
 
 Codex Cyprius (K), but with several of the best of the MSS, I have before collated, 
 
 in their most singular readings, e. g. cegy and especially op. Matth. ix. 4 (D) ; xv. 
 
 32 (K) ; xviii. 35 (BDKL) ; xxiii. 25 seinel cum de, semelcum BDh. Elzev.; xxvii. 34 
 
 (BDK) ; Marc. v. 10 ; xii. 22 (c) ; xv. 47 (ABCDo) ; xvi. 2 (D); 19 p. m. (CK) ; Luc. i. 
 
 2 p. m. (Ko); 39 (AKo) ; 65 (AKo); ii. 42 (ABKc) ; vii. 25 (DKp) ; viii. 24 (Kp) ; x. 
 
 16 (AKp) ; xxiv. 43 (K) ; Johan. ii. 12 (Kp) ; v. 4 (K) ; 25 (K) ; vi. 5 ; ix. 8 ; xi. 12 
 
 (Kop) ; xii. 15 ; xvii. 4 (ABC) ; 8 (p) ; xix. 17 (z) ; xx. 16 (BDL) ; xxi. 11 (ABCp). 
 
 In the Acts and Epistles it often resembles acd : unusual readings are Act. iii. 26 ; 
 
 iv. 16 ; 22 ; 31 ; V. 5 (ABD) ; 30 ; 36 (DE) ; 37 (E) ; vi. 2 ; 15 ; xii. 25 (B) ; xiii. 16; 
 
 xiv. 19; xvii. 16 (ABEa) ; 34; xviii. 6 ; xx. 7 (ABEa) ; 8; xxi. 2 (a) ; xxii. 23 ; 
 
 xxiii. 23 ; xxv. 11 ; 13 (c) ; Jac. iii. 8 ; iv. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 ; 24 ; ii. 24 ; iii. 8 ; 2 Pet. 
 
 ii. 22; iii. 5 (h); Jud. vv. 12; 23; 24; 25 (ABC); Rom. vii. 16; viii. 23; 27; 
 
 ix. 31 ; xii. 3 ; xiii. 3 ; xv. 29 ; 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 28 ; x. 19 ; xi. 25 ; xiv. 35 ; xv. 8 ; 
 2 Cor. iii. 9 (D) ; 16 ; iv. 14 ; v. 5 ; 21 ; xi. 26 ; xii. 20 ; xiii. 13 secund. man. ; Gal. 
 iii. 14 (DFG) ; Eph. ii. 11 ; iii. 4; iv. 32 ; Phil. ii. 23; Coloss. i. 26 ; 1 Thess. iv. 5 
 
 {Syriac) ; 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; iii. 1 (FG) ; 1 Tim. i. 2 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 1 : 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; iv. 17 
 
 (FG); Tit. i. 6; 12; ii. 10; Philem. v. 6; Hebr. vi. 14; ix. 14; 15 (1); 19; 25; x. 
 
 1; 10 (cum Elzev.); xi. 29; xiii. 11; 12: not a few of which are found in no 
 
 other document, so far as I know. 
 
 (L). Codex Leicestrensis. This famous and most valuable document is 
 the property of the Corporation of Leicester, which kindly allowed me to remove 
 it from the Public Library for full examination at my own house, where for 
 several months I bestowed upon it the labour its weight and interest imperatively 
 required. It is one of the very few Codices which contain the whole New Tes- 
 tament (the others in England being the great Codex Alexandrinus, two "Addi- 
 tional MSS.," 11837 and 17469 in the British Museum, and Canonici Graeci 34 in 
 the Bodleian), in large folio, 14f inches long by 10 broad, on 212 complete leaves, 
 followed by one fragment, besides which the margins of foil. 77 ; 86, and the 
 upper corner of fol. 201, are cut and mutilated. This copy is written on 91 
 leaves of vellum, and 122 of coarse paper, not " temere permixtis" as Wetstein 
 states, but arranged pretty regularly in series of two vellum followed by three 
 paper leaves, evidently from previous calculation how far the more costly material 
 would hold out. The paper is so bad that four of the leaves would bear the 
 writing only on one side. There are 38 lines on every page; the instrument 
 employed seems to have been a reed rather than a pen, and the style of writing 
 is very singular, yet certainly neither elegant nor remarkably perspicuous. The 
 smooth and rough breathings are often very hard to distinguish, and e is usually 
 placed in a recumbent posture, so much resembling a that it is hot easy to say at 
 
1 J 
 
 . » i'i x-i ii ■ 
 
 
 
 H:t^^ 
 
 ■0 » 
 
 
 If 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
4 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 41 
 
 all times which was meant ^ An eminent mediaeval scholar to whom I shewed tlie 
 MS., remarked that the letters were formed much like the earliest Greek tyjie 
 used in Italy towards the end of the loth century. No one who has inspected 
 the Codex Leicestrensis has estimated its age as earlier than the 14th century, 
 but in this, as in so many other instances, the antiquity of the actual volume has 
 nothing to do with its critical importance. It commences Matth. xviii. 15, a-ov km 
 avTov fxovov : after Acts x. 4:-5, ttiotoi, we read in the same line, with ab^lutely no 
 break, ovpavodev, xiv. 17, the intervening matter, upwards of three chapters, being 
 wholly omitted : the mutilation on fol. 201 has destroyed portions of 2 Johan. vv. 
 1 — 5; 3 Johan. vv. 5 — 10; after Jud. v. 7, koi al, one leaf is lost, containing the 
 rest of St Jude, and perhaps a preface to the Apocalypse. Mill and Wetstcin 
 state that the ]\IS. ended Apoc, xx. 15, nai irvpos, and give its various i-eadings up 
 to that point, which I have copied and digested. There must then have been 
 214 leaves, the last of which is quite gone, but about one third of fol. 213 is yet 
 legible, and its variations have been recorded in my collation : the last complete 
 leaf (212) ends with earprjviaa-ev, Apoc. xviii. 1 ; the fragment, fol. 213, terminates 
 
 with KOI Tcov a8s\(j)a)u aov t<ov ex°^ ibid. xix. 10. 
 
 At the top of the first page this Codex exhibits in a beautiful hand the words 
 €ifii Wfpfiov XapKov, then in a later hand " Thomas Hayne." Th.e book is now well 
 bound, and on the cover in very recent gold letters we read, *' Town Library, 
 Leicester, the gift of Mr Thomas Hayne, 1640," under the Town arms. WiUiam 
 Chark was one of the former owners of the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, 
 and is supposed to have lived in the reign of Elizabeth (see Dobbin's Codex 
 Montfortianus, Introduction, p. 7); some of the later changes in the Cod. Leices- 
 trensis were made by him, chiefly however in the margin : I suppose he obtained 
 the book from one of the dissolved monasteries. Wetstein, I believe on John 
 Jackson's authority, states that Thomas Hayne, M. A. of Trussington in Leicester- 
 shire, gave the volume to the Leicester Library in 1660. A collation of the MS. 
 was first published by Mill; Caesar de Missy in 1748 lent to Wetstein a much 
 more accurate one made by John Jackson and William Tiffin, which he used for 
 his great edition of the Greek Testament; since that period nothing further has 
 been published on the subject which has not been servilely borrowed from Mill 
 and Wetstein. Yet nothing can be more unsatisfactory than their representation 
 of this important document. Not to mention instances in which the various read- 
 ings exhibited in Cod. Leicestrensis are passed over by both these editors (for 
 they are innumerable), I have made out a list of more than 300 places in which 
 the actual reading is falsely cited by Mill alone, by Wetstein alone, and very 
 
 1 Thus, for instance, this MS. is cited as read- I Matth. xxvi. 51 ; where I must think a was meant 
 ing ix'^fivai, Marc. vi. 27, by Dobbin and Tregelles, by the scribe : see also Marc. xiii. 9 ; xiv. 15 ; Liic. 
 and by Tregelles airiKTeivev, ihirJ.xn. 5; iiricriraae \ xvii. ^4: .Tohan. i. 28; vi. 70; xi. 56. 
 
42 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 often by both. When Matthaii met with some siieh instances in another MS., he 
 breaks forth aji^ainst these ilhistrious critics in the exclamation, "Quae diligentia? 
 quaj fides?" (Cod. Boerner. p. 107): I must be allowed to rejoin to him, Eheu! 
 quam temere in nosmet leyem sancimus iniqnam! The task of a collator calls for 
 vigilance so perpetual, powers of observation so minute and unflagging, that 
 although I have the fullest confidence both in the " diligentia" and " fides" of 
 Matthaii, f doubt not he will be found as peccable as the rest of us, whenever 
 his work shall come to be tested. I have avoided therefore, as much as possible, 
 such invidious annotations as "male Mlllius," ^'falso Wetsteinivs," requesting the 
 reader once for all to bear in mind, that I have anxiously verified all passages 
 wherein I differ from my predecessors: occasionally however, chiefly when this 
 copy agrees with the received text against the testimony of the editors, 1 have 
 expressly notified the fact. 
 
 Unpublished collations of this MS. are (1) one by Carte, which I am in- 
 formed^ used to be kept at Leicester with the Codex, but has now disappeared ; 
 at least it could not be found when I was there. If two leaves of the MS. have 
 been destroyed within a century, we need not be surprised at any other loss : but 
 their treasure is noiv valued by the Corporation, which is justly proad of possess- 
 ing it : (2) a collation of Jo. Jackson (not identical, it would seem, with that 
 lent to Wetstein) contained in his cop}' of Mill's N.T., now in Jcsus College 
 Library, Cambridge. The kindness of the Rev. Dr Corrie, the Master of that 
 College, gave me access to this collation, which I compared with those of Mill 
 and Wetstein in that part of the Apocalypse which, though extant in Jackson's 
 time, is now lost (see the result at the end of this volume) : (3) another by 
 Dr Tregelles for his N.T., the fruits of which are not yet fully published ; I did 
 not know that he had collated the book, till I had publickly pledged myself 
 to undertake the task: nor can he possibly in an edition of the N.T. lay 
 before the reader all the characteristic variations of such a document as this^: 
 (4) a selection of some thotisands of readings made by Dr Dobbin when arrang- 
 ing his edition of the " Codex Montfortianus," which that gentleman most con- 
 siderately put at my disposal. His extracts enabled me severely to test my own 
 accuracy, and as our judgment sometimes differs respecting the actual reading, 
 I have in such cases set down his testimony as well as my own. He will be 
 pleased to learn that Dr Barrett's statement, to which he alludes [Introd. p. 23) 
 without vouching for it, " In Apocalypsi tarn fideliter [Codex Montfortianus] in 
 textu exprimit Leicestrensem, ut vix unquam discrepent" is too strongly asserted : 
 
 ^ In 1845, by Mr Corabe, the bookseller there. 
 
 2 I have now (1858) compared Dr Tregelles' 
 collation of this MS. wdth my own, so far as he 
 has published it (Matth. xviii. 15 — Mark xvi. ■20). 
 Although mine is of necessity much the fuller, I 
 
 most cheerfully bear testimony to his great accu- 
 racy. I have noted a few places in which we 
 differ as to what the scribe intended to write, and 
 have corrected two or three of his looser citations 
 by simjily inserting (sic). 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 43 
 
 e. g. there are seven variations between the two MSS. in Cap, i,, fourteen in 
 Cap. vjii.i 
 
 The Codex Leicestrensis contains the list of KfcfiaXata majora (without coric- 
 spoiiding numerals in the margin of the text) before the three later Gospe!s, but 
 with so extensive variations that I have adopted the unusual course of presenting 
 them to the curious reader {infra, p. xlvi) ; besides these there is no Liturgii al 
 matter whatever, no divisions into sections, or Eusebian canons, or notes about 
 Lessons, except a marginal mark or two, as at Mark vii. 6, and a few words, which 
 are often illegible, scribbled at the foot of the first page of each leaf. The Pauline 
 Epistles immediately follow the fourth Gospel, and have no inodea-fis except the 
 HpoAoyoy to the Hebrews, 77 Se npos ilBpaiovs K.T.X. (Kuster's Mill, p. 519, col. 2, vid. 
 infra, p. xlvii). Between the Hebrews and Acts of the Apostles are five pages 
 of foreign matter. (1) An exposition of the Creed and statement of the errors 
 condemned by the seven general Councils, ending with, the second of Nice : 
 (2 ' the ordinary Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact description of the 
 limits of the Five Patriarchates. The opening chapters of the Acts have rubric 
 capitals and breaks of line at the beginning of each KecpaXaiov, but these disappear 
 after Cap. vi. and there is nothing like them elsewhere. The remarkable 
 titles of the Gospels attracted Mill's notice (Proleg. 67); those of the other 
 books are short and simple. As I never saw the Cod. Montfortianus, I cannot 
 confirm Dr Dobbin's opinion, " The titles to the sacred books, in pale red ink, 
 are by the same person who added those of the Codex Montfortii, none of these 
 portions of either MS. being by the transcribers of the text" (Jntrod. p. 24). 
 Such a notion would not have occurred to me on viewing the Cod. Leicestrensis 
 only; but I distrust myself on a point like this. 
 
 We cannot praise the care of the scribe in copying this MS. Many words 
 occur which are only begun, broken off perhaps after the first syllable, and 
 I have counted the large number of 74 omissions from ofioiorekevTov and the like 
 causes. Yet the accents are represented with much accuracy, and the breathings 
 (if indistinct at times) are regular; we have i^paan, coSe, ovrm often; yet some- 
 times atpo), axjpiov and opapa ouce : the acute accent is much used where the 
 grave is commonly written by others. The vowels i and v have mostly a single 
 dot over them ; other peculiarities of this Codex are tc sometimes, lovba^, biarovro, 
 
 dirdpTi, anapx^s, KaTi8iav (^fere), i^evcovvpav, apa^wv, /xeXXft (p?'0 peXei : SO epeXXfv 
 Acts Xviii. 17), cf)iXi^ semper, ovdev, prjdev, rjvboKrjcra, avSpooTronapeaKOi, KfVTTjpicou 
 
 (Mark xv. ter), yiyvopai in the Acts, eyKOKetp Qjro (KKUKeiv), noieiv {pro ttkip). The 
 u €(pe\Kva-TiKov is much used with emfu and ea-np, and in cases where emphasis is 
 
 ^ So that we can hardly resort to the Cod. 1 Cod. Leicestrensis in those parts of the Apocalypse 
 Montfort., as Tregelles suggests (Home's Intro- which are defective in the latter MS. 
 
 duction, Vol. 11. p. 2i6>, for the readings of the 
 
 a 2 
 
44 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 meant or where there is a pause in tlie sense. Yet in Johan. ix. 30 and 
 IG other places an hiatus arises from the absence of v. Respecting i ascript 
 1 cannot speak decidedly : in seven places I have noted what may be t, but is 
 more probably a rude stop (e. g. Acts v. 25) ; i subscript is clearly read in six 
 places (e.g. Matth. xxvii. 28), two of them being with verbs (Rom. ii. 3); else- 
 where it is not found. This copy is remarkable for always writing irja-ovs at full 
 length up to Joban. xxi. 15, where we meet with n, and in 41 other places 
 19 of which are in the Acts: thus too UpovcruXr^ix is usually unabridged. Of 
 itacisms I count 1129 throughout the Codex, viz. o pro w, 190; « pro o, 126; 
 T) pro (I, 93; ei pro rj, 104; i jjro ei, 77; et pro i, 02; rj pro t, 87; t pro t], 40; 
 f pro ai, 73; at pro e, 72; c pro r], 24; t] pro e, 20; v pro t) (rare elsewhere), 27; 
 t) pro V, 28; ov pro a, 13; « pro ov, 16; oi pro t, 3; i pro ot, 3; ov pro rj. Act. 
 vii. 59; tj pro fv, Luc. xii. 10; i; pro i, 15; i pro v, 14; w j^^'o i] 6; pro e, 1; pro oi, 4; 
 pro fi, 3; 01 pro v, 4; pro >?, 9; o pro ov, 3; t) pro oi, 3; a pro rj, Apoc. xiii. 17 : 
 which hst may be compared with the analysis of Cod. i, sxipra, p. xxxiv. We 
 have also 6 for t. Marc. x. 40; Luc, xi. 7. The following are the unusual 
 grammatical forms : rfKdare Matth. xxv. 36; emav ibid. xxvi. 35; Luc. xx. 2; f^rjXdaTe 
 Matth. xxvi. 55; Marc. xiv. 48; Luc. vii. 24; 25; 26; xxii. 52; fiarjXdarf ibid. 
 
 xi. 52; aveneaav Johan. vi. 10; eireTteaav Rom. XV. 3; eirecrav 1 Cor. X. 8; cireaa 
 Act. xxii. 7; f^eCkaro Act. vii. 10; firaOaTe Gal. iii. 4; napayevafievos Luc. xiv. 21; 
 
 Hebr. ix. 11; evpafifvos Hebr. ix. 12; yemneprjs Act. ii. 6. So accusatives in -ap 
 for -a, vvKTav Luc, ii. 37; dvyarepav xiii. 16; x^/Ja" Johan. vii. 30; a-uKpav Eph. vi. 12; 
 dvareipau Apoc. i. 11; (c/l ii. 18, 24). The gender is sometimes altered: thus 
 Xcfios fern. Luc. iv. 25; ocfipvs masc. ibid. 29; voo-os masc. ibid. 40. Verbs in aa or 
 0(0 are formed as those in -ew, (nrjpcorow Luc. iii. 10; xx. 27; fTreTipow xviii. 15; 
 fTo\(iovv XX. 40; TjpcoTovv Johau. iv. 31; fp.^ptpovpevos xi. 38; Kivei Marc. vii. 20; 23; 
 crapti Luc. XV. 8; fxaariyei Hebr. xii. 6; and the contrary, ayavaKTavrfs Marc. xiv. 4. 
 Irregularities in verbs in -pi are a^iouo-i Marc. iv. 36; ndav x. 16; wepiTiSova-iv 
 
 XV. 17; (TvviTidovTO Johan. ix. 22; eniTide 1 Tim. v. 22; emndeivai Act. XV. 10; ano8co- 
 
 a-Tji Luc. xii. 59; 8i8oa(rii> Apoc. xvii. 13. I note also ptya masc. Matth. xxvii. 60; 
 p.eyav tieut. Luc. xiv. 16; peyaXr) accus. Act. ii. .20; exaprjv 3rd pers. Johan. viii. 56; 
 
 fjKia-tv Marc. viii. 3; eKKexap-qruiaav Luc. Xxi. 21; fKaOtpLo-e Act. X. 15; KaraaKevaa-pfVov 
 
 Luc. i. 17; Hebr. ix. 6; a-vyyevevai Marc. vi. 4; Luc. ii. 44 (v); Bpayxpas xv. 8; 
 epirpoa-de Johan. i. 30. In the Apocalypse we always read i8ov except in xvii. 3; 
 
 f(f)L8ev Luc. i. 25. I add avjjyye'Kav Act. xiv. 27 ; irapnyyiKfiv Act. XV, 5 {sic V. 27 ; 
 xvi. 17; 21); cnrayyiKkw fllt. Hebr. ii. 12; avr^yyeWr] 1 Pet, i. 12; e^ex^drjv Tit. iii. 6; 
 
 aveTrikrjpTTTov 1 Tim. ill. 2. The augment is omitted Luc, x. 34 and 22 other 
 passages; but we have a double augment in rjTTTjvTrjaav Johan. iv, 51; avTeKarea-TrjTe 
 Hebr. xii, 4, 
 
 The wide variations of this document from the received editions are well 
 known, and it is a favouiite authority with those who wish to base the sacred 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 45 
 
 text upon Avhat Scholtz •nould have us call the Alexandrine family of MSS. Mill 
 (who did not particularly value it) first observed its striking affinity with the 
 Codex Bezae; perhaps the result of my collation is to diminish that resemblance, 
 though not materially. Wetstein compares it with Paris 6 (13), Hensler with 
 Havn. 3 (44 Evst.) of the Gospels: add too the uncial U, and note how much 
 it coincides with the great cursive 1 (e. g. in the space of a few verses. Marc, 
 xiii. 14; 19; 20; 32; 34; xiv, 1, &c.). In the Acts and Epistles it aj)proaches 
 much nearer to the received text : in parts quite as much as our Cod. k for 
 examjile, which (as well as ad) it is much like. Though totally destitute of 
 Liturgical matter, many of its various readings may easily be seen to have 
 arisen from EvangeHstaria and Lectionaries : the particles of time are often 
 omitted in L when they are necessarily wanting in such books, iiiitio pericopce, 
 and clauses are perpetually inserted from the same somce. I cite a very few in- 
 stances out of many : Marc. iv. 10; v. 1; Johan. xii. 1; xiii. 3 ; xvii. 1; xviii. 28; xx. 
 11; 19; xxi. 1; Act. xxviii. 1; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Tim. iii. 10; iv. 5. This copy has 
 always been noted for two capital innovations ; the pericope adulterae (Joh.vii. 53 — 
 viii. 11) is wholly wanting in its proper place, but is found after Luc. xxi.; that 
 position being suggested I suppose by comparing to opos to Ka\ovfifvoi> fXaimv Luc. 
 xxi. 37 with Johan. viii. 1 ; and (opdpiCe Luc. xxi. 38 with opdpov Johan. viii. 2. The 
 other transfer is that of Luc. xxii. 43, 44 (which verses too are wanting in their 
 place) to Matth. xxvi. where they follow v. 39, as if they belonged to St Mat- 
 thew's narrative. This arrangement also is derived from EvangeHstaria, in several 
 of which it is still read (e. g. our Pz sem.); just as in P (to be described below) 
 Johan. xix. 31 — 37 is put after Matth. xxvii. 54, after which v. 55 follows, as if 
 nothing foreign had been inserted. 
 
 Many of the changes met with in this MS. arise from inversion of order, the 
 substitution of simple for compound words, and vice versa. The accusative is 
 often found for the dative; Marc. vi. 36; ix. 7; Luc. vi. 28; viii. 32; xiv. 29; 
 xvii. 7; xviii. 5; 43; xxiii. 36; 40; 1 Tim. i. 18: and the contrary, Matth. xxv. 
 42; 43; Marc. i. 43; x. 49; xii. 43; xiv. 7; Luc. v. 14; vi. 29; x. 35; xix. 44 
 sec. man. ; xxii. 47 ; xxiii. 11 ; 39; Act. x. 8. Thus dative for genitive, Marc. iii. 10 ; 
 XV. 3; Johan. i. 37, and accusative for genitive, Luc. xxii. 47; Act. xviii] 26. In the 
 celebrated passage 1 Tim. iii. 16 this MS. has 6 ds, seemingly a mixture of the 
 common reading and that of the Cod. Claromontanus (D). In about 50 instances 
 the Codex Leicestrensis supports the Elzevir text against the general mass of 
 copies: see particularly Matth. xxiii. 13, 14; 21; 25; Marc. iii. 32; vi. 33; 52; 
 xii. 33; Luc. v. 8; vi. 7; 9; xxiv. 18; Johan. iii. 25; iv. 5. 
 
 A corrector's hand has been busy throughout this copy, whom Dr Dobbin 
 considers to have been the original scribe; I have deemed the changes to be 
 secundd manu, but nearly as old as the first. There are catch words at the foot 
 of many pages. The familiar form u for /3 occurs Luc. ix. 3; xviii. 30 (where 
 
46 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 Mill is strangely perplexed) ; Johan. i. 39. The stop ; is rarely found. The Latin 
 chapters and many various readings (e.g. Johan. xv. 10; xvii. 5; 9; xviii. 16; 
 20; xix. 39) are noted by a recent hand (seemingly Chark's), and there are two 
 or three very modern marginal notes, which miglit easily be dispensed with. 
 
 Suhjicitur collatio KecpaXaicov mnjorum in Coclice Leicestrenai cum Kusferi 
 editione Novi Testamenti Milliani (1723) : {hiat S. Matthcei Euangdium 
 usque ad Cap. xviii, v. 15). 
 
 S. Marci : ck tov Kara jmapKou ayiou evayyeXiou tu Ke<paXaia. g" . —tou 
 prim. 0' . ire pi tj?? 7rapa(3o\r]<; tou airopou. la . -nepL tou e^^ocTos tov Xeyeojua. 
 tj3'. apy/rjcrui'ayojyoij. ly'. aiiuopoouarj^. ig" . —Kai toov ouo lyQuiov. S. (poi- 
 vimarfi. k. fioyyiXaXou. k3'. fxaKupia {pro Kuicrapeui). k€ . —tov irjaou. 
 Kg-'. aeXli'ia^oixevou. k^'. nei^ou. Krj\ k9'. Desunt omnia ah twv kt] usque ad 
 TTfpi TOU, k9' {€7repcoTr]aavT09 auTov TrXovaiou). Xa . —tou. Xe . ypaixfxaT€WV 
 (pro TrpecrfiuTepwi'). Xg-'. fin. -irTrapafioXr)^. X^'. eKKaOeTwv {pro eirepwTrj- 
 aavTwv TOV kv). kuvuov. Xt/. tjaoounauov. X9 . tu)»' ypafx/xaTcwv. fia . 
 -jBaXoucrm. fJ^f^'- +T>ys {a7lte auvTeXeia^). fx^'. fxvpou. /xg-'. TrpofpriTeia?. 
 M^'- +rr]? {ante apvrjaew^). 
 
 • 
 
 ♦S*. Lucce : ck tou kutu XouKay ayiou euayyeXiou tu KefpaXaia. y . — tou. 
 
 e'. +Toi^ {ante iwawtjv). ^'. crpo- {pro -^u). 9'. -tou. i. ttoikiXov vocrov. 
 ig"'. hiuTayr]^. kS'. irepi tov e-)(^ovTo^ tov Xeyewva. /ce . apyrjauvayioyou. 
 k9'. Tivif /ixa9t]fiaTwi' {pro tou kv)- X^'. ava^t^ay^9evT(vv {-e(^co,uriK0UTa). 
 fx'. €V T(x) o)(X<i). ipcoi'rj's. fxa. arjixeicov. ju(3'. irjaouv {pro kp). fxg" • ov ( 
 Mill:). ecpwpiaev. v. ei {pro o'l). va . tov enrovTos tov iijctov. rip 
 vy . TrpioTonXrjcria^. vS'. ev tw denrvu). ve . Trepi TrapafioXijq oiKoooixr]^ Trvpyou. 
 rg-' . nepi 7rapa(ioXr]K €KaTOv 7rpol3aTa)v. i'9'. -tov bis. ^/3'. -tou secund. 
 ^y. tov ir}(xovv irXouCLOV. ^g"'- —€avT(t). ^^'. tou XafiovTa. ^r/ . ttuXou. 
 f9'. }jpMTr}cravT(vv. o'l apyiepei^ /cat o\ irpecrpuTepoi. oa . Deest. op . aaoou- 
 Kuiwv : deinde post spatium Trepi Trj^ tou kv eTrepwTijaews. oy ■ -tov. -eaTw. 
 fin. 6 j^t {sic). o^'. -j3a\ovar]<;. oe. —Tr}<s. -epwTrjai'i. oy\ . e^cTaaew^. 
 — Kat apvt^aews ireTpov. o9' . '£^ov9ev(i)ais i^pwoov { — Trepi). irp . Trepi aiTrjaeu)^ 
 TOU KvpiuKov awfxuTo^. iry . —tov. 
 
 S. Johnnnis : e/c tou kutu iwavurjv evayyeXiov Ta Ke(paXaia. y. —kui 
 irjcrov. ^'. ^ijTrjai? irepi Ka9apaov {Ka9apianovJj**). e'. dfxapTidos {pro 
 aafxapeiTi^oi). g"'. KaOapia/uov kui {pro v\ov), ^'. eTiov. fin. +avTov. rj'. 
 
 TOV 
 (VOOV. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 47 
 
 — Kai TMv cvo i-^Bvwv. t. —CK yeverm' la- —rtjg eyepaeio^. t/3'. fxupov. 
 ly . toovcas- lo . too {pro t/^s). le . —kui epwTitivTwv rov (biXiirirov. 
 
 Desunt omn'mo iyi L literce numerales Evangeliorum KecpaXaio^ prceponi 
 solitce: nee leginitur K€(pa\aia in reliquis S. Foederis libris. 
 
 Collatio viTo9e(T6w<; in Hehrceos apud Cod. Leicestrensem cum Millii N. T. 
 editions Kusteriand, p. 519, col. 2, 
 
 Y\poKoyn<s }]tovv v(prjyt]ai9 t>/§ tt^cos ejSpaiou^ eiria-ToXrj^. Init. 'H ^e ttoo?. 
 Toi? aWai<s {pro aWats tok). tw Xeyeiv. —tov {ante XaXeiaOai). vtto ruu ku 
 Cta {Hebr. II. 3). Tepaaiv. —ovv. rjXa-^Oai. XeXcKTai. 6 o'l. avrov {pro 
 TovTov). —Kai {ante acol^ei). ov-)^ lovcaiwu. eocoK€i>. XotTrots {pro toi^ ante 
 arroaT.). ypacpeiu {pro Trpoypatpeiv). /uaprvpei. ei' rots cea/nois {Hebr. X. 
 31). Tre ptaaoT€pa)<; eu-^eaOai. Deest Kai ck tov Xeyeiv ywuxTKeTc usque ad 
 eTrayyeXXerai. eivai {pro rvy^aveiv). Stoa^ei. 
 
 The next four copies on my list are Evangelistaria, two of them (P and PJ 
 belonging to the princely collection of Manuscripts at Parham Park, Sussex, 
 brought from the East by the Hon. Robert Curzon, jun. They are best known 
 to the general reader by the notices of them scattered throughout that gentle- 
 man's lively and most interesting " Visits to Monasteries in the Levant," A more 
 formal yet succinct account of them will be found in his " Catalogue of materials 
 for writing, early writings on tablets and stones, rolled and other MSS. and 
 Oriental MSS. books in the Library of Robert Curzon at Parham," fol. 1849 : 
 a scarce work, of which a copy is in the British Museum. For the privilege of 
 collating these Evangelistaria (both of them in uncial letters) and two copies 
 of the Apocalypse to be described in their place, I am indebted to Mr Curzon's 
 kindness and liberality, for which I am bound to tender him my earnest thanks. 
 Twelve other manuscripts of the Greek Testament remain unexamined at 
 Parham, several of which (especially a very early copy of the Gospel in cursive 
 characters, and a splendid Evangelistarium which belonged to the Emperor 
 Alexius Comnenus) are of considerable critical value. Before Ave describe the 
 Parham books we will first speak of 
 
 (H) Harleian, 5o98. in the British Museum, being Scholz's Evangelistarium, 
 150. Its splendour has been admired by many; facsimiles of its penmanship have 
 been published by Woide in his edition of the Cod. Alcxandrinus (Prajf. p. xv.), 
 by Home in his Introduction, and by Scott Porter in his " Principles of Textual 
 Criticism" (Belfast, 18-18); in the Catalogue of the Harleian MSS., published as 
 far back as 1808, it l^ad been most justly described as " collatione diguissimum," 
 
48 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 yet up to this time its readings have not been available to the critic. This copy 
 consists of 748 pages on vellum in large folio, and usually contains 21 lines in 
 each of the two columns on a page, the characters being bold yet elegant uncial 
 letters, while fortunately the date is iixed by a colophon on p. 748, in the hand 
 
 V V r) — _ 
 
 of the original scribe : eypacpr] 8ia x^'^P'^^ KUiva-ravriv Trp(or^vT€p, fj. fxaico k(, ii'b. rj, fzovs 
 
 7^: i.e. in the year of the Greek aern, Ga03, or a. d. 995. I believe that but 
 two older dated MSS. of the Greek Testament are extant, nor can I account on 
 any reasonable principle, for the neglect this volume has met with. It is at 
 least as early as several of the uncial copies of the Gospels in their proper 
 order; and when allowance is made lor the necessary liturgical changes at the 
 beginnings of the Church lessons (an allowance which the veriest tiro in these 
 studies could make with ease) I can not even conjecture why an EvangeUstarium 
 should be thought of less value than another MS. of the same age^ 
 
 This is one of the Jive copies of the Greek Testament (the others are Har- 
 leian 5537, 5557, 5620, 5778: I have used two of them in the Apocalypse) 
 brought from the East in 1077 by Dr John Covell, for seven years Chaplain to 
 the British Embassy at Constantinople; then Chaplain to the Princess Mary at 
 the Hague, from which office he was summarily dismissed by her churlish hus- 
 band; and from 1688 till his death in 1722 (aet. 85) Master of Christ's College, 
 Cambridge. He seems to have been an unpopular, perhaps an unamiable person, 
 but his services rendered to Biblical criticism entitle his memory to respect. 
 This MS. was paged and the lessons diligently noted in the margin by his hand : 
 between pp. 726 and 727 are bound up ten paper leaves, comprising useful 
 indices of the Church lessons contained in the book, and certain notes, chiefly 
 on the various readings he had observed in a cursory perusal, a few of them 
 referring to the Epistles, and therefore extracted from some of his other MSS.^ 
 
 This magnificent codex contains all the Church lessons daily throughout the 
 year, the services of the Holy Week, the proper lessons for the Great Feasts 
 and Saint days, followed by the Gospels set apart for special occasions, fis 
 
 eyKaivia vaov, fis yvvaiKOi, fi? KoiyL-qdevTas, fts avojx^piav, and SUch like. There is an 
 
 > It is pleasant to be able to confirm one's own 
 judgment, however decided, by such authority as 
 Tischendorf' s. I believe he has individually done 
 nothing in this field of labour, yet he does not 
 shrink from confessing " Evangelistariorum co- 
 dices Uteris uncialibus script], nondum sic ut decet, 
 in usum criticum conversi sunt." {ProJeg. N. T. 
 Prcefat. p. Ixviii. ed. 1849.) 
 
 2 This year (1858) I find the MS. newly bound 
 and Dr Covell's papers placed at the end of the 
 volume. On the initial fly-leaf is written in pencil, 
 " Sc'lavonice, vid. 5684, 5787, Rev. Mr. Woide 
 and H. G." Below this are two old scraps pasted 
 
 on the leaf, in different hands. The one runs, 
 "Observandum est in hisce Pericopis, multa ex 
 uno Evangelio in lectionem sumptam et alio trans- 
 ferri, ad illustrandam et augendam Historiam. 
 Inde in ipsis Evangeliis oritur mira aliquando 
 varietas lectionis, eorum quas in ipsum textum 
 irrepserunt." The other, which seems somewhat 
 more recent, runs, ' ' Manuscriptum to trapov vide- 
 
 Slavonicis 
 tur seculi novi : literse autem cum Russicis prorsus 
 conveniunt." The writer had not observed that 
 the MS. is dated. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 49 
 
 apparent hiatus after p. G39, which ends abruptly with ra a-cofiaTa ev Johan. xix. 
 31, but the missing verses are taken up a few pages later, so that nothing 
 is lost. There is a slight illumination on the first page (on which all the letters 
 are gilded) and elsewhere throughout the volume at the commencements of its 
 several parts; each lesson also begins with a large flourished capital, gaudily 
 colored : in other respects the book is destitute of ornament, which indeed it 
 can well spare, when we consider its intrinsic value. 
 
 The text of Harl. 5598 is much more widely removed from the textus 
 receptus than either the Arundel (X) or Parham (P) Evangelistaria, though it 
 is of a somewhat later date. It approximates rather closely to that of the 
 cursive Lectionary I shall hereafter describe as Zj though in parts they are not 
 at all alike. The Pericope Adulterce is not found in this MS., for it is not only 
 absent here, as in all other Service Books I know, from the Greek lesson for the 
 Pentecost (Johan. vii, 37 — ^viii. 12), but it is not read among the Saints' Day 
 lessons, as in P and z. Many documents contain more instances of itacism than 
 Codex H : I have counted 528 in the whole MS., quite of the ordinary character. 
 The breathings, however, have given me great trouble, as they are very irregular, 
 and in a copy of such importance I thought it right to represent them all. 
 We read ov, ovk, ovSeis, pretty constantly; al, ol (the articles), dyios, dpTiaCco, dXieis, fcos, 
 
 eh gen. epos, eKaaros, eoprr), erepos, eTotjjios, ovk, coSe, and On the contrary, oXiyos, Sniaa, 
 
 o^os, &c. Once we have the form avrav (Matth. xxiii. 30) so rare in MSS. of the 
 Greek Testament. The accents are so ill placed that to note their peculiarities 
 would be to transcribe the whole volume. We meet with no t subscript, or ascript., 
 and V e(Pe\KvaTtKov, at least prima manu, not frequently (yet enrev always), but 
 a later hand has taken the trouble to insert it often where it was originally 
 absent : yet above nine instances remain where it is wanting before a vowel. 
 Two correctors have been employed on this book ; one quite recent and so of 
 little weight, the other (who writes a few marginal notes^ in a small uncial hand) 
 nearly as early as the scribe Constantino himself, though I do not agree with 
 Dr Covell that the colophon containing the date is by this second hand 2. Not 
 more than six ei-rors by SfioLOTeXevrov occur in this MS. and x^i-pav Matth. xii. 10, 
 avTokaypa Marc. viii. 37, and va^aped semper, are the only Alexandrian forms 
 I notice. Yet there are frequent interchanges of the cases after verbs : e. g. dative 
 for accusative. Marc. vi. 48; xiv. 7; Luc. ix. 2 ; 18 ; xi. 46; Johan. xviii, 7: 
 accusative for dative, Matth. xxvii. 44; Marc. iv. 2; v. 13; vi. 37; xv. 23; Luc. 
 
 ^ Wherever this early uncial hand is used, I 
 have stated that the correction is antiqud manu. 
 I have noted twenty-three such cases. 
 
 ^ Such I suppose is Covell's meaning when he 
 wi-ites (Harl. 5598, p. 748), "vid. p. 403, ubi in 
 margine scribuntur hujusmodi charactcres [sc. Kai 
 
 fiera rpeis 7],aepas avaaTTjvai, Marc. viii. 31], unde 
 manifesto collig|o j)e?/ec|tum esse hoc anno" (o 
 pcrfec is barely legible). Pei-haps, however, he 
 means that the writer of the small uncials is the 
 original scribe when correcting his cojiy, which 
 may possibly be the fact. 
 H 
 
50 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 vi. 34; ix. 55; xvi. 9; xxii. 19; 29; xxiii. 9; Johan. xix. 3: accusative for genitive. 
 Marc. iii. 2; xv. 3; Luc. xxiii. 2. In the present copy, as in most other Lec- 
 tionaries, many marks are found, which seem to be musical notes, designed for 
 guiding the reader's voice : I seems often interrogative. This is beyond question 
 a most important document. 
 
 (P) Parham Evangelistarium unciale, No. 18, is a noble folio, written on 
 222 leaves of delicately white vellum, each page containing two columns of 27 
 or 22 lines each \ written in clear and elegant uncial characters. Like Arundel, 
 547, this volume contains the lessons for every day between Easter and Pente- 
 cost, with the Saturday and Sunday lessons only for the rest of the year : the 
 full service for the Holy Week, with lessons for Saints' Days somewhat different 
 to those in our other Evangelistaria, for many of the minor festivals were more 
 or less specially observed at diffei'ent periods and in different regions. The age 
 and country of this copy appears from an inscriiDtion on the last page (of which 
 Mr Curzon's catalogue contains a fac-simile) evidently prima manu : ^ypafprf to 
 
 Tifxiov KOI dyiov evayyeKiov eiri (TTecjiavov tov 6eo(pikov eTria-Konov Kia-Kia-arjs' fxrjvi lovvKo- iv8. 
 
 rj' (Tovs s-vTrrj- ypaffxv 8ia x^ipos vik. x^ ^ [sic). The year s-vivr] is A.M. 6488 of the Greek 
 aera, or a. d. 980. This copy, therefore, with the single exception of Vatican 
 354 (S of the Gospels), collated by Birch, and written a. d. 949, is the oldest 
 dated MS. of any portion of the Greek Testament. Ciscissa, where no doubt 
 the document was written, was a small town and Bishop's See in Cappadocia 
 Prima, some thirty-five miles E. S. E. of Ca^sarea, its capital and metropolitan see 
 (BingJiam, Antiquit. Vol. iir. p. 93; see also, p. 191). Its country is further 
 established by a kind of colophon scrawled on the fly-leaf (fol. 222) under a rude 
 arcade, with other irrelevant and almost illegible matter: avenaiviaBr) to Tifxiov kcu 
 
 ayiov evayyektov ejn viKi]Ta tov dyiwTaTov ema-KOTTOv kktkkkttjs tov . . . 8ia x^ipos fiixarjX vorapiov 
 i^ai dvov (?) avTov erovs r(j)v^, p.r)vi. fiapT a- lv8. (S** em KcovaTavrivov fj.ovop.a)(ov fwjyj Kat 6eo8o)pas 
 Tcav deoa-eTTTav fiacrCkiuiv p-ix^rjX tov dyLcoraTov km oiKovp. .... narpiapxav KrjpovXKov (rrvXiavov 
 TOV dyicoraTOV fxrjrpoTroXiTov Kaiaapeias Ka7nra8oKias km [ccetera VtX legibilia?[. This colo- 
 
 phon bears date a. d. 1049 [a. m. 6557] and was written, I presume, by the person 
 who made the numerous changes secundd manu, both in small uncial and cursive 
 characters, which abound throughout the MS. : to him also we may be indebted 
 for the two lessons in cursive letters on the margin of the book (foil. 14G, 147) 
 which I have indicated by P (Luc. xi. 47 — 52; Johan. x. 9 — 16). As a notary, 
 or official scribe {vid. Suicer, Thesaur. Ecclesiast. Tom. ii. p. 431), he takes care 
 to apprise us of the names of the three joint-sovereigns of the Eastern Empire 
 (one of whom, I fear, little deserved the epithet deoa-eTTTrjv), of the Patriarch of 
 Constantinople, of the Metropolitan of Caisarea, and of the Bishop of Ciscissa. 
 This volume is now superbly bound in purple velvet, with the original clasp and 
 
 1 Observe that foil. 140, 141, and 142, 143, are misplaced by the binder. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 61 
 
 five golden bosses ; it was disinterred by Mr Curzon in 1837 (together with both 
 copies of the Apocalypse described below) from the Library of Caracalla, a 
 monastery on Mount Athos. 
 
 Both this MS. and Armidel 547, which I consider to be older, approximate 
 much more closely to the received text than others of a later date and less 
 promising appearance : from which fact I leave the reader to draw his own 
 inference. Yet the collation of this copy cost me much labour, through my 
 desire to exhibit all its peculiarities whether of breathing or orthography. The 
 accents indeed, like those of Arundel 547, seem to be put almost at random, and 
 I have not noticed them except in special cases : the system of breathings, such 
 as it is, is tolerably uniform. Thus Codex P always gives ^v or i]p for the imper- 
 fect of eifxi, rjXdov or i]\6ov (as our w), ovv, oiiK, e|', oxXor, ovo^a : in fact all verbs 
 beginning with tj and many words whose initial vowel is o, seem to take the aspi- 
 rate as a matter of course : 'i often has no breathing. In accentuation iSoO, aKT]6ijs, 
 ovbe'is, fi^ interrogative, vvv, 6t av, eav, inav, are pretty constant: but the circumflex 
 and grave accent are repeatedly interchanged. After proper names such as 
 a^aayi, SaS, 'ikrjfi, we often sec the apostrophe ' even before consonants. N e^eX- 
 KvdTiicov may be said to be almost universal, but I noticed no example of t ascript 
 or subscript. This codex is not much illuminated ; there are sHght ornaments on 
 the first page and at foil. 112, 144, p. 2, besides the initial letters of each lesson: 
 the rubrical and musical notes are in red ink, and the form of the mark of breath- 
 ing square (h h). Though written in uncial letters the mutation of ^ for v occurs, 
 Johan. X. 1 sem., and of v for /3 Luc. vi. 34 : but this is found even in the Arundel 
 547. Itacisms are not so numerous as in some documents of this period, yet still 
 plentiful (v pro oi scepe) : I have represented them all. 
 
 I now pass on to grammatical inflexions. We have the 3rd declension accu- 
 sative in -av, vvKTav, Luc. ii. 37 p.m. ; Bvyarepav, xiii. 16 sem.', x^'P""? Marc. iii. 1 ; 
 Luc. XV. 22 ; on the other hand, fiaxaipa, Matth. xxvi. 52 ; Kaia<j)a, ib. 57 sem. ; 
 accusatives: aaSevriv Matth. xxv. 39; 44 sem.; [xeiCov fem. Johan. xix. 11 sem. : in 
 verbs eKreXeare Matth. vii. 13; rjXdaTe xxv. 36 sem. {^Xeare sem.); r]\6afj,fv ibid. 39 
 sem.; irapiXearo XXvi. 39; e^rjXdare ibid. 55; Trpotrenea-au vii. 25; aveneaav Johan. vi. 10; 
 
 fiTTov ix. 28; yevafxevrji Matth. xxvi. 20: of verbs in p.i, BwopLevr) Luc. xiii. 11 sem.; 
 napabiSovvTa Johan. xiii. 11; a<puipfjv xiv. 27 sem.: note also eapow Johan, vi. 2; 
 eXeyovv xix. 21 scm. ; iapaKav Luc. ix. 36; enaeepiadri Marc. i. 42; SO Luc. xvii. 14; but 
 iKaOcpfiaer) Luc. iv. 27; (4>o^r^er]v Johan. xix. 8; r^bvvr)6rjv Marc. vii. 24 (3rd person); 
 
 7Tpo(TKvp.ylras Luc. xxiv. 12 p.m.; avraXayiia Marc. viii. 37. We often see yaXXiXaia, 
 fivrjpLiov, TTfpia-evpa, 8iopvcra), SiayyeXco, Kareros, KariBiap, Korovap, KaTovofxa. The accusative 
 
 is put for the dative Matth. xx. 4; xxi. 2 p.m.; xxvi. 15 sem.; xxvii. 31 sem.; 44 
 bis; xxviii. 9; 17; Marc. i. 43; ii. 4; vi. 19^; x. 34 bis in versu; xv. 19; Luc. xvii. 7; 
 
 1 evr}X^v avTQV : on j). 327 of our collation read avrov {pro ai'ry) Pz : avTcv is a 
 
 II 2 
 
52 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 xxiii. 2G; xxiv. 42; Johan. vi. 8; vii. 2G : the dative for accusative, Matth. xxvi. 
 71; Luc. iv. 31; x. 35; xvii. 14; xxiv. 51: the accusative for the genitive, Marc, 
 i. 41. The pericope adulters is once omitted in the middle of a lesson, but 
 Johan. viii. 3 — 11, and Luc. vii. 36, &c. comprise the proper service for the feast 
 TTjs dytas deobapas OH Sept. 18. Theodora's strange story is told in the great 
 Acta Sanctorum (Antwerp, 17G5), September, Tom. iii. p. 789: she lived in the 
 fifth century. 
 
 This document contains as many as 32 examples of o/xoioreXfvroi/, e, g. Johan. 
 xiv. 3; 12; but on the whole is accurately written. Glosses (Matth. xvii. 20; 
 xix. 12; Johan. vi. 11; viii. 44; xix. 11 sent.), itacisms (Matth. xxvi. GO; xxvii. 2 
 rubro: 41), or rare variations (Luc. xxiii. 35; Johan. x. 3G; xx. 12), are often 
 introduced by later hands, of which probably more than one was engaged in 
 making alterations and erasures. This MS. rarely departs from the received 
 text as widely as in Marc. vii. 25, 26; Luc. ix. 28 — 36; yet the following 
 passages deserve notice: Matth. v. 32; vii. 2 {^cum Elzev.); 14; viii, 30; ix. 18; 
 xxiii. 10; xxv. 20; 26; 4:5 p.m.; Luc. vi. 4; vii. 39 jp.m. ; 44; viii. 17; 31; xxi. 8; 
 xxiii. 1; 15 (D Leicest.); 28; 33; xxiv. 7 ; Johan. vii. 8 (ov Kara^iaiva,) ; x. 28 seJn.; 
 xxi. 3 (Elzev.) p. m. 
 
 (PJ Parham Evangelistarium UNCIA1.E, No. 1. This volume contains many 
 specimens of early writing on papyrus, vellum and other materials, in Coptic and 
 other languages, which are minutely described in the Parham Catalogue. The 
 only Biblical fragment in Greek among them consists of three "eaves of an Evan- 
 gelistarium in large uncial characters, removed from the binding of a MS. of 
 the twelfth century, found at the Monastery of Docheirou on Mount Atlios. 
 Mr Curzon obtained them for asking. The Evangelistarium must have been of 
 about the ninth century, and much resembles in style the fragment I have called 
 X (2), at the end of Arundel 547 {Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. p. Ix.); 
 indeed as both fragments have two columns of nineteen lines each on each 
 page, they are very possibly parts of the same book. This Codex contains 
 Matth. i. 1—11; 11—22; vii. 7, 8; Marc. ix. 41; xi. 22—26; Luc. xi. 1—4: the 
 vellum has been so hacked as to cut away much of the margin and many letters 
 of the text; the leaves seem to belong to that portion of an Evangelistarium 
 Avhich relates to the Feasts; before Marc. xi. 22 we read <jenr. k!3. Xt^i/^j^s ttjs dyias 
 avvTjs. There are but few variations from the received text in these three leaves, 
 but the breathings and accents are as irregular as in Arund. 547, my remarks on 
 which exactly apply to P^. Some corrections are made in small uncials, seem- 
 ingly by a later hand (Matth. i, 14; 22). Marc. ix. 41 is perhaps unique. 
 
 (z) Christi Coll. Cantab. F. 1, 8, is a fine Evangelistarium on vellum, con- 
 sisting of 218 thick folio leaves, with tvi^o columns on a page: a modern hand 
 has numbered the columns (871) : there are about 30 lines in a column, in a clear 
 bold style, and good preservation, only that the ink is somewhat faded and a few 
 

 
 ^t-: 
 
 
 • T .:.hi 
 
 ^.^^ i .3 < *^4 If.; 1^5 J^^ 
 
 4 
 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 53 
 
 leaves are lost^ On a paper fly-leaf we read, " E dono Francisci Tayleri, in 
 Theologia Licenciati olim CoUegii Christi apud Cantabrigienses alumni, nunc vero 
 verbi divini in ^de Christi apud Cantuarienses concionatoris : data Julij 24, 
 16-54:." As Mill overlooked this document when he collated the copy of the Acts 
 and Epistles in the same library (to be described below), it has never been 
 inserted in Catalogues of Greek Testament MSS. ; I am indebted for my know- 
 ledge of its existence to the truly learned Dr Kaye, late Bishop of Lincoln, who 
 had been Master of the College. The present Master and Fellows of the 
 Society granted me permission to collate both their MSS. at my own house, with 
 a courtesy and readiness for which I cannot be too grateful. At the foot of col. 
 871 we find prima manu, 8o^a tco \oya rat hovn Tekoi' ayi-qv, and on the second page 
 of this last leaf (218), much illegible scrawl in later hands, among which occurs 
 
 the following : eTrovXddr] t6 napav evayyeXeicov kol rjyapua-dr] irapa a6a\ya\(Tiov rov rdyKpt 
 
 dnb Tov [illegibilia] ypad . ae^rep^pi ~8 to eros r^o • tfS"" S. This date is 6770 
 
 or A.D. 1261, and since it is considerably more recent than the Evangelistarium, 
 we may fairly place the latter as early as the eleventh or twelfth century. There 
 are a few poor illuminations on the first page and elsewhere, the initial letter of 
 each lesson is colored and flourished, and the rubrical notes are partly in red. 
 The hand which paged the columns and noted the modern chapters in the margin 
 seems less recent than that which wrote on the paper fly-leaves at the end of 
 the volume a convenient table of references to the lessons taken from the three 
 first Gospels: a similar table is met with in Harleian. 5598; Dr Covell perhaps 
 compiled both. 
 
 This Evangelistarium contains no example of i ascript, except perhaps rjideire, 
 Luc. ii. 49, and only 17 of t subscript, almost always with the article. In the 
 earlier pages v ecpeXKvariKov is quite rare, but as we proceed it gets more common, 
 imtil with eiTrev it is quite the rule. The hiatus, however, takes place for want of 
 
 V in Matth. vii. 9 sec. man.; xxi. 30; Luc. xv. 27; Johan. xx. 5, The itacisms are 
 about the same in amount as in Cod. i, but somewhat differently distributed: 
 thus 7] for ei occurs 159 times; ei for r], 92; w for o, 104; o for «, 105; rj for t, 52; 
 t for t], S2 ; 6 for ai, 32 ; ai for e, 40 ; ov for a, 10; <u for ov, 8; v for oi, 4; 01 for V, 3; 
 
 V for t, 1; I for v, 2; v for rj, 2; r) for v, 1; c for et, 28; ei for t, 16; e for rj, 12; 
 r] for e, 7; et for oi, 1; oi for «, 2: in all 713: i^peis and vfins are confounded, Matth. 
 vii. 11; 15, sem.; Luc. ix. 49; xxii. 31, sem.; xxiii. 30, sem,; xxiv. 20; Johan. xi. 
 11; xvi. 17, sem.; xix. 35, p.m. sem. 
 
 Of grammatical inflexions &c. we mark the following: of nouns, 6vpa, Matth. 
 vi. 6; x'?p«> Luc. xviii. 5, accus.; but x^'P""? Marc. vii. 32; Luc. vi. 8; wktup, ii. 37; 
 
 1 About eight leaves are wanting which gave 
 the lessons from the Saturday for the fourth week 
 after Easter to the Tuesday of the sixth, col. 56, 
 
 Johan. xii. 24, p,ovos /xevti: also about five leaves 
 between the 1 2th Saturday of Luke, c. xiii. 24, Xeyo) 
 v/Mv, col. 438, to the X5th Sunday, xix. 4, ave^-q. 
 
54 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 Bvyartpavt xiii. IG: tfpotr, Matth, xii. 4; iieyicTTavois, Marc. vi. 21; so /ififcoi/, riCMf. p?. 
 Johan. i. 51, sem.: actus, sing. v. 3G; ttoWw, ibid. G; of verbs, npoa-ewecrav, Matth. 
 
 vii. 25; eKf^aXare, xxii. 13; f^eXdare, Xxiv. 2G, SCm. ; T^X^are, XXV. 3G, Sem.; (^r,\6aTf, 
 
 Lue. vii. 25; emav, xx. IG; eiSare, Johan. xiii. 17, sem.; Tidwrjerji', 3 pers. Marc. vii. 
 24: and v rejected in antaraXr], Matth. xv. 24; eMov, Johan. xix. 3; note also, napa- 
 
 StSouj/ra, Johan. xiii. 11 sem.; KareyeXow, Matth. ix. 24; uwrfKav, Marc. vi. 52; aTrJjyacri, 
 
 Johan. xviii. 13 ; and in orthography observe bibpajfiara, Matt. xvii. 24 ; o-KvXetj-, 
 Marc. V. 35; oTnaeev, Matt. xv. 23; ffnrpoade, Johan. i. 15; 27. We read also dfiar, 
 and eSfiCTev for brjarj and 6S7;(7-fi' (quite a peculiarity of this copy), kvXos, yteva 
 constantly. In the following places the reduplication of verbs is omitted, Matth. 
 ix. 3G ; Marc. v. 4; Johan. iii. 21 ; vi. 42. The preposition receives the augment 
 in (irpocjjrjTeva-apev, Matt. vii. 22 ; Tj^piaraTo, Luc. ii. 37. The augment is lost in 
 Matth. xi. 17; xiii. 24; xiv. G : xviii. 23 ; xxii. 2; 7; xxv. 1; xxvii. 44 sem.; Marc. 
 XV. 44 sem. ; Luc. ii. 38 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 32 ; xiii. 13 ; xxii. G sem.; Johan. xii. 42, sem. 
 The breathings and accents are very regular, though (as in most of the copies 
 I have examined) the accent of an enclitic is not often thrown back when the 
 preceding word is properispomenon. We have, however, p-^be, prjbepia, &c. p.^KeTi, 
 
 otSare, TrcoTTore and Other SUch anomalies, Trapuxprjpa, vnoKara, ovS" els, iuv, enav (but 
 oTuv), ovx\ ^8f, alpa, Karidiav, Karovap, SiaTrairof, btarovTO, ovKfTi, pp not pp. 
 
 Besides the Gospels in full, several portions of which are always written more 
 than once in an Evangelistarium (see Collation of the Holy Gospels, Introd. p. Ixiii.), 
 this copy is remarkable for containing among the services for the Holy Week, 
 four passages from the Septuagint version, Isaiah iii. 9 — 13; Hi. 13 — liv. 1; 
 Jerem. xi. 18 — xii. 15; Zechar. xi. 10 — 14; and four from the Pauline Epistles, 
 Rom. V. 6—10; Gal. vi. 14—18; 1 Tim. vi. 11— IG; Hebr. x. 19—31. The 
 various readings of these last are recorded in their proper places and noted z. 
 
 This MS. is carefully written, though it contains 23 omissions by opoioTfkevTov : 
 a second hand has sometimes made alterations, but these are not many: it 
 introduces an itacism Marc. iv. 29, and scrawled a rubrical note over coll, IGl, 2. 
 In noticing peculiarities of punctuation we must bear in mind that ; is often 
 equivalent to a comma; this may perhaps apply to Johan. i. 43; v. 45; viii. 13; 
 and is also true in Cod. i. For stops see Matth. xii. 28; xx. 12; Marc. viii. 18; 
 xiv. 31. 
 
 Few copies of the Gospels contain more numerous and interesting yet minute 
 variations from the printed text than Cod. z, which much resembles in that 
 respect iL of my present, and cegop and especially y of my previous collations ; 
 but in very many places it stands almost, often quite alone. Thus the patient 
 student will find it a document of singular importance, well meriting his best 
 consideration. Matth. xxiii. 35 omits the perplexing vlov ^apaxiov ; in xxvii. 9, 
 iepepiov is wanting in one place, but read in another ; the genealogy in Luc. iii. 
 abounds w ith variations ; Luc. xxii. 43, 44 is wanting in its place, but once placed 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 55 
 
 after Matth. xxvi. 39 ; Johan. vii. 53— viii. 11 is wanting in its place (Whitsunday), 
 but Johan. viii. 1—11 is given on August 31 (the last day of the ecclesiastical 
 
 year) eis rrjv ioprrjv ireXayiov km eis Xonras dyias. This MS. haS SOmC SOlcclsmS and 
 
 many changes of case : e.g. genitive for dative, Luc. ix. 23 ; 57 ; and vice versa, 
 Matth. xxvi. 62: dative for accusative, Matth. vii. 24; 2G; 29; xviii. 32; xxvii. 
 1; Marc. V. 24 and 14 other texts: accusative for dative, Matth. xi. 1; xiv. 7; 
 xvi. 22; xxii, 16 sem.; Marc. iv. 2; x. 21, and 25 others. 
 
 The following readings, selected from a very large number, may serve to shew 
 the choice character of this Evangelistarium. Matth. i. 8 ; ii. 9 (o); 13; iii. 5 
 (b) ; 7 ; 8 (Eh.) ; 9 (r) ; iv. 2 (our P*) ; 24(g) ; v. 11 ; 12 (D) ; 31 ; 38 ; vii. 18 ; viii. 
 4 (s); ix. 15 (Dg); x. 4 sem. (BCD); 10; xii. 8 ; 12 ; 39; 40; 50; xvi. 10 (c) ; 
 11; 12; xxiii. 26; Marc. i. 22 (Ccv) ; 27; 33; iii. 11; 28 (ABCD) ; iv. 4 (Elz.) ; 
 5(D); 7(CDc); 9 (Eh.); U (y) ; 14; 16; 19 (our L) ; 22 ; vi. 3 ; 4 ; 9 ; 45(Dc)i 
 49 (Be) ; 55; Luc. i. 26 ; 30 (C) ; iv. 4 (gloss) ; vi. 17 sem.; 49 (By) ; vii. 32 ; 
 xi. 13, sem. ; 20 ; xvi. 26 ; xvii. 36 (Eh.) ; xx. 10 (Cy) ; 27 ; xxii. 19, sem. ; 32 ; 
 xxiii. 50; 5Q (s) ; xxiv. 10; Johan. i. 26 sem. (c); 41; 51 sem. (B); ii. 5; 10 
 (B); 15; 17 (Elz.); iii. 2 ; 11; 23 ; 24 ; 25 (Elz.); v. 19 ; 22 ; 25 (BD) ; 32; 
 vi. 1 ; 2 (ABD) ; 17 ; 19 ; vii. 13 ; 17 ; xii. 26, &c. 
 
 II. 2. As our list of MSS. for the Acts and Catholic Epistles is with four 
 exceptions the same as that for the Epistles of St Paul, it will be convenient to 
 describe both series under the same head. 
 
 The Lambeth MSS. of the Carlyle collection comprise the first six on our 
 catalogue (abed, e of Acts, e of St Paul) : of these I have elsewhere given a suffi- 
 cient general account^ When I collated them, now twelve years ago, by the 
 permission of the late Archbishop Howley (who was pleased to countenance my 
 exei-tions in this department of sacred learning), they had merely been inspected 
 so far as to ascertain that none of them contained the disputed passage, 1 John 
 v. 7, 8. Dr Bloomfield has since used four of them and some lectionaries in the 
 same collection to enrich his critical notes in the ninth edition of his Greek 
 Testament: he kindly permitted me to verify my references in many places while 
 they continued in his possession. I proceed to describe them in detail. 
 
 (a). Lambeth, 1182. This copy is in quarto, of 793 pages, on paper, and 
 must date from the 12th century at the earliest. Professor Carlyle marked it I 8, 
 thus indicating that he procured it from one of the Greek Islands. The MS. 
 itself is written in a bold round hand, but as many leaves are lost, they have been 
 supplied in a more careless style by a scribe full two centuries later : the passages 
 so supplied are Acts i. 1 — xii. 3 (68 pages; the more ancient writing commencing 
 at Trpoai6eTo); Acts xiii. 5, o-vraywyats to V. 15 Kai tcov (pp. 75, 76); 2 and 3 John 
 
 Coll 
 
 lation of the Holy Gospels. Introduction, pp. xxiv — vi. 
 
5Q DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 and Jude (pp. 755—793)'. The books arc arranged in a very unusual order, the 
 Pauline Epistles following the Acts, and preceding the Catholic Epistles, as in our 
 modern Bibles. The older part of this MS. is much damaged, in fact most of the 
 leaves are remounted. Before the Acts in the later hand are Liturgical avncpcova 
 for Easter (vid. Suicer, Thes. Ecc. Tom. i. p. 387), anobrjfjuai TravXov, an inoBeffis to 
 the Acts, and an arrangement of the contents in order, the Catholic Epistles being 
 here made to follow the Acts. After the Acts, prima manu, follow npa^ns rav dyiav 
 airoaToXoiv 5 pp., as their sequel. Each Epistle has an inodeais, and at the end, in 
 the later hand, are a Synaxarion of the Upn^anoaToXos throughout the year, and 
 lessons from Phil. ii. 5-11; Hebr. ix. 1—7; 1 Thoss. iv. 13-17 (marked a? in 
 this collation). This volume contains a few coarse illuminations, ruhro; Ke4>a\aia 
 numbered in the margin, with capitals commencing each ; ap^ai, TfXrj of the lessons 
 noted, their proper days at the top of the page, and such initial supplements as 
 aSeX^oi, &c. all in red. 
 
 The breathings and accents of Cod. a are very regular ; we have only a few 
 
 such forms as aXowv, ivearaxrav, idpaicofia, but ajBpaap., wSe, Kad' o, Kar ivcomov, Kadrjpepau, 
 Toiyapovv, and in orthography, fcarayyeXw, evaros, ovrcos {ovra Only four times) cf)i\r]^ nine 
 times; o(})6a\pojbovkeia, TaireKppocrvvr] (Col. ii. 23; iii. 12), vri(paXeos. The V ((pe^KvaTiKov 
 
 occurs only Hebr. vii. 2; xi. 8. We never read t ascript, but t subscript 67 
 times, often with relatives. Itacisms are rare, though somewhat thicker in the 
 more recent portion of the MS. : they are even inserted secundd manu, e.g. 
 Act. iii. 22; iv. 13; of grammatical forms we find TjXKaTo, Act. xiv. 10; ea-vpav, 
 xvii. 6; ij^wptfei/, Gal. ii. 12; tiwa, Hebr. iii. 10; evpapfvos {cum midtis) ix. 12. 
 There are 27 instances of opoiorekevTov, and the writing is in some places injured 
 by damp and the ink faded. On the top of p. 384 is some faded writing, now 
 illegible. The corrections are in two hands, one ancient (perhaps prima manu'), 
 the other more recent, and some are in vermilion. Ae and re, Upoa-okvpa and Upov- 
 (ToKrjp (Act. xvi. 4; xx. 16; xxi, 14; 15) are often confounded: there are many 
 transpositions in the order of words (sometimes noted a, /3 secundd manu), and the 
 copy is so liturgical as often to omit particles of time initio pericopes. The more 
 modern hand (Acts i. — xii. 3, &c.) agrees closely with Cod. h, to be described 
 below, and has some good readings: e.g. Acts ii. 13 (ABC); 24: but the older 
 hand represents a very interesting and valuable text, and is full of rare variations, 
 especially in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, being there found in harmony with 
 cdh (described below), with the most ancient MSS., and very conspicuously with 
 that most precious document, designated below as p (consult, for instance, Acts 
 xiii. — xvii. throughout). It has kv for Sv, Acts xx. 28, with ACDE, and very few 
 cursive copies. Compare also Act. xiv. 19; xv. 4; 18; 20 (69); 1 Pet. ii. 8; 
 
 1 The binder has misplaced pp. 371-2 and | 463-4, 461-2 and 459-60 ; 473-4 and 471-2 ; 477-8 
 369-70 ; 375-6 and 373-4 ; 457-8, 455-6 and 453-4; I and 475-6. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 67 
 
 11 (ambobus locis cum 51**, 69); 12; 19 (C. 69); iii. 12 (57. 69); iv. 14 (57**. 
 G9. c); 2 Pet. i. 10 (A.c, 69); 1 Cor. xii. 13 (74); xv. 8 (rw) ; 2 Cor. iii. 9 
 (ACD*, 74); iv. 4 (74) ; v. 17 ; Eph. ii. IG, p.m.; iii. 19 (A 74) ; Col. ii. 23; iii. 10 
 (74); 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; 7 (CD* 74); iv. 5 (74); v. 8 (74); 24 (74); 2 Tim. i. 15; 
 ii. 11 ; Hebr. vii. 26 (74) ; xii. 9; xiii. 22 (D) ; 24 (74). The close resemblance 
 to Knittel's Guftlpherbyt. xvi. 7 (69 Acts, 74 Paul) is very remarkable. 
 
 (b). Lambeth 1183, Carlyle I 9, like the preceding, contains the Acts and all 
 the Epistles in their modern order, on paper, pp. 472 quarto, with 27 lines on each 
 
 page. On the last page is read eypacjir] ev erei ra^r • iv ■ la ■ 6v TO dcopov Kai novos : 6s dyios: 
 
 after which 
 
 yovv /xev ^ev^as koi inroKkivas Kapav 
 
 Xeipas eKTeiuas npos ray 6eias rerpaSas 
 
 eKTTenXrjp CO Ka ttjv deoadoTov SeXrov. 
 firjv pa'ios Ky rou Co (?) fi'ixarjX crvvabav tov opoXoyrjrov [siC^. fip,€pa 8^. nai oi TijBe ttj ypa(f)T] 
 (VTVx^avovTes \J>iCj to ks avy^coprjaov Kai eXej^crov tov ypacfiea tov ■napovTos ^i^Xiov Xeyerf, tf 
 
 OTTO)? /cat vfias aXXoi iraXtv p.vri(rda)(n : all this p.m.: the date is A.D. 1358. This copy 
 is written in a noble and beautiful hand, and is in pretty good preservation, 
 except that the binder has cut off the tops of many pages^. The MS. contains 
 the following hiatus: 1 Cor. xi. 7, KaTaKaXvTTTea-dai ttjv to v. 27 evoxos (one leaf); 
 1 Tim. iv. 1, irpoaexovTes to V. 8, voei ttjv mcTTip (one leaf). The first pages contain 
 fragments of a synaxarion, chants, &c. Before the Acts and all the Epistles are 
 inoSeaeis and tables of Kf(f}uXaia : their titles are repeated at the top and bottom of 
 each page of the MS., the number of each Ke(})aXaiov, the apxai, TeXrj and proper day 
 for each lesson, and the initial capitals, are all in the margin in red. The accents 
 and breathings are very accurate (yet we have oaptjv, 2 Cor. ii. 14; d(j)r]s, Eph. iv. 
 16 p.m.', so Col. ii. 19); i ascript or subscript nowhere occurs, and v efpeXKva-TiKov 
 only at 1 Cor. i. 18; 25; xv. 58; Hebr. iii. 18; vii. 14. Racisms are very rare, 
 onl}^ one being met with in the first twelve chapters of the Acts (dvyaTepms, ii. 17), 
 and nearly all with proper names (e.g. Acts xiii. 1 ; xvi. 12 ; xx. 15 ; xxiii. 24 ; 
 26; xxvii. 6; xxviii. 11 bis). They are introduced sec. man. Act. xxvii. 2 ; 40 ; 
 and in Brjpavres, xvi. 37, &c.: there are not above 14 more in the whole MS. Of 
 
 peculiar forms I note only ^XXuto, Act. xiv. 10, KUTiBiav, d^paap., Kaffrjpepav, evaros, aTTapxrjS, 
 
 (not in 1 Johan.) ; ovtcos always except in Act. xiii. 47 ; xx. 13 sec. man. ; 1 Thess. 
 iv. 14; 17. Notice also a-apcovav, Act. ix. 35, p.m.; ea-vpav, xiv. 19; xvii. 6; « Tvxn, 
 1 Cor. xiv. 10; peya, ace. mas. Hebr. iv. 14, p.m. 
 
 In critical value Cod. b may be somewhat inferior to cd and several others in 
 this collection. Yet it has not a few rare and observable readings, of which I 
 
 1 A festival of the Apparition of St Michael is and i6i-2 ; 207-8 and 205-6 ; 243-4 and 241-2 ; 
 set down in the Calendar for May 8, not May 4 - 247-8 and 245-6 ; 253-4 and 251-2 ; 431—44 and 
 01-23. 41.=;— 30; 467-8 and 465-6; 149-5013 bound up 
 
 ^ He has also misplaced pages 165-6, 163-4 ' after 304. 
 
 I 
 
58 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN Mx\NUSCRIPTS 
 
 subjoin a specimen, though on the whole it does not depart from the common 
 text in many important places ; in the following list it is almost always found in 
 company with Cantab. Mm. G, 9, which is o of the Acts and Epistles (.swpra, pp. 
 XXXV— vi), i.e. with Gl of Griesbach: Act. iv. 14 (o); xiii. 23; xiv. 19; xv. 20 
 (Do); xxiii. 15; xxiv. 8; xxv. 8; xxvi. 5 (o) ; Jac. iii. 7 (o) ; v. 15 (o) ; 1 Pet. 
 V. 2 (o); 2 Pet. i. 14 (o) ; ii. 14; 1 Johan. i. 7 (o) ; Rom. viii. 10(o); 23; xi. 4 
 p.m. (o) ; xiv. 13 p.m. (o) ; 1 Cor. i. 29 (o) ; xi. 4 (o) ; xiv. 33 (FG.o) ; 40 (o) ; xvi. 
 3; 2 Cor. xii. 12 (o) ; Eph. ii. 12 (o) ; v. 11 (o) ; Phil. ii. 11, p.m. (o) ; Col. ii. 
 2, p.m. (o) ; 2 Thess. i. 5. Ae and re are often interchanged, and the subscriptions 
 to St Paul's Epistles are a little unusual : these are in red, and apparently prima 
 manu. This MS. has only nine examples of Sfj.oioTf'KfvTou, a proof that the scribe 
 exercised some care; in many places where the old writing has become faded, 
 it has been restored, I think by the same person who made the numerous 
 alterations secundd manu. 
 
 (c). L.UIBETII 1184, Carlylc I[slandsJ 10, of the Acts and Epistles, having 
 been returned with five other MSS. of this collection to the Patriarch of Jeru- 
 salem in 1817S I am indebted for a knowledge of its contents to some papers 
 in a case (Lambeth 1255, 10 — 14), which contains (with other matter) a scholar- 
 like and seemingly accurate collation of it with the Greek text of Mill, made by 
 the Rev. W. Sanderson of Morpeth, in or about the year 1804. In Archdeacon 
 Todd's Lambeth Catalogue of MSS. Codex 1184 is described as "Codex char- 
 taceus, in quarto, Saic. xv.: Acta Apostolorum, Epp. Cathohcas et PauH omnes 
 complectitur . . . In initio mutilus. Incipit Act. vi. 10, rij (roc^na. A divers^ manu 
 duo folia, codicem claudentia, exarata sunt. I. 10." Now Sanderson's collation 
 shews no such defect as the Catalogue mentions, yet he so often cites his copy 
 as I 10, that it is hard to suppose they are speaking of different books. If we 
 were able to form any estimate of the age of a document from the readings 
 it exhibits, we should certainly assign to it a much earlier date than the fifteenth 
 century. In the Acts it is one of our best authorities, being full of weighty and 
 probable variations from the common herd, and we cannot but be too thankful for 
 the diligence which has recorded them for om- use ; in the Catholic Epistles it is 
 scarcely less valuable, but in the Epistles of St Paul it presents us with little 
 worthy of particular notice. There is an hiatus from Act. vii. o'2 v}j.av to viii. 25 
 eif. At the end of his collation Sanderson adds " In antecedenti collatione 
 differentia in p paragogico (i. e. v addito verbis desinentibus ab e vel t, proximu 
 dictione a vocali exorsa) cum a varia lectione profiuit, non notatur; ex more enim 
 ,///." Of other peculiarities in regard to the writing he says nothing ; but shews 
 
 ^ See Archdeacon Todd's "Account of Gret'k I gi-eater part of wliii-li are now deposited in the 
 Manuscripts, chiefly Biblical, which had been in | Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace." Loa- 
 the possession of tlie late Profe.ssor Carlyle, the j don, Svo. [iSi8]. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 59 
 
 his ignorance of the fact that v is only another form for /3 (c. g. 2 Johan, 8 ; 
 Gal. iv. 5) ; an error into which Fenton, who collated Cod. e of the Acts, and 
 other novices in these studies, have constantly fallen. Sanderson takes laudable 
 care to notice those places where his manuscript was doubtful or illegible, and 
 his performance indicates that he was a diligent student, of whose labours 
 we may avail ourselves with some degree of conKdence. He does not state 
 what reprint of Mill's New Testament he used : from the wretched blunders 
 whereof he subjoins a list, it must have been a very bad one^ This circum- 
 stance sometimes renders his notes unintelligible; in which case I have simply 
 transcribed them with the warning "sic." There are pretty many itacisms in 
 this MS., especially w for o ; tXjj/i and UpotroKvua are much interchanged ; e. g. 
 Acts viii. 25; xx. 16; xxi. 17; xxv. 20; xxviii. 17. We read oire Act. xix. 37; 
 6vpa accus. xii. 13 ; fUKOTrrfa-Om 1 Pet. iii. 7 ; avrjyyeXXrj Rom. XV. 21 ; enra Hebr. iii. 
 10 ; (niXavdavaade ibid. xiii. 16 : besides which the following unusual readings 
 may give the reader some notion of the genius of Cod. c. Act. i. 12 ; 
 ii. 33 (B); 36; 43; iii. 9 (B); 11 (ABCE) ; iv. 15; 16 (ABD) ; v. 42; vi. 1 ; 15 ; 
 vii. 35 (ADE); viii. 28; ix. 6 ; 30 ; 39 ; x. 6 ; 9; 11 {sic MS. 13); 31; xi. 8; 20 
 (AD*); xii. 22; xviii. 9; xx. 19 (C) ; xxi. 34; xxiv. 16; xxvii. 40; Jac. i. 18; 
 1 Pet. iii. 19 ; v. 13 ; many of which resemble Scholz's 180 in' its rarest variations: 
 moreover MS. c will be found pretty much Avith our am. This most interesting 
 document will be seen to contain not a few errors of the pen. 
 
 (d). Lambeth 1185, Carlyle I. 11, is a small quarto of 417 pages, having about 
 26 lines in a page, on bad paper, vilely written, and in a dirty state : in fact nothing 
 could well be more unpromising than this MS. on a first glance. Todd assigns 
 it to the fifteenth century : I should be disposed to date it somewhat earlier. 
 It comprehends the Acts and the Epistles in the usual Greek order. On pp. ] — 5, 
 is a mutilated virodea-is to the Acts, the table of KecjiaXaia being lost ; pp. 395 — 404 
 exhibit an ill-written synaxarion of the Praxapostolos ; pp. 405 — 417 vnodea-fis and 
 KecpaXaia of the Epistlcs, from the Galatians to the Hebrews, much torn. In fact 
 the MS. might almost be considered a series of fragments in several different 
 hands: it has the following hiatus ; from Act. ii, 36 on koi to iii. 8 Kai e^aXXoufvos (one 
 leaf): from vii. 3 npos avrov to v. 59 cmKoXovfjievov (three leaves): from xii. 7 Xeyav 
 
 ava to V. 25 TrapaXa(3ovTfS Kai tw (onc leaf) : from xiv. 8 ovbeirore nepi to V. 27 per 
 
 avTcou (one leaf)^: from xviii. 20 avrois ov to xix. 12 <Tov8apia (one leaf): from xxii. 7 
 XfyovoTjs p^i to xxiii. 11 6 Kvpios (two leaves): 1 Cor. viii. 12 (rvveihri<nv to ix. 18 Iva "^onc 
 
 ^ When Mill's text differs from that of my 
 standard, Elzevir 1624, I have assumed from the 
 silence of c and e of the Acts that they correspond 
 with Mill, i. e, with R. Stephens' 3rd edition, 
 nearly. I then cite thein for a reading thus, " c u 
 tadle." 
 
 2 The binder has also misplaced Acts xv. 40 — 
 xvi. 10 ; xviii. 20 — xix. 12 is put as pp. 91, 92 in 
 cap. xxvi. The leaves containing the following 
 are torn, Rom. iii. 27 — 30 and iv. 9 — 11; iv. 17 — 
 19 and v. 2 — 4 ; v. 12 — 15 and 18 — 21; vi. 6 — 12 
 and 18—21. 
 
 i2 
 
60 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 leaf): 2 Cor. part of the vrrodccns to i. 10 iJverai (one leaf): from Eph. iii. 2 oiKovofiiav 
 Tr]s to Phil, i, 24 /xeufiv fu: 2 Tim. iv. 12 anfo-TetXa to Tit. i. G kos avrjp (one leaf) : Hebr. 
 vii. 19 eKnibos to ix. 12 tStou (two leaves). I trace distinctly at least four hands in 
 this copy: pp. 1 — 218 seem to be written by one scribe: pp. 219—21 (1 Cor, ii. 
 11 — V. 2) are in an antient hand, so small as to be barely legible; there are 31 lines 
 on each page and the ink is pale : p. 222 is a large scrawl, in dark ink, compara- 
 tively modern, containing 1 Cor. v. 2 6 to epyov to v. 12 t^co Kpiveiv. On p. 223 
 begins 1 Cor. v. 11 vw 8e (so that i;. 11 and part of v. 12 are in two diflerent 
 hands) on tliick ribbed paper, i^erhaps by the writer of pp. 219 — 21, pretty wide 
 and legible but in a wretched style: we have now the form a as an abridge- 
 ment for ei, and the particles of time &c. which were dropped at the beginning of 
 each lesson are here written in red, a unique yet convenient arrangement: in this 
 portion of the MS. aspirates are scarcely used at all but with initial ?;: this scribe 
 breaks off with p. 280, 2 Cor. x. 15 Kavxop.fvos, the last two pages being written 
 very large, in order to cover the space; the part of the text on ribbed paper was 
 therefore posterior in time to what immediately follows. On p. 281 a new hand 
 begins with 2 Cor. x. 8 Kadaipea-iv, so that vv. 8 — 15 are twice written, and their 
 various readings are separately indicated in my collation (d^ for those on p. 280, 
 d^ for those on p. 281). This portion is so much damaged by damp as to 
 be hardly readable in parts (e. g. p. 284) : it may possibly be the work of the 
 scribe that executed pp. 1 — 218, but I could not bring myself to think so: 
 it is full of itacisms, errors of the pen, corrections sec. man., and various read- 
 ings, some of rarity and importance. This hand terminates on p. 312, Eph. iii. 2, 
 after which there occurs an hiatus, and another scribe (p. 313) commences Phil. i. 
 24, who goes on to the end of the Synaxarion which follows the Hebrews (p. 404) 
 in a rather neat style, closely written, there being 30 lines on each page. The 
 concluding pages 405 — 417 are by the penman of the ribbed-paper portion 
 (pp. 223 — 280), who may be i-egarded as the person that brought this Codex 
 into its present shape. The reader will pardon this long detail when he observes 
 that the genius and worth of the manuscript vary much, according to the periods 
 at which its parts were severally written. 
 
 All the Catholic Epistles are preceded by vnodea-tis and tables of Kf(pa\aia : so 
 also are Rom., 1, 2 Corinth. The KfcfyaXaia alone are found before the rest, but 
 Gal. and Eph. have not even these, except at the end, pp. 405 — 417. In the 
 early part of the MS. the breathings and accents are very irregular, the 
 aspirate being almost constant in words beginning with rj or o, e.g. i^Kova-a, i^ytpOrj, 
 
 rjTrjrraTO, ovofxa, oTnao), oIkos, 6)(\os, ovra, aiTrjo-as, even eir (Act. XX. 13), o'lKTeipficov (Jac. V. 
 
 11), ofivvrjre {v. 12), a^vaov (Rom. X. 7). Some words are but half-written p.m., and 
 there are not a few instances of Sp-oioTeXevTov. N ((f)e'KKvaTiKov is rare, and the 
 itacisms are pretty numerous, some being inserted secundd manu (e. g. Heb. i. 3) ; 
 nvep-a for nvevfia is always uscd, unless the word be abridged. Of peculiar forms 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 61 
 
 we have avtiXare Act. ii. 23; Karay-jx'Xeiv iv. 2 ; KaTr^yyeWr] xvii. 13 ; enea-a xxii. 7 ; t)\t.as 
 
 (Jac. V. 17); fvKevTpiadco Rom. xi. 19; ovtco, ovx- d^paafi, nearly always: yet the hand 
 which wrote the Hebrews reads a^paap. and has besides aBeXcpos for ace. 2 Thess. 
 iii. 15; aTroXir^aade Col. iii. 24; i8aTe Phil. iv. 15 sec. man,; fpnpocrde 1 Thess i. 3; 
 ii. 19 ; iii. 9 ; 13 ; iopaKaa-i Col. ii. 1 (so v. 18) and such like, and avrtKareaTrjTe (with 
 many other authorities) Heb. xii. 4. The only instance of t subscript is 1 Cor. v. 
 11. The letter ^3 is put for v (a rare change elsewhere) 1 Cor. xv. 30; xvi. 4; 
 2 Cor. xi. 25; xiii. 11; Gal. i. 8 ; iv. 9 ; 25; v. 13; Eph. i. 16; ii. 11; Heb. xi. 
 15 ; besides the ordinary v for j3 2 Cor. xii. 16 ; Gal. iii. 1 ; 27. 
 
 Codex d has the apxai, reXr; and proper days for lessons in a coarse rubric at 
 the top and bottom of each page, and capitals at the beginning of each lesson. 
 There are many various readings of a curious character, inversions of order, 
 glosses, &c. throughout the Catholic Epistles, and more than usual in the 
 Pauhne. I subjoin a list of some passages which seem to deserve special 
 notice, and from them it will be seen how much this MS. is countenanced 
 by the best uncials: Act. i. 11; ii. 1 (c); iii. 23 (ACe); iv. 12; v. 16; vi. 14; 
 ix. 21 ; xv. 22 ; xvi. 15 (E); 23 ; xviii. 2 ; xix. 19 ; 29 ; 39 (B); xxi. 5, 6 (ABCE) ; 
 30 ; XXV. 8 ; 20 ; xxvi. 1 ; xxviii. 16 (c/. A); Jac. ii. 25 (C); 3 Johan. 9 ; Rom. xv. 
 12; 1 Cor. x. 11 (ABC); 2 Cor. xi. 1 ; 8; Gal. i. 22; iii. 23; v. 8 ; vi. 11; Eph. 
 ii. 8; 10; 2 Thess. iii. 8; Philem. 16; 20; Hebr. i. 3; iv. 5; vi. 9; xi. 23; 
 xii. 9. 
 
 (e). Lambeth — of the Acts of the Apostles. I have obtained this unfinished 
 collation of Act. i. 1 — xxvii. 12 from the same source as Sanderson's collation of 
 Codex c, viz. the case of papers at Lambeth numbered 1255 (27 — 33). It was 
 made by the Rev. John Fenton for Professor Carlyle, and was probably broken off 
 at the death of the latter ^ 
 
 As Codex e is certainly not identical with any of the MSS. I have just 
 described (abed), it must have been one of the two remaining copies of the Acts 
 that were returned in 1817, which were marked Lambeth, 1181 and C (Constan- 
 tinople). Though Mr Fenton's is a well-executed collation (so far at least as we 
 can judge in the absence of the original) I do not find any account of the docu- 
 ment itself among his papers. Lamb. 1181, is termed in the Printed Catalogue 
 " Codex Chartaceus in quarto, Sec. xiv. L 7. Acta Apost. Epist. Cath. et Pauli 
 omnes complectens." C is merely mentioned in Archdeacon Todd's Account of 
 Greelc Manuscripts, &c. p. 68. Fenton, like the rest of Carlyle's friends, collated 
 his copy with Mill's text, but uses no breathings or accents, though he carefully 
 mai-ks the places where the reading of his MS, was dubious or illegible. It con- 
 tained many strong itacisms and so rich an array of variations from the common 
 
 1 Professor Carlyle died Vicar of Newcastle, April J2, 1804, tet. 45. 
 
62 DESCRIPTIO.X OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 text, that WG cannot help regretting that we possess not a fuller knowledge of 
 its contents. The following places are more or less remarkable: Acts ii. G (E); 
 iii. 4; 7; 9; 21; iv. 11; 18; 30 (DE); 33; v. 9; 21; 30 (E); 33 (ABE); vi. 7; 
 vii. 34; 38; viii. IG; 24; 37 {hahet cum E et Ehev.); ix. 8; 10; 11; 27; 28; x. 15 
 (g); 16; 25 (g) ; 31; xi. 21; 28; xii. 25; xiii. 33 (ABC); 34; xiv. 10 (CDa fere); 
 17; 20; XV. 29 (Da); xvii. 13; 16; 26 (AB) ; xx. 26 (E); 29 (g); xxii. 21; 24; 
 
 XXV. 7. 
 
 (e). Lambeth 118G, contains St Paul's Epistles and the Apocalypse. It is a 
 fine copy 4to on vellum, of 144 leaves and 23 lines in a page. Todd (who 
 reasonably assigns it to the eleventh century, and has given a fac-simile of Apoc. 
 I. 1, in the Lambeth Catalogue) calls it '-the best in the collection;" yet its 
 critical value in St Paul's Epistles is the least of any I examined in that Library: 
 in the Apocalypse it is indeed of singular weight and importance. It begins 
 Rom. xvi. 15, irap Kai rovs, and ends Apoc. xix. 4, aiJirjv: but there are also hiatus 
 from 1 Cor. iv. 19, raxecos irpos vixas to vi. 1, tx^^ (one leaf); from x. 1, ol npes rnxoiv 
 to V. 21, vaaQf Ttorrjpiov (onc leaf); from Hebr. iii. 14, piroxot- yap ye to ix. 19, 
 Xakrideia-rjs yap; from Apoc. xiv. 16, fni Tr]v secuncl. to XV. 7, coz/ay Tav (one leaf). 
 This MS. is marked I. 12 and 13 in Carlyle's notation. It is written in a good 
 clear hand with a broad margin, although the coi^y is in bad condition, and the 
 ink much faded; the last leaf especially is torn and damaged by mildew. Each 
 Epistle is preceded by an vnodea-is, but not the Apocalypse. The cases of u e^eX- 
 Kva-TLKov in Cod. e are very numerous; in fact, it is quite the ordinary usage: there 
 is no I subscript, though i ascript occurs about 67 times, chiefly with articles 
 and relatives. The Apocalypse has nothing in the margin, but throughout the 
 Ej)istles the titles of the KecpaXaia, the beginnings and endings of lessons, &c. 
 are placed at the tops of the pages, and the following passages have curious 
 marginal notes, prima manu: 1 Cor. xv. 33; 2 Cor. viii. 21; Gal, vi. 15 ; Col. iv. 
 16; Tit. i. 12, besides references to quotations from the Old Testament. The 
 accents are very carefully given, but the breathings of compound words are often 
 doubled, or otherwise separately written (e.g. Trpoelirov, Gal. v. 21) : we find also 
 
 ipyois (1 Tim. V. 10), oiXooiV (1 Cor, ix. 10), a\j/ipd-os, vaKip6ivos, pt]KeTi,daaijTa>s, 6t av, h'lo, 
 
 8i oirep, hC oTi, Kaff o, ovKerii note also such abridgements as epwprj, (2 Tim. i. 17), 
 eKc5, where e stands for ev, and iopaKa (1 Cor. ix. 1), iopaKaai, &c. constantly. Itacisms 
 are unusually scarce; I have counted but 29 throughout the whole MS. Alexan- 
 drine forms are so rare that they are rejected even when found in the Elzevir text, 
 e.g. Gal. V. 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Apoc. i. 17 ; v. 14 ; vi. 13 ; xi. 16 ; xvii. 10. There 
 are a few erasures (1 Cor. vi. 15) and changes sec. man. (2 Cor. xiii. 1), and 
 before each book are pale blue initials. Few copies approach so near the com- 
 mon text as this does in the Epistles, yet some good readings maj'^ be selected 
 from it: e.g. 1 Cor. ii. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 23; xiii. 12 (AFG) ; Gal. i. 15; vi. 18; 
 Hebr. x. 7 ; xi. 26 (BD). 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 63 
 
 The next three Manuscripts, fgh of the Acts and Epistles, have been described 
 in my " Collation of Greek MSS. of the Holy Gospels," where their readings in 
 the Gospels are recorded : I shall therefore repeat as little as possible of what I 
 said respecting them in that volume. 
 
 (f). Codex Theodori {Collation, Introd. p. li.) contains the whole N.T. except 
 the Apocalypse, on vellum, bearing date a.d. 1295. I know not what has be- 
 come of it, and have not seen it since 1845. Its variations in the Gospels I have 
 indicated by the letter q : those in the Acts and Epistles are not extensive. 
 
 (g). Codex Wordsworth {Collation, hitrod. p. xliii.) also contains the Gospels 
 (which I have noted by the letter 1), the Acts and all the Epistles. I presume it 
 is still in Canon Wordsworth's possession : it is of the 13th century, on vellum. 
 Many of its readings will be found to accord with e of the Acts. 
 
 (h). Codex Butler 2. British Museum, Additional MS. 11837 {Collation, 
 Introd. p. xhv.) contains the whole New Testament on vellum, the various read- 
 ings in the Apocalypse, like those of Lambeth 1186, being of great value. This 
 MS. is our m of the Gospels, and, in common with the two preceding copies, 
 does not differ widely from the received text, though it exhibits many lesser 
 changes of considerable interest. Notice especially several pecuharities in the 
 punctuation. It bears date a.d. 1357. 
 
 (j). BuRNEY 48, in the British Museum, contains the Catholic Epistles only. 
 They are found at fol. 221 of the second volume of a large folio paper MS. 
 of Chrysostom's Homilies from the Galatians to the Hebrews, but not in the 
 same hand with them. The Epistles are in a neat and even elegant style, of 
 about the 14th century. This copy accords very often with c and d in their 
 less usual variations, and affords perhaps a more antient text than many others 
 which were written earher; a circumstance easily accounted for, yet always 
 worth notice when we meet with it. Before each epistle is an vnoeeais and 
 cK^eo-ts KecpaXaiav, but of St Jude nothing remains except a part of the vnoBecns. 
 Here we have i ascript and subscript used indifferently, e.g. both in Jac. iii. 
 7 : V e(t)e\KV(TTiKou, is uot found. There are not above five itacisms in the 
 Catholic Epistles, but in breathings we have eoiKe, Jac. i. 6 ; 23 ; oXoXvCovres, 
 V. 1 ; earrjKev, V. 9 j co8e, a^paafi. This codex is carefully written, having but 
 one example of oiioioreXevTov (2 Johan. 3, 4), but few corrections and one 
 erasure (1 Johan, i. 9), sec. man.: we have, however, KaraXen-e, Jac. iv. 11, p.m.; 
 KUToXovaw, 1 Pet. iii. 16, and npo for Trpos. The following readings should be 
 noticed: Jac. i, 5; 25, p.m.; iii. 3 j 14 ; v. 3 ; 15 ; 16 ; 19 ; 1 Pet. i, 8 (BC) ; 
 10 ; ii. 19 ; iii. 3; iv. 3 (ABC) ; v. 1 ; 11 ; 12 3 2 Pet. i. 2 ; 4 ; 20 ; ii. 1 ^xm. ; 21 ; 
 iii. 10; 14; 15; 1 Johan. i. 9 ; ii. 4 (AB) ; 7 ; 9, 10 ; 20 ; 23 (ABC); v. 13; 
 2 Johan, 8 (A) ; 12. 
 
 (j). Burney 18 is a mere fragment of the Pauline Epistles, containing Hebr. 
 xii. 17, ptra BciKpvcou, to thc cud of that epistle. It is found in the MS. I have 
 
64 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 described as n of the Gospels {Collation, Introd. p. xlvi.) dated a.d. 13GG, between 
 
 fir/Xwo-iy aKpijirjs tcov Kad' eKaarrjv r^iepav avayivaxTKOjiivoiV anocrToXoevayyeXKOv (foil. 210 — 214) 
 and a awa^apiov T(ou fopTo)P rov oXov XP°^°^} SrjXnvv ra o(})eiXopfva aTToa-roXoevayy. avayi- 
 
 vaxTKiadai (foil. 218 — 222). It is on five pages (foil. 215 — 217) in the same 
 hand as the Gospels, and with the same decorations, viz. Capitals, apxai, TeXrj, 
 the proper days and commencements of the lessons, all in gold. The last 
 verses Hebr. xiii. 17 — 25 are spread over two pages in a cruciform shaped 
 shewing that this was the end of the whole manuscript, which doubtless once 
 contained the Acts and all the Epistles. Hebr. xii. 24, reads to, with B • v. 26 
 has ayyai in the margin ; otherwise this fragment is not at all remarkable. 
 
 (k). Trin. Coll. Cvntab. B. x. 16. This important MS. is the same as w of 
 the Gospels, and has been fully described above, p. xxxviii. 
 
 (1). Christi Coll. Cantab. F. i. 13 is another interesting document, liberally 
 lent me by the Master and Fellows of Christ's College. It is noted by Mill, Cant. 
 2, and was written on vellum (606 pages, quarto) about the end of the twelfth 
 century : it is 81 inches long by 6 broad. The first leaf being lost, it begins with 
 fH^XeTTovTes Act. i. 11 : there are also hiatus from Act. xviii. 20 xpo to x^- 1^ r}X6op.ev; 
 and from Jac. v. 14 Trpoaev^aa-daxrav to 1 Pet. i. 4 KM ajxapavTov (one leaf) : pp. 115 — 
 16 (Act. XX. 24—28; 30—32) and p. 170 Jac. i. 6, 7 are torn; pp. 529, 530 are 
 misplaced after p. 542 : the last two leaves are also decayed. Mill states that 
 Thomas Gale had seen this MS. and Wetstein that he had given extracts from its 
 readings to the editor of the Oxford New Testament of 1675, but the first person 
 who examined it throughout was Mill himself, who speaks of it as " sedulo a me 
 collatum" (Proleg. Nov. Testament. § 1419). I have now followed Mill's footsteps 
 over no inconsiderable space, but no where have I found less reason to be satisfied 
 with the accuracy of his labours. The first chapter I tested happened to be Act. 
 xii. wherein he notes but one out of the ten variations that occur in Cant. 2 : in 
 fact the proportion of one in three is a favourable estimate of the readings he 
 cites compared with those he omits. Bentley next collated this MS. and inserted 
 its readings among those of 32 others collected for him by J. J. Wetstein in 
 1716: his collation remains at Trinity College (B. xvii. 10, 11). It was next 
 used by Jo. Wigley, Fellow of Christ's College, for John Jackson of Leicester, 
 who projected an edition of the Greek Testament, and inserted the results 
 of Wigley's diligence, with many other stores he had accumulated, in the 
 margin of that copy of Mill now preserved at Jesus College, Cambridge (vid. 
 supra, p. xlii.). While very much remains to be done in these studies, it is 
 sad to see so many efforts of honest and well-directed industry thus absolutely 
 
 * A few very costly copies exist exhibiting I gelistarium, said to be written in part by the im- 
 throughout a cruciform shape : perhaps the most | perial hand of Alexius Comnenus. 
 splendid of them yet known is the Parhani Evan- I 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. ()5 
 
 thrown aAvay^ The fly-leaf of this MS. contains an extract from Jackson's 
 memorandum respecting it in the Jesus College copy of Mill : this extract had 
 previously been published in Sutton's Life of that eccentric and unhappy 
 scholar {Memoirs of the life and loritings of Jachson, 1764, pp. 200, 2G5). He 
 there states that Wigley had brought to light more than five hundred readings 
 of Cant. 2 which Mill had neglected, and adds, " Hie MS. congruit maxime cum 
 Complut. et Leicestr." I have not myself seen Wigley 's or examined Bentley's 
 collation, but after a close comparison of my own papers with the MS. and 
 Mill's edition, I think I may claim the reader's confidence when I say that 
 where I differ from Mill, the error is not mine. There are no vTroBeaeLs before 
 any of the books, or lists of KfcfiaXma ; only that rubric capitals are placed at the 
 beginning of each section, there would be no divisions in the text of each book. 
 Before St James' Epistle alone stands a slight illumination; the whole MS. is 
 written in the same clear bold hand, but a second scribe has made mmuj changes 
 throughout, even in the punctuation : these it is the more necessaiy to note, as 
 Mill perpetually cites the changes of this later pen for the original readings of 
 his Cant. 2; e.g. Rom. xv. 7 ; 2 Cor. i. 21; 1 Thess. v. 21. This Codex con- 
 tains no I subscript, but 60 cases of i ascript, yet in three instances out of four at 
 the end of the line, as if to fill it up. This is one of the most accurately written 
 MSS. extant ; a few errors of the pen however are caused by the rubric capitals, 
 and a few various readings, e.g. Act. xxi. 20; Gal. i. 13. The only unusual 
 breathings are akoavra 1 Tim. v. 18 ; iXi^eis Hebr. i. 12 ; 'A^paafi ('a ruhro) Hebr. vi. 
 13 ; xi. 8 for the ordinary form a^paafx. No v (cjieXKva-TiKov is found. Of grammatical 
 peculiarities we read avaSoa-avres Act. xxiii. 33 p. m.; ema xxvi. 15 ; evreaav 1 Cor. x. 
 
 8; awoKTevvei 2 Cor, iii. 6; e^eirea-are {with Elzev.) Gal. V. 4; TrapayyeXe 1 Tim. iv. 11; 
 
 fvpapevos Hebr. ix. 12 ; avT€KaTf(TTr]r€ xii. 4. Of itacisms I count but 47, whereof 23 
 are interchanges of o and w. Ufieis and vyxets are confused, sometimes even to the 
 detriment of the sense: e.g. 1 Cor. iv. 6; 10; xi. 24 p.m.; xv. 14; 2 Cor. viii. 
 19; xi. 8; Col. i. 8 ; 1 Thess. ii. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 2; 13. The interrogation (;) is 
 so often omitted when absolutely required, that no great weight can be given to 
 its absence in more doubtful cases. Other forms worth notice are ovtms (always 
 
 except 2 Cor. vii. 14), diarovTO, in\ to avro, eir oKr^deias, to. vvv, BiOTravTos, /uV intcrrO'*'. 
 
 (even ov nrj), re often, Kpipa and pUos always, Krjpv^, kut (vaitiov (not Col. i. 22), virkp 
 
 av(i>, VTTfpeKTrepiaa-ov, i^ avrrjs, Kadrjpepav, andpxrjs, drj'KovoTt, e^evavTias, Karapxas, ovKtri 
 
 always, ovx, w5f, fa-Trjo-av. The breathings are sometimes placed falsely over the 
 
 1 I will give one more instance of this v:asfe of , a most laborious collation he had made of two 
 energy. No student of late years has ever spent j Bodleian JISS. (Godex Ebnerianus of the Gospels, 
 
 an hour in the Bodleian Library, but left it a 
 debtor to the courtesy and zeal of the Rev. H. 0. 
 Coxe. Many years since that gentleman forwarded 
 to one versed in Biblical criticism his ojiJ;/ copy of 
 
 Acts and Epistles, and Can. Grfcc. no of the 
 Acts and Epistles). It has not been published 
 so far as I know, nor am I aware of tliere being 
 any prosprct of jniblication. 
 K 
 
()6 DESCRIPTION OF CKRTAIN MANUSCIIIPTS 
 
 rubric letters (Act. ix.-23; xiii. 4; xxi. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 15; Rom. xi. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 4 ; 
 llebr, ii. 11), and the red letter, which is in most MSS. later than the original writing, 
 is here, as in many other instances, often omitted altogether. The title of each 
 epistle is repeated rubro at the head of its first page, and we meet with some 
 scrawling notes in later hands here and there, which deserve no further mention. 
 The various readings of Codex 1 are not so numerous as in some others, but 
 always valuable : it well merits Mill's commendation " liber est probae notse," and 
 will I am sure be the more highly esteemed, now that it may be better known. 
 
 1 do not agree with Jackson in perceiving much resemblance to the Leicester 
 MS., but it will often be found in concert with the ^thiopic version (as Mill cites 
 it) and my codices e Act. and j, k. It frequently places simple verbs for their 
 compounds, e.g. Act. ix. 36; xv. 4; 32; xxi. 4; Jac. i. 20; Phil. i. 21; ii. 30; 
 Hebr. ix. 6 ; 27. I subjoin a specimen of the variations in which it is so rich : 
 Act. ii. 14 ; 37 ; 38 ; 41 ; iii. 26 ; iv. 26 p.m.-, v. 2 ; 26 ; vi. 6 ; vii. .3 ; 8 ; 38 ; 50 ; 
 65 p.m.; viii. 21 ; ix. 1 ; 4 ; 26 ; x. 3 ; 7 ; 17 ; xiii. 7 ; 41 ; 45 ; xiv. 11 ; 12 ; 13 ; 
 XV. 2; 23; 36; xvi. 10; 13; 15; xvii. 12 p.m.', xviii. 12; xx. 25 (E) ; xxi. 14 
 p.m.; 19; 25 (BD) ; 39; xxii. 7 ; 13; 18; xxiii. 2; 10; 15; 17; 18; 24; xxiv, 12 ; 
 XXV. 26; 27; xxvi. 10; 14; 29; xxvii. 6 (A); 10; 20; 28; xxviii. 6; 14; 21; 
 Jac. i. 25; 27 {Syr. Vulg.); ii. 19; iii. 8; iv. 4 ; 7; 1 Pet. i. 9 ; iii. 17 ; iv. 12 
 p.m.; 14; 17 p.m.; 18; v. 2; 13 p.m.; 2 Pet. i. 17; iii. 10; 16; 1 Johan. i. 8; 
 ii. 8; 15; iii. 2; 14; iv. 1; 2 Johan. 3; 4; Horn. i. 23; ii. 16; iv. 7; 11; 12; 24; 
 vi. 20; 22 (JEthiop.); vii. 21; viii. 34; ix. 7; 32; x. 11; 16 p.m.; xiii. 9; xiv. 1; 
 14; XV. 20 2}. m.; 24; 30; 1 Cor. i. 9; viii. 10; x. 29; xi. 17; xii. 2 p.m.; xiii. 13; 
 xiv. 25 p.m.; 37 p.m.; xvi. 1 p.m.; 23 (JEth.); 2 Cor. i. 5; ii. 4; v. 15; vi. 10; 
 12; viii. 2; 19; ix. 5; 13; xii. 21 {JEth. cf. xiii. 2); Gal. i. 6; 8; ii. 9 p.m.; 16; 
 iv. 19; Eph. i. 10; iii. 10; 18; v. 3 p.m.; Phil. i. 7; 27 {^&h.); iii. 7; iv. 14; 
 Col. i. 15; ii. 2; 16; iii. 13; iv. 9 p.m.; 12; 1 Thess. ii. 9; iv. 3; v. 3 p.m.; 
 
 2 Thess. iii. 4 jj.w.; 8; 11; 18; 1 Tim. i. 16; ii. 3 p.m.; v. 9; 13; 2 Tim. i. 17; 
 iv. 18; Tit. i. 9; Philem. 7; 8; 21; Hebr. iii. 6; vii. 19?; viii. 6; ix. 1 (ABD); 
 15; 22 p.m.; 23 p.yn.; x. 25; 34; xii. 15 p.m.; 19; 24: p.m.; xiii. 21. This MS. 
 is Wetstein's 24 Act., 29 Paul. 
 
 (m). Codex Leicesthexsis (which I have called L of the Gospels) has been 
 fully described above, p. xl. 
 
 (n). Emmanuel. Coll.: Cantab.: i. 4. 35, is a copy of St. Paul's and part 
 of the Catholic Epistles, in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the 
 Master and Fellows of which Society were pleased to lend it me for collation : it 
 is Mill's Cant. 3, Wetstein's Act. 53, Paul. 30. This is the smallest manuscript 
 I have examined, measuring only 4^ inches square. The writing being very 
 minute (though singularly beautiful) and the ink much faded in parts, I was 
 compelled to read it by small portions at a time, and usually with a good glass. 
 It is written on 144 leaves of vellum, with 24 lines on a poge, and is of the 12th 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 67 
 
 or 13th century, or perhaps a little earlier. At the beginning of the volume we 
 read . " Collegio Emmanuelis in Testimonium grati animi D.D. Samuel Wright, 
 cjnsdem Collegii alumnus: Anno 1598, Pridie Nonas Julias." It was used by. 
 Walton for his Polyglot, but the readings he extracts from it are very few, and 
 he merely says of it "liber (teste D. James in Cat. libr. MSS. utriusque Aca- 
 demiae) praestans ob antiquitatem, minutis characteribus descriptum" [Polygl. 
 Tom. vi.) Mill first collated it throughout, (and I am glad to be able to add) 
 with much more than his habitual accuracy, though by no means so satisfactorily 
 as to supersede the necessity of another's labours: my collation is quite indepen- 
 dent of his, but its results have been diligently compared with his volume, and 
 with the original document. Unfortunately this valuable book is but a fragment. 
 The first half of p. 1 is quite illegible from damp ; it contained the opening 
 verses of 2 Pet. ii, but the first letters I can read are on line 13, fiapTTjir, v. 4, and 
 much on this leaf can only be deciphered by a glass in a strong light: all the 
 earlier portions of the Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter i.) have 
 perished, and at 1 Johan. iii. 20 rrjs KopBi is an hiatus which continues to the 
 vTToOecns to the Romans (from GEcumenius, given in Mill) ikOeiv Sia^ Another 
 hiatus occurs from 1 Cor. xi. 7, orf^eiXei to xv. 56, davarov t] dfj-apna. The MS. ends 
 Hebr. xi. 27, rov yap. At 1 Tim. vi. 5, ttjv eva-ejSeiav commences another hand, less 
 careful than that of the former scribe; i ascript (which had been used but five 
 times before) now becomes very frequent, nor are the breathings and accents 
 placed so accuratel}': the circumflex especially is often used falsely. We find 
 t subscript 14 times in this MS., and v e(f)fXKvaTiKov is not rare. I number 184 
 itacisms, chiefly interchanges of « and o, of ?? and ei: of irregular forms only 
 
 enenea-av, Rom. XV. 3; fiaprvpav, 2 Cor. i. 23; e^eTrea-are (with Elzev.) Gal. V. 4; irpo- 
 
 nTvapiv (with Elzev.) 1 Thess. iv. G, and vyeiaivco often: the augment is neglected, 
 1 Cor. iii. 14; the reduplication, 2 Pet. ii. 21: aw in composition remains unaltered, 
 Rom. viii. 16; 17; ix. 1, &c. The breathings and accents throughout this MS. are 
 somewhat peculiar, and on a pretty uniform system; compounds have them on 
 both parts of the word-, and many monosyllables receive a double accent, 
 e.g. 8(\ vai , yap, fiep, n^^ intcrr. : but not always; so eVer sometimes. Otherwise 
 the breathings are tolerably regular; we usually find ovk, e'f, a^pnap, and often 
 such forms as ovKfam, ivavTa. Codex n has also bC on, KaQm, 6t av, odev, and often 
 such arrangements as aneppa fo-re : i has frequently no breathing. This copy 
 exhibits several compendious forms of writing which are not very common, e. g. 
 
 h = av, h—fp, "^ =ap, ~ — a, '^ = av, " = ay, _ = w, ' = oi/, '"' = &)?, ' = ?;?, " = ou (besides 
 
 1 Mill cites Cant. 3 in error for 2 JoLan. 8 : 
 a-ir6\f(Tr)Te. The binder has also misplaced 2 Cor. 
 viii. 6 — ix. 14 by five leaves, and two leaves con- 
 taining part of the virodeci'S, the KecpdXaia and Eph. 
 i. I— ii. 3 stand after Hebr. ii. A few word? are 
 
 lost by mutilation of the leaf, Eom. ix. 27 — 29 ; 
 and X. 3 — 5. Hebr. xi. 19 — 26 is but just legible. 
 2 This practice in our MS. renders the various 
 reading w$ vepl Kaddpfxara i Cor. iv. 13, which I 
 cite after Mill, rather doubtful.] 
 
 k2 
 
68 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANISCKII'TS 
 
 » = or, " = v which arc usual) : ry is used for tt, as in codices owz of the 
 Gospels and others : the shape of C is here very peculiar. Of omissions by 
 
 lO/xoioTfAeuroi/ I have noted but four in this accurate MS. 
 
 Of extraneous matter this document contains the inodea-eis ascribed to 
 OEcumenius and tables of Ke<])a\aia before each epistle : the titles and numbers of 
 the Kec})a\aia are also placed at the top and foot of each page. A later scribe has 
 made some alterations in deeper ink, but many of the marginal notes certainly 
 seem to he pi'imd manu: e.g. Rom. xiii. 7; xiv. 15; 1 Cor. xvi. 22; 2 Cor. xiii. 1 
 {devTepovofxiov); Gal. V. 14 ; 2 Thess. i. 5. Citations from Scripture are usually 
 indicated by marks of quotation, e.g. 2 Cor. vi. 16 — 18; but this book contains 
 nothing in red or coloured ink. I annex a few of the less usual variations: 
 1 Johan. iii. 18 (ivlth Ehev.); Rom. xi. 3; xiv. 14; 18; xv. 3; 14 (B); xvi. 19; 1 
 Cor. ix. 18 (AC); 2 Cor. v. 10; x. 12; Gal. iii. 1(>; Eph. ii. 4; iii. 8 ; Phil. iii. 13p.m.; 
 15; iv. 22; Col. iii. 1; 1 Thess. ii. 17; iv. 5; 17 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10; 1 Tim. i. 1 
 (AD*FG) ; iii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 15; iii. 7; Tit. iii. 15 sec. man. (FG) ; Philem. 15; 
 18; 22; Hebr. i. 9; iii. 15 ; iv. 4 ; v. 4 ; vi. 2; vii. 9; ix. 26; x. 10: some of 
 these appear quite unique. 
 
 (o). Cantab. Mm. 6. 9, described above as v of the Gospels, p. xxxv. 
 
 (p). Brit. Mus. Additional MS. 20,003. This copy contains only the Acts 
 of the Apostles in a mutilated condition, but it is unquestionably the most valu- 
 able cursive MS. of that book yet known. It was sold to the British Museum in 
 1854 by Tischendorf, who seems to have brought it from the East, though on 
 this point we lack information. A slight inspection having satisfied me of its 
 great importance, I collated it with much care and minuteness : I have since 
 learnt that it had previously been collated both by Tischendorf^ and Tregelles. 
 The latter Avill no doubt use it for his edition of the Greek Testament. Tischen- 
 dorf has published his report in the "Anecdota Sacra et Profana," pp. 7, 8 ; 130 
 — 146. I have diligently compared the result of his labours with my own, and 
 find that I have extracted many variations which he has discarded as beside his 
 purpose (e. g. itacisms, peculiarities of spelling, breathing, or accent, and not a 
 few readings of some consideration) ; wheresoever our accounts differed, the 
 original MS. was consulted, so that I may state with confidence that the collation 
 given in the following pnges has been rendered by our joint labours unusually 
 accurate : that made by Tischendorf is certainly open to the charge of careless- 
 ness brought against it by Tregelles. The MS. consists of 57 leaves of vellum in 
 small quarto, with 23 lines on each page. The following serious hiatus occur : 
 
 ^ In the current number of Tischendorf's N.T., 
 7tli edition (October, 1858), I observe that this 
 
 MS. is cited thnuKrhout the Acts as "lo^i". which 
 
 notation will doubtless be explained in his forth- 
 coming Prolegomena. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 69 
 
 from iv. S, apxovrfs to vii. 17, o xpo""?, and from xvii. 28, cos kui rives to xxiii. 9, ovdep. 
 Its date appears from the subscription, on fol. o7, p. 1, of which Tischendorf has 
 
 given a lithographed facsimile : f'yjoa'f)?; ij TrvevfxaroKfiviTOs ^ Ifpa /3i^Xoy avTi /carfn-i- 
 Tp<i)irelv Tov Kv laKci^ a Xj np "^^ Icoavvov a, diax^eipos tco a ■ erovcr r (fivi^ . iv i^ p- anpi k. 
 
 By r ^vi^ Tischendorf and Tregelles understand the year of the Greek sera 
 6562 or a.d. 1054 : I would rather say a.m. 6552 or a.d. 10441. The hand- 
 writing of this "John the Monk" is small and not inelegant, but it abounds in 
 contractions and sometimes degenerates into a scrawl : in this and some other 
 copies H and N seem almost to interchange their forms. Some of the nume- 
 rous corrections seem prima, mami, (e.g. vii. 47; 52; viii. 15; 28; 29; xvi. 22; 
 27; xvii. 14; xxiii. 27 pnm. loco; xxvi. 1; xxvii. 1?; xxviii. 7; 20; 21; 25) others 
 (e.g. iii, 3; viii. 5; xi. 14 ; xvii. 10; xxiii. 19; 27 secundo loco; xxiv. 27) are 
 manifestly later. There are no rubrical marks, divisions into chapters, or 
 numerals denoting the usual KecpaXaia, but notes on the beginnings and endings of 
 the Charch Lessons and their dates in a coarse later hand (in viii. 25 re^ seems 
 p.m.), in the text, margin, and at the top and bottom of the pages. We simply 
 read Trpa^eis Tcov aTTocTToKwv in common ink at the head of Chap. i. and the end of 
 Chap, xxviii. On fol. 56, p. 2, the KecfioKaia of St James are commenced, so that 
 this MS. once contained the Catholic Epistles. There occur a few small capitals 
 in black ink, and one or two larger (e. g. Chap, xiv) : marks of citation are pretty 
 constant in the margin, pvimd manu. 
 
 As this copy must be supposed to be drawn from some purer and earlier source 
 than usual, it seems speciallj' deserving of notice that its itacisms, 185 in number, 
 but little exceed the average, and are of the ordinary type, only that v is often put 
 for 01, as in kwos, \vnos. I observe no t ascript or subscript, but v ecpeXicvaTtKov with 
 verbs before a consonant is universal, except in ix. 22; xiii. 31; xxiii. 24; xxvi. 5; 
 
 xxviii. 7. Such forms as finav, aveikare, KarayyeXo), pavarjs are constant; Xt/xos is 
 
 fem. xi. 28 (so Bion, xi. 4); notice also Trapayevap-evos, x. 33; aveiKav, ibid. 39; 8ca~ 
 a-Tfikapada, XV. 24: the following accusatives in av for a are rarer, nvav, vii. 34; 
 
 rapaeav, p.m., ix. 11; uapavav, ibid. 35; (iatrikeav, xiii. 21; 8iav, xiv. 12; rpcoaSav, Xvi. 
 
 8; pvpav, xxvii. 5. The only stop is ( • ); for unusual punctuation see viii. 32, 33;* 
 xvi. 9; 37; xvii. 6 ; 25; xxvi. 2; 7; 22; 29; xxvii. 40. The breathings are nearly 
 as irregular, and much of the same kind as in the later uncials (e. g. Harl. 5598 
 and the Parham Evangelistaria) : such are, iarai, ianv, ixa, oUos, oXiyos, Svopa, Spei, 
 ovv (yet a^paap!), but (Koaros, erepos, tXij/i, lepov, &c. The accents are pretty correct, 
 
 ^ Surely vi^ instead of f/3 for 62 is very strange, 
 if not unprecedented, and both in the original and 
 Tischendorf' s facsimile the mark between v and 
 /3 is not a plain t as elsewhere, but a jagged line, 
 as if a mere shp of the pen : hence I would read 
 
 r/S (52), not vij3. Besides, the indiction for A.D. 
 1054 is 7, for A.D. 1044 is 12, the number given in 
 the subscription. This last fact seems decisive of 
 the question. 
 
70 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 yet the circumflex is wrongly placed in olbarf, oik(o, navXa, &c.; enclitics often re- 
 ceive an accent, especially re: compound verbs have a double accent, as irfpUrffiev, 
 or on the contrary, a preposition and its case are accented as one word, e.g. 8ia\6yov. 
 A clear idea of the critical value of this document may be obtained by noting 
 the great number of places in which its readings support those of the principal 
 uncials ABCDE against the received text. For this purpose I have merely used 
 Griesbach's and Tischendorf's (1849) editions of the Greek Testament, yet in the 
 710 verses of which this MS. consists (297 being lost), I count no less than 699 
 such passages, in 594 of which it agrees with A, in 50 1 with B, in 372 with C, in 
 225 with U, in 298 with E: bear in mind also that portions of CDE are lost^ and 
 that B is not even yet very accurately known. Now since our MS. accords only 29 
 times with A alone of the five uncials, but 28 times with B, 10 with C, 4 with D, 
 and 7 with E, it follows that this valuable cursive copy countenances the uncials 
 chieflij ichere two or more of them agree, a plain indication of its sterling worth: and 
 we may remark in passing that this closer agreement of the principal authorities 
 ABC, &c., in the Acts, renders the task of settling the text of this book so far 
 easier than it is in the Gospels. The nearest of my other MSS. to p are doubt- 
 less a (in its more ancient portions), c, and m ; but the nearest to it of all the 
 rest of the cursives may perhaps be considered longo proximus intervallo. In 
 a few remarkable readings it stands quite alone: e.g. i. 20; vii. 28; x. 2; xiii. 
 37; XV. 12; xxiii. 30; xxiv. 12; xxv. 1; 10; xxvii. 7; 23; 32; xxviii. 26. In 
 short, " the excellence of this MS," (I employ the words of Dr Tregelles, Home's 
 Introd. p. 211, &c.) " can hardly be estimated too highly," while "it differs suffi- 
 ciently from the other copies with Avhich it must be classed, to shew that it cannot 
 be regarded as a mere duplicate of any of them^." 
 
 II. 3. It only remains for me to speak briefly of the MSS. of the Apocalypse 
 collated for this volume. 
 
 (a). Lambeth, 1186, is e of the Pauline Epistles, and is described above, 
 p. Ixii. 
 
 (b). Butler 2, Additional MS. 11837 is m of the Gospels, h of the Acts and 
 Epistles, and is named above, p. Ixiii. 
 
 (c). Harleian: 5678, also in the British Museum, as are Codices d e j. The 
 first eight chapters of this copy were very loosely collated for Griesbach by Paulus 
 (31 in Griesbach's list), otherwise it has not been examined before. The volume 
 which contains it is of about the fifteenth century, on glazed paper in quarto, of 
 244 leaves. On the top of its first page it is inscribed " Coll. Agen. Soc. Jesu, 
 
 1 Of these 710 verses, 187 are lost in C, ■256 in 
 D, 72 in E. 
 
 2 To the same purport Tischendorf writes "Quo 
 pauciora suramas antiquitatis monumenta textum 
 
 actuum conservarunt, eo pluris codex noster sesti- 
 mandus est ; haud dubie enim antiquissirai codicis 
 uncialis, qui ipse periit, exemplum est." Anecd. 
 Scicr. et. Prof. p. 8. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 71 
 
 Cat. InSCr." It embraces (1) fpfirjvfia "Ke^eav Kara (TTOixftov ffxr^fpon^VMV rr]8e rrj /3t/3X<u. 
 (2) yfoapyiov lfpop.vrjp.ovos ttjs iiyKoraTrjs tod deov pfyakTjs eKKkfjaias tov TTa)(vpepov irapacfypaais 
 fts TOV ayiov Upopaprvpa biovvcriov tov apeoirayiTrjV^ , (3) The ApOCalypse Oil the reverse 
 
 of the same leaf (223) which finishes Pachjmer's Commentary. The title and 
 initial letter are in rubric ; the broad margin contains no KfC^aXaia or liturgical 
 matter, but there are 17 capital letters throughout the book. This whole volume 
 is written in the same clear neat small hand : at the end we read ruhro tw ^xovti Km 
 ypa<f)avTi ^f pov (rwa-ov. The stops in this copy are , and ; . There is no instance of 
 t ascript or subscript, but v f<p€\KV(TriKov once occurs viii. G, and an hiatus in the 
 place of it two or three times. About four itacisms are met with (x. 7 ; xiii. 1 ; 
 XV. 5; xviii. 13), and the breathings and accents are regular; we have however 
 
 faTT]Ka, iii. 20; ia-rrjKev, xiv. 1; rj^ovaiv, Xviii. 8; pvKov, Xviii. 21; ptyia-Tavis, xviii. 23; 
 
 laa, xxi. IG; InoKaTw, but a8e. I note one case of SpotoTiXevTov, xiii. 15, and the 
 anomaly tov Spenavov, xiv. 15: the Apocalypse however is so full of violations of the 
 ordinary rules of Greek syntax, that the practice of a single copy should not be 
 noticed, unless it stand nearly alone. This MS. approaches nearer the common 
 text than ab and most others, yet it exhibits many grave variations from it. Rare 
 readings are xii. 9; xiii. G; xiv. 13; xvii. 15; xviii. 13 (AC); 14; 17; xix. 9; xxii. 
 2; 18, some of which are mere glosses. A second hand has been employed, 
 chiefly in supplying omissions: e.g. iii. 15; v. 10, and about eight other places. 
 
 (d). Harleian: 5778, is called by Mill the Sinai MS., because Dr Covell 
 procured it thence {supra, p. xlviii.). It contains the Acts, Epistles and Apoca- 
 lypse. In the two former Dr Bloomfield has examined it after Mill, and on his 
 report of Mill's inaccuracy I took it up for the Apocalypse, which I found to have 
 been most imperfectly collated. The copy is in a very bad state, quite illegible 
 indeed in parts, and it must have been ill treated since Mill's time, for he has 
 preserved many readings of which I could not trace a vestige. In such cases I 
 have cited "d (IMill)," and would wish it to be understood that the variation 
 rests on his authority. In all places where we differ I have ascertained that I am 
 correct, but have not deemed it necessary to be always complaining of my illus- 
 trious predecessor. This MS. is Wetstein's Act. 28, Paul. 34, Apoc. 8, and is on 
 vellum of about the twelfth century (see Mill, N. T. Proleg. § 1488 ) : it has an 
 hiatus from vi. 14 eikia-a-opevov Kai to viii. 1 tco ovpavco (one leaf), and breaks off xxii. 
 19 dyias Kai tcov. Here V ecpeXKviTTiKov is perpetual, but neither i ascript or subscript. 
 We may note dvarapav i. 11; GvaTtipt] ii. 18; *; (pro »?) iii. 12; firea-av v. 14 (with 
 Elzev.); xi. 16 (with Elzev.); xvi. 19; xvii. 10 (with Elzev.) : f vpes ii. 2; JSe iv. 1; 
 
 iarasTai, e(TTr]K€v {not ahvays), 6t av, ToXavTiala, o{i8\ls, (T(l)payi8a, (rcppayia-iv. This is an 
 
 1 George Pacbymer flourished about A.D. 1280. j Ecchsiast. Tom. i. p. 144.S, that real treasure to 
 On tbe title UpoixvrjtJ.wv consult Suicer TJiesanrit.s \ the theoloacical student. 
 
72 DESCRIPTION OF ("EllTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 important MS., more resembling ab than c: observe xvii. 1; 14; xviii. 1; xix. 14 
 &c. I often cite d? in doubtful passages. 
 
 (e.). Hauletan : 5013, has also been collated before b}' no less a scholar than 
 Griesbach, who gives the results of his labours very negligently in his edition of 
 the Greek Testament (Act. 60; Paul. 63; Apoc, 29), but more fully in his Sym- 
 bolae Criticee, Tom. i. p. 226, &c. I must confess that I vi^as first led to this MS. 
 by a desire to test Griesbach's exactness as a collator, and was rather startled to 
 find our differences in this single book amounted to more than sixty, all of which 
 except eleven a comparison with the original document shewed to be errors on 
 Griesbach's part: in fact he began his work well enough, but grew careless and 
 weary towards the end. This copy contains also the Acts and Epistles, collated 
 only in 5o select chapters by Griesbach, and well deserving a thorough examina- 
 tion. It is on paper, and at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews we read 
 
 TekeiaBev Kara fx-qva jj-diov, ivSiKTiavos nevre km beKarrjs, erovs e^aKiaxi^ioa-Tov evvaKOcriocrrov 
 
 TTfPTeKaiBeKarov (a.d. 1407). Griesbach minutely describes a most interesting 
 vellum fragment in red letters and a semi-uncial character (he calls it early 
 cursive) of about the ninth or tenth century, containing 1 Cor. xv. 52 — 2 Cor. 
 i. 15; x. 13 — xii. 5, and barbarously employed for the binding of the paper volume 
 (Sijmb. Crit.' Tom. ii. p. 162; N. T. Paul. 04) i. In this fragment i subscript is 
 used 3 times, ascript twice, but in the paper MS. we find t subscript almost 
 universally: I have remarked but one (xiv. 15) instance of v ((peXKvariKov. This 
 copy of the Apocalypse ends xxii. 2 Kapwov, one leaf being lost, but is finished 
 from V. IS Xtw to the end of v. 19 on the vellum fly-leaf. It contains about eleven 
 ordinary examples of itacism^ and one of o/xotoreXenroi/ (xiii. 4). Of forms we may 
 observe Biylraaovatv vii. 16; ixaaSois i. 13; fierpos xxi. 17 ; wde, (o8( and a>8e (xiv. 12 &c.), 
 vaa-TTis ter, (avvqs (i. 13 &c), (T(ppayi8as-, a-({)payi(Tiv, but acjipay'iSa vi, 7 ; 9 p. m. In many 
 places this document closely resembles Cod. a, but on the whole it comes closer 
 than some others to the Elzevir text. The following are rare: i. 2; ii. 24; ix. 15; 
 xi. 1; 2; 3 (so xii. 6); xii. 9; 13; 17. 
 
 (f). Codex Leicestrensis is L of the Gospels, m of the Acts and Epistles. 
 It is described above p. xl. 
 
 (g). Parham No. 17 I believe to yield in value and importance to no copy 
 of the Apocalypse except the three uncials. Mr Curzon tells us in his best 
 manner the history of his acquisition of it in 1837 at Caracalla in Mount Athos 
 {Visits to Monasteries in the Levant, p. 350) : this precious document certainly 
 
 ^ Tischendorf has recently published these pre- the Hebrews, preserved in the Public Library of 
 cious fragments, together with some leaves of the Hamburgh, in his Anecdola Sarra d Prof ana, pp. 
 same MS., containing portions of the Epistle to 147 — 205, 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 73 
 
 had a most narrow escape from the ignorant wastefulness of his friend the Abbot. 
 It is written on vellum, on IG leaves, quarto, the 12th and 13th leaves being 
 misplaced : it breaks ofFxx. 11, Km ronos. In this MS. (which is dirty and damaged, 
 especially near the end) t ascript is uniformly employed, never being omitted, 
 though often inserted falsely (e. g. fwtoi/) : v ec^eXKvo-n/coi/ is found seven times. One 
 great peculiarity regards the breathings, than which nothing can be imagined 
 more capricious : thus in the few opening verses Ave have ea-rjixaviv v. 1 ; ioiauvrjs, 
 elprjVT], iixoTTiov V. 4 ; djiapTicov V. 5 ; botli alcovas and aloivav V. 6. After this it is 
 useless to multiply examples, but we have pretty consistently Svojxa, coSe, tpya, e^ftf, 
 6^v, opos, inra (not XV. 7), iVttcoi/ : the accents are just as ill put; sometimes they 
 are placed over each part of a compound, and often neglected altogether. Words 
 are repeatedly written twice over, and there are about five examples of 6p.oi.oTf\- 
 evTov: the itacisms are 46, quite of an ordinary complexion. The text of the 
 Apocalypse is surrounded by a commentary in a cramped and less distinct style, 
 evidently however by the same hand, which exhibits several forms of abridgement 
 not very usual, some of them being nearly the same as we met with in Codex n of 
 the Epistles (see above, p. Ixvii.) : such are : = a, '=oy, =av, =as. The comment- 
 ary, which is not very rare in MSS. of the Apocalypse, is a kind of epitome of 
 that of Arethas, Archbishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea in the tenth century 
 (appended to the Paris CEcumenius, 1631); so that this copy cannot well be 
 placed earlier than the eleventh century, nor do I think it later than the twelfth. 
 The title and initial A alone are in rubric; there is no division into sections, but 
 each longer lesson has a capital letter at its commencement : these however are 
 later than the text, for they are often written where the smaller letter was 
 already found : e. g. ii. 5 ; 8. There are perpetual notes of reference to the 
 commentary, above and in the body of the sacred text. This MS. frequently 
 supports the readings of Cod. a, which I presume is of about the same age, and 
 will merit attentive study: yet it is not seldom found to agree with the Elzevir 
 text against the majority of our copies: e.g. xii. 8; 9; 14; xiii. 2; 3; 5; 8; 18; 
 xiv. 3; 4; 7; 8; 19; xvii. 16; xviii. 2; 13; 15; 19; xix. 2; 6; 12; 17; xx. 11: 
 in many of which g is attended by our copies h or n. The alterations in this 
 MS. seem to have been made prima manu (except v. 9), but are certainly early. 
 
 (h). Parham, No. 2, contains the Apocalypse complete, on glazed paper, 
 quarto, 22 leaves, with 28 lines on a page, in a very neat hand, which much 
 reminded me of Lambeth 1350 (t of the Gospels: see my Collation, Tntrod. p. Iv): 
 I should assign it to the 14th century. This MS. also came from Caracalla in 
 1837, and is in beautiful preservation. There is a scrawling inscription at the 
 
 end, of which I can decipher ^0T]dr) rov dovXov a-ov laavr] rov Trana brjprjTpKov tov 
 
 rpiCxi^vapyaii [??J . . . We find some short glosses or comments in the margin of this 
 book; e.g. on ii, 22 kKiv^v aa-Biveias: these are in a later hand. The title, initial 
 
 L 
 
74 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 letters of the sections, and numerals indicating the KccpaXaia are in pale red: the 
 only traces of a second hand in the text are vii. 17 ; xvii. 10; xix. 10; and a few 
 erasures. The breathings and accents are correct, though a few are omitted: 
 we read aj', fxrj, JSf, dcpov, eaxroii, axpi(Tov, fieraTavra, ovras always; nor is the acccnt 
 of the enclitic ever thrown back, when the preceding word is properispomenon, 
 e. g. eine /xoi. The only v e(})e'KKvcrTiKov is erased xvii. 10: i subscript is used but six 
 times, always with aSrjs and aSova-iv ; t ascript never : the itacisms are but eight, of 
 the commonest kind. This MS. resembles efg most of ours, and is remarkable 
 for coming nearer to the Elzevir text than perhaps any other in existence. 
 The examples (which I have carefully noted in my collation) are so numerous, 
 that it may suffice to state the fact once for all (e.g. i. 5; 14; 17; ii. 1; 5; 7; 
 10; 17; 25, &c.). Other unusual readings are i. 2; 13 (A); vi. 5 (AC: sic v. 7); 
 9; viii. 9 (A); 13; X. 4; 7; xi. 3 (AB); xvii. 10; xviii. 3; 17, &c. 
 
 (j). British Museum, Additional MS. 17469. This copy of the whole New 
 Testament is one of the most precious of the Biblical MSS. added to our National 
 Library within the last ten years ^ It was purchased from T. Rodd, the book- 
 seller, in 1848. It is a small folio on vellum of 186 leaves and 35 lines in a page; 
 not much earlier, I should imagine, than the 14th century. I have hitherto 
 collated it for the Apocalypse alone, but on inspecting cursorily the other books 
 (we all know by this time how little a cursory inspection is worth) I observed 
 nothing very striking: there is an hiatus about 1 Tim. iii. 16. Before certain 
 liturgical tables at the end of the volume we read rubro ra a-wTeXearr] rav KoXav dco 
 
 X^pi'i I * * * (ct line erased) | rrjpi tcov KaXav nXaa-rov ye pov ', | Cot t(o 8o^a Tijxr] Kai Kparos 
 
 irpeirei povco\. This document is neatly written, though the abridged forms are 
 rather numerous ; the breathings and accents are full and correct: we find J5f, 
 ovx, pal38os {vid. supra, p.xxxix); eo-rT^crav xviii. 17 ; e|oucrtaj/ xvi. 9 ; olKovpevT]i ibid. 14: ; 
 ovopara xxi. 12, diarovro, and (as in Cod. h &C.) erne poi, ol8a aov, k-t.^. p^ is used 
 
 almost always, as is ovras: we read anr{k6a x. 9; eneaav xix. 4; eTreaa ibid. 10. I 
 observe no instance of v ic^ekKvcmKov, and only twelve itacisms : t subscript is per- 
 petual (not however with abrjs or a>hr{), and in four places where it ought not to be 
 (e.g. ii. 11 aKovtraTo). The title and initial letter of each section are in rubric, 
 and six examples of error by opoLOTekevrov occur. This copy is of great value and 
 full of interesting variations from the general mass, especially in the earlier 
 chapters. Of our codices it most resembles ce. There will be found to exist a 
 tendency to omit the article, and the following passages well merit examination: 
 i. 14; 15; 18; 20; ii. 17; xii. 1; xiii. 10; 18; xiv. 4; 14; 20; xviii. 7; xx. 9; 
 xxi. 19; xxii. 6; 12. 
 
 ^ The following fresh copies, of the Gospels 
 alone, await a patient labourer in this field of 
 Biblical science ; Addit. MSS.: 16183 (12th cent. 1); 
 
 16943 (nth cent.?); 1747°; i774i; 17982; 19387 i 
 a noble harvest for some fortunate scholar. 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 75 
 
 (k). Liber Canonicus 34 in the Bodleian at Oxford. The Libri Canonici 
 comprise a splendid collection of 576 Greek Manuscripts, purchased by Dr Bandi- 
 nel, the Principal Librarian of the Bodleian, at Venice in 1817, from the heirs of 
 Abbot M. L. Canonici, for the University of Oxford. They are described by 
 Mr Coxe, in the Bodleian Catalogue, Part in. (1854). This document contains 
 the whole New Testament, neatly written in quarto, on 319 paper leaves, having 
 25 lines on a page, the Pauline Epistles preceding the Acts, as in the Codex 
 Leicestrensis. At the end of the Apocalypse (the only portion of the MS. yet 
 
 collated) we read Mi^arjXos daiiaa-Krjvos 6 Kprjs T(o eKXafiTTpoTaTO) km Travao([)coTUT(o icoavvr) 
 <j)pavyyi.(TKco TTiKa fxoipav8ov...i]yep.ovi km Tavrrjv ttjv deiov ^i^\ov . . .■^ev erei arro rrjs ;(ptOTOu 
 
 yewTjo-fcoy a(j)cr^, prjvi tovXXico uj (fol. 319), i.e. A.D. 1516. This John Francis Picus 
 was the nephew and biographer of the illustrious John Picus of Mirandola, who 
 died in 1494. A little lower on fol. 319 is written in the same hand eypa(j)r] to 
 irapov ^i^Xiov ev fioipav8ov\ia, [Mirandola, now in the Grand Duchy of ModenaJ and 
 still lower in a later but ancient hand "[Si quis^ h]uic exemplar! parvam fidem 
 adhibendam putet. descriptum noverit e vetustissimo codice manu scripto. Nam 
 ipse Jo. Fran. Picus olim Mirand. dux in Annotationibus Erasmi, quas ipsi in 
 bibliotheca illius invenimus, id manu propria testatum reliquit. Ego hieronymus 
 Teggetaeus, qui in praesenti libri hujus sum possessor, quae vidi hie annotandum 
 putavi; manum aiitem illius nos pi^obe novimus." The truth of this statement is 
 established by the character of the text exhibited in the MS.; the slightest 
 examination will shew that the scribe has not used Erasmus' editio princeps of the 
 Greek Testament, whose Preface by Frobenius bears date March 1, 1516. In 
 the Apocalypse this copy abounds in peculiar readings; in some places much 
 resembling e described above, while in others it stands quite alone : e. g. i. 3, 4 ; 
 14; 19; ii. 1; iv. 1; 8; vi. 11; vii. 13; viii. 1; ix.l4; 15; x. 1; xi. 7; 18; xii. 3; 
 14; xiii. 3; 4; 12; xiv. 9; xvi. 5; xvii. 5; 12; 13; 16; xviii. 4; 14; xix. 9; xx. 
 3; 14; xxii. 12: it often resembles Griesbach's 30 (Guelpherbyt. xvi. 7) in its 
 rarest readings. The writer seems scarcely familiar with Greek (e. g. xvii. 3), and 
 sometimes employs the article rather strangely (e.g. 1 Johan. v. 8, on ol rpeis eia-iv 
 oi paprvpovvTis to irvevpa, k.t.X. omisso versu septimo). From Apoc. ii. 11 to r. 23 km 
 yvaxTovTM there is a chasm, yet the text runs on uno tenore, with no signs of omis- 
 sion (vid. supra, p. xli.). There occur no less than 13 instances of 6p.oioT(\fVTov in the 
 Apocalypse. The breathings and accents are pretty regular, but we have 6pr], 
 ia-TT^Ka, eaTT]Ka)s (fere), xpvcrovs, and such forms as ol8a aov. Of itacisms there are few 
 or none. The augment is omitted x. 7 ; we read x^f^pav x. 5, p. m. Geoy, xP'-^^'^os &c. 
 
 ^ Mr Coxe reads ai^if, but we find r with a 
 similar shape in Apoc. xviii. 6, not to mention 
 that the Gospels have a like colophon bearing date 
 May 23, 1515 (fol. 131), and the Pauline Epistles 
 are dated October 11, X515 (fol. 229). 
 
 2 A few letters are illegible. Mr Coxe supplies 
 "Nemo:" 1 prefer " Si quis," supposing the point 
 after 2^ufet to represent no more than a comma. 
 The second g in Teggetaeus is erased, 
 
 l2 
 
76 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 are rarely abridged : we find coSf, ovrcd, orav. It is usual to write i subscriptum (never 
 ascriptum), six times where it should be absent. N tcpf'kKva-Ti.Kov before a consonant 
 is met with three times, the hiatus for lack of it twice. Corrections are few, and 
 seeinp.w. Throughout the MS. is no liturgical or marginal matter: the Apoca- 
 lypse begins on the same page as the Catholic Epistles end, with a simple initial 
 capital letter, ruhro. I am indebted to Dr Bandinel's kind attention for bringing 
 this interesting copy under my notice. 
 
 (1). Hauleian: 5537, is Mill's Covell 2, and Wetstein's Act. 25, Paul. 31, 
 Apoc. 7; containing the whole New Testament except the Gospels. This very 
 important copy was loosely collated by Mill, whose readings I have compared 
 with my own throughout the Apocalypse. It is a small quarto of 286 vellum 
 leaves, having 23 lines on each page, in a very neat and clear hand. On fol. 100 b, 
 between the Catholic and Pauhne Epistles, after other matter (which seems to fix 
 the country of the MS. to the shores of the iEgean sea) we read eTeXeiwdrj 6e 6 ayios 
 
 airofTToXos fiera km rrjs aTTOKaXvyj/^eas firj fiaio) rjyovv tt) N [i.e. the PenteCOSt] 'iv8.i' er. r^^6 
 [a.D. 1087]' fiaa-CkivovTos aXe^iov tov KOfjL,...Kai viKoXaov Trarpiapxov. Mill justly remarks 
 
 "est certe hie ex libris nostris probatioribus" (Proleg. § 1482). The following 
 specimens of its unusual readings will prove acceptable : i. 5 [Arah.) ; ii. 3 ; 16 
 {Arab.); iii. 1 p.m.; 11; 18; iv. 5 ; 8 (Arab.); v. 8; 11 (Arab.); vii. 5; viii. 13 
 (Arab.); ix. 6 ; 12; x. 10 ; xiii. 10; xiv. 10 (A); 11; 15 (Arab.); xv. 2 ; 7; xvi. 
 3; 15; XX. 10; xxii. 3; 12; 14 {A fere) ; 20. It is often thus found with the 
 polyglot Arabic version almost alone ; also with our h and the Elzevir text, where 
 they are countenanced by few others. We find no i ascriptum or subscriptum, but 
 V ecPi^KvaTiKov is frequent, though mostly erased by a more recent hand, whereof I 
 observe no other trace, except in xxi. 22, which change is very late. An hiatus 
 occurs xi. 6 secund. manu; the augment is omitted xiv.- 18 ; we find reaaapfis and 
 eiteaav (v. 8). Here the itacisms are many and strong, especially ei interchanged 
 with rf : ib(i>6r}, i8ov are almost perpetual. A few breathings are irregular (d/Lt/ioj, 
 oXiyos, iviavros, i(TTr)Ka, IfxaTLo), though even here the usage fluctuates. The circum- 
 flex is often misplaced : e. g. C<^ov, Trparov, oIkov, ^wwj/* on the contrary see pijpas, 
 
 iraa-av, yrjv, xP^<^ovs, &C. and such forms as ovKexova-iv, ovKcvpedr], or av, a>v (for a>v), oval 
 
 and olai indifferently, but a55e always. There are five instances of 6/xotoreXeuroi/ in 
 the Apocalypse, which has no viroBea-is, and no Kecfiakaia noted in the margin, but 
 rubric capitals often. One rubric title is inserted in the body of the text (iv. 1). 
 
 (m). Codex Mediomontanus 1461, olim Meermann. 118, is a MS. on vellum, 
 on 229 leaves 8vo, of the eleventh or twelfth century at the latest, purchased by 
 Sir Thomas Phillipps, Bart, at the Meermann sale in 1824, and now forming a part 
 of his unrivalled collection of Manuscripts at Middle Hill, Worcestershire. It 
 contains the Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse, unhappily in a mutilated condition, 
 
OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 77 
 
 beginning Act. iv. 24 avrois' 6 8ia, ending Apoc. xxi. 12 vluv irjX. Many leaves are 
 lost, though only one other in the Apocalypse, containing from after anapxr] tw 6m 
 xiv. 4 to V. 14 KM eiTi TTjv pe(pe\r]v' several leaves have also been misplaced^. This 
 copy is numbered by Scholz Act. 178, Paul. 242, Apoc. 87 : he probably saiv it 
 abroad, but does not once cite it throughout the whole Apocalypse, which book 
 the present owner most obligingly allowed me to collate at Middle Hill : I do not 
 imagine that the rest of the MS. was ever examined. It is written in a bold clear 
 hand, the number of lines on each page varying from 23 to 31 : it is worn in 
 parts, and occasionally retouched : e. g. in five passages of the Apocalypse (i. 1 ; 
 xiii. 2; xvii. 13, 14; xviii. 1; 22, 23): five cases of SixoioreXevrov occur. Each of 
 the Epistles has an viroBea-ts before it, and both they and the Acts exhibit in the 
 margin the usual KecpaXaia, apxat of Church lessons, liturgical directions and rubric 
 capitals : the Apocalypse however has no vTrodfo-is or Kf({)a\aia, but a small illumi- 
 nation over the title, and flourished capitals to the 72 K((})aKaia in faded red. This 
 MS. abounds with rare and singular readings ; e.g. i. 5 ; 7 (article); 13 ; 16 ; ii. 1 ; 
 8; 9; 13; 17; iii. 1 ; 7 ; iv. 8 ; v. 2 ; 9 ; vi. 9 ; 11; 17 ; vii. 1; 12; viii. 1; 12; 
 X. 10; xi.2; 14; 19; xii.3; 4; 7; 11; 16; 18 (AC); xiii. 10; 17; xv.2; 3;xvi. 
 20 (article); xvii. 4; 6 (article); 14; 15; 16; xviii. 6; 7; 10 (article); 13 (ACc); 
 22 ; xix. 3 ; 6 (c) ; 13 (g) ; 17 ; 21 ; xx. 10 ; xxi. 9 (A). It is often found with 
 our gn. This copy frequently agrees with the Elzevir text with few others : i. 8 ; 
 9; ii. 7; iii. 2; v. 6; vi. 4; 12; viii. 7; 8; ix. 7; 10; 12; x. 1; xiii. 7; 14; 18; xv. 
 2; xviii. 19; xix. 20; xx. 8; xxi. 12. We meet with no t ascriptum or suhscrip- 
 tum ; V e(pe\KV(TTiKov is frequent, but less so towards the end of the book. Only 
 eleven ordinary itacisms occur in the Apocalypse: ixeroncop is read once, cj^vaXi) 
 three times (these forms are constant in Codex n, to be described next): many 
 
 breathings are irregular, e. g. riyaTrrja-fv, rjvoi^e, ijuoiyrj, -qveaypevov, TjpTjuadr), i^KOva-a, e/xea-ai, 
 OTTia-m, oXiya, ovttco, owmpa, 6(})e\ov, and on the Contrary ij^ova-iv, fla-TTjKei, ia-TrjKores (but 
 
 coTtara), wSe. The circumflex is often put over nominatives in t], as awayay^, aToXfjy 
 
 "KfVKrj &C., and over the short penultima, as ^aa-raaai, Seplaai, Kaviiarlcrai, dyopaaai, 
 irara^ai, yet we have 7rpo</))jrai, alcovas'. we see also y\co(Tcras, dvarelpois, vno Kara, pfj8ev, 
 ov fi^, both orav and or av. 
 
 (n). Baeocc. 48, in the Bodleian, is a volume in small quarto, consisting of 
 various pieces in several hands, some on vellum and others on paper, of about the 
 15th century. Mr Coxe describes its general contents in his Catalogue^. The 
 Apocalypse commences at fol. 51 b, and ends abruptly at fol. 74 b, after the 
 
 * After Apoc. xi. i, read the four following 
 leaves in this order, 4, 2, 3, 1 . After Apoc. xix. i 
 two leaves are transposed and turned upside down. 
 The present is hardly the place for giving- a Hat of 
 the chasms in the Acts and Epistles. 
 
 2 On fol. 18 (paper, of the 14th century) are 
 five verses of the Apocalypse (v. i — 5) differing in 
 several places from the text of the copy I have 
 called n. The readings of this small fragment are 
 cited as n^. 
 
78 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 words (38f\vynaTa)v qvttjs xvii. 5. It is neatly and clearly written on paper, with 22 
 lines on the page, and bears date irom the 14th or 15th century. This copy was 
 collated (together with three others at Oxford) for Wetstein's Greek Testament 
 by Caspar Wetstein, his kinsman, Chaplain to the Prince of Wales, and its read- 
 ings are numbered 28 in Wetstein's edition ; but the collator has done his work 
 most negligently, though I have been glad to use his labours for the correction of 
 my own throughout the book. Codex n is one of the most important of our 
 cursive MSS., containing wide and frequent variations from the mass of author- 
 ities : it somewhat resembles our h in its close approximation to the Elzevir text, 
 and next to h, it approaches nearest to bgl. For its resemblance to the Elzevir 
 editions, see i. 6 ; 9; 12; 18; 20; ii. 3; 9; iii. 9 ; 11; v. 14; vi. 8; 9; ix. 2; 
 xvi. 1. The following readings are also remarkable : ii. 20 ; 27; iii. 7 ; 12; 13; 
 14 ; 18 ; iv. 7 ; 8 ; vi. 5 ; vii. 4 ; 11 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 13 ; xi. 1 ; 5 ; 8 ; 15 ; xii. 1 ; 4 ; 
 xiii. 3; 11; 13; xiv. 6; 8; 16; xvii. 3. In this very recent codex we find 
 no t ascriptum or subscriptum ; v €(})(Xkv(ttikov is read but six times before a con- 
 sonant, the hiatus in its absence once (i. 4). There are five cases of ojioioTiKevrov, 
 and many itacisms, chiefly between o and w : we always have fieronav, (j)va\r], and 
 tScodrj, eppiBt], each twice. Of grammatical forms I note only etSa, ii. 2. There is 
 a slight illumination at the opening of the Apocalypse, and its first three verses 
 are in rubric. The headings of the several K((f)a\aia are interspersed with the 
 text, the K€(})a\aia numbered in the margin, and their commencements marked by 
 rubric capitals. Numerals are invariably expressed by letters, not words. The 
 breathings are not very accurate or consistent, e, g. Ittttos, alua, abovcnv, ^Kovaa, ijvoi^e, 
 rj^ovcri, 68ovTes, oXiya, ovs (auris), (o8e. The accents ai'e more carefully given : we 
 find however vnofiovfj nom., cpcovf) dat, xpyo-as, oida aov, iirjdels, &c. A few corrections 
 seem prima manu, but several are very recent, as are some Latin notes which 
 disfigure the margin, I believe that this manuscript merits peculiar attention. 
 
 As it is admitted on all hands that the text of the Apocalypse is less satis- 
 factorily represented in our printed editions than that of any other part of the 
 New Testament, I deeply regret that scholars should have published a revi- 
 sion of it, even within the last few years, without having previously sought to 
 add to our existing store of materials, or at least to test their accuracy. Up to 
 this time we have an exact knowledge of but two copies of this book of Holy 
 Scripture, the Codex Alexandrinus (A) and the Codex Ephraemi (C), the latter 
 a mere fragment. Tischendorf's transcript of the only remaining uncial, the 
 Codex Vaticanus 2066 (B), is, in fact, the result of a hurried collation {Monu- 
 ment, sacr. ined. pp. 407 — 432), made under circumstances I should not wish to 
 happen to me^ I could not doubt therefore that by collating the Manuscripts of 
 
 ^ I praise as little as any one the childish jea- 
 lousy displayed by the authorities at the Vatican, 
 but it is now their fixed rule to permit no stranger 
 
 to collate their more precious manuscript treasures. 
 Tregelles however in 1845, and Tischendorf in 
 1 843, obtained leave to make facsimiles of one or 
 
OF TPIE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 79 
 
 the Apocalypse above described, I was helping to place the text of that book on a 
 firmer basis : a task not only less toilsome, but (I will venture to say) less preca- 
 rious in its results than the criticism of the Gospels : so much easier is it in 
 this instance to distinguish the broad tide-wave of ancient evidence from those 
 local currents which bewilder the inexperienced voyager. 
 
 In the course of my Biblical studies I met with not a few other MSS. of 
 portions of the Greek Testament which are not only uncollated, but have not yet 
 appeared in any general Catalogue. I have incidentally alluded to several in the 
 foregoing pages {vid. pp. 5, 74 note), I will now mention a few others, which nothing 
 but hard necessity has hindered me from subjecting to a closer examination. 
 
 At Middle Hill, in that wonderful collection of more than twenty thousand 
 MSS. in various languages, besides the copy described above, p. 76, I inspected : 
 
 (1) A noble MS. of the Gospels (13975) in large foho, with a very full com- 
 mentary in minute letters surrounding the text. It may be of the 12th century, 
 and once belonged to Lord Strangford. 
 
 (2) A copy of the Acts and all the Epistles (7681), dated a.d. 1107. This 
 MS. (as w^ell as that in the British Museum, Additional 16943) once formed part 
 of the collection made by the Hon. F. North for the University of Corfu. 
 
 (3) An Evangelistarium of the 12th or 13th century was described to me by 
 Sir T. Phillipps, but could not be found at the time. 
 
 At Parham, besides the four MSS. I collated, and the two specially named 
 above (p. 47), are about ten more copies of different dates, of which seven con- 
 tain the Gospels, four the Acts and Epistles. A complete collation of all the N. T. 
 MSS. in this Library would be no unworthy task for any one who desired to do 
 good service to Biblical literature. 
 
 I am indebted to the kindness of Archdeacon Hale for my acquaintance with 
 three Lectionaries which have long been deposited in Sion College Library, but 
 even there seem to have been quite forgotten. The Archdeacon is engaged in com- 
 piling a critical Catalogue of Biblical Manuscripts now in this country, a work 
 of which I should have been glad indeed to have been able to avail myself. 
 
 In addition to those mentioned above, I know of but five MSS. of the Apoca- 
 lypse in these islands (making only twenty in all), which though they have been 
 previously used for Mill's or Wetstein's editions, doubtless need renewed exami- 
 nation ; they are the following : 
 
 two passages of Codex B (2066). And now the 
 latter shall tell his own story. " Mihi vero jestate 
 anni 1843, cum concessum esset aliquos codicis 
 versus facsimili exprimere, contigit ut in confi- 
 
 oiendo facsimili variantes lectiones omnes editioni 
 mese Lipsiensi adscriberera." (N.T. ed. 1849, Pro- 
 leg, p. Ixxiv.) Contigit tit ! 
 
80 DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN MSS. OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 
 
 (1) Bodleian : Huntingdon 131, vellum of the 12th century, very poorly col- 
 lated by Mill, whom I followed in capp. x. and xxii. 
 
 (2) Bodleian : Barocc. 3, collated by Caspar Wetstein after Mill. The margin 
 of this beautiful little book, of the eleventh century, is crowded with a very full 
 and unique Commentary, published by J. A. Cramer, in his Catena on the Apoca- 
 lypse, Oxon. 1840. It ends xx. 1, exov. I collated cap. x. 
 
 (3) and (4-) Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 1 and 2, both collated by C. Wetstein. 
 (5) Cambridge Public Library, Dd. 9, 69, contains besides the Gospels of the 
 
 13th century, a more recent copy of the Apocalypse which has not been used 
 since Mill's time. 
 
 I cannot help indulging the hope that health and leisure may yet be granted 
 me to pursue my researches among these and similar treasures of our English 
 libraries. But while the harvest is plenteous, the labourers have hitherto been 
 few indeed ; and I should much rejoice if some of those younger scholars who 
 have so generously appreciated my efforts would devote a portion of their own 
 time to investigations which have thus far boi-ne some fruit, and seem to promise 
 yet more, in a department of sacred learning which yields to none in its interest 
 or importance. 
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 The following are the notes in various hands si:)oken of on p. 23 as being written on the last page 
 and covers of the Codex Augiensis. 
 
 Ad calcem pagince. Hie liber est monasterii Augi^ Majoris qui per dnm de Wildenst am Abbatem 
 accomodatus fuit magistro Georgio Schoenlin de Schomdorff decretorum doctor! canonico in Sindelfingen 
 tempore basiliensis. 
 
 Primd, ut videtur manu : Tu domine universorum qui nullam babes indigentiam. 
 
 In libri operculo, ad initimi, scripta sunt {post lineani erasam, antiqud manu scriptam, TempAs 
 
 adhtic Veniet post ) 
 
 Georgii Michaelis Wepferi Schaphusiani. 
 
 (Alid manu:) Jam Ludovici Christian! M!eg!i. 
 Emptus hie codex Richardo Bentleio a.d.-'.mdccxviii. [Bentleii manu.] 
 
 Alid manu: Codex Augiensis (supposed to have been written in the ninth century) noted F in the 
 second part of Wetstein's N.T. Vid. Marsh's Michaelis. Chap. viii. Sect. vi. 4. 
 
 Alid manu: Wetstein's Prolegom. Vol. i. p. 153. Vol. 11. p. 6. Monk's Life of Ben tley, 11. p. 121. 
 Hunc codicem parvi sestimavit Wetstenius ; plurimi Bentleius. vid. ejus not. ms. ad init. Nov. Testa- 
 ment! Oxon. 1675. 8'° (b. 17. 8 inscript!) quocum codicem contulit. J. W[ordsworth]. 1839. 
 
 Item eddem manu : This MS. is not written in Anglo-Saxon chai-acters, as has been described ; but 
 in the renovated miuuscule of the Caroline period (Saec. IX vel x). J. 0. W. 
 
 In operculo, adfinem voluminis, leguntur : Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos. 
 
 Item Bentleii manu, Monasterium Augiee ; in Belgis, ubi institutus est Goddeschalcus : et alia 
 qucedam, nullius frugis, variis manibus. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 .._,rr— ^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 ^mniwiiiwwr 
 
 MM 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^'■.-x,-.-^.^,^-^.. 
 
 
 
 
 TwnrmtiDiiXj 
 
 
 J^ 3lA.^^AM 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
BS2385.S432 
 
 Contributions to the criticism of the 
 
 Princeton Tlieological Seminary-Speer Librar; 
 
 1 1012 00077 1487 
 
 mm