■ ' • 1 ■» V^ ~ ir\ .0^ I 8 -^ .'\ 'JS^ c * c-^T. ^<^. o •^ .n"^^ ' -.^ K ^-^ <^^ 0^ s/ ' , X -* \' -k A "o ''■' ' " . *> ^ ^ ^o. .0^ •>'^^^ 4 ^ * \' Oo >^ ^^. V *^ ^f^M "^ c,> *^ ■^ -x^^ ^^. O^ ^7 .. s^ .^^ ^^ ^ '\ v^ > A'' V- .y" '-^ ^ o5 -^c^ "^, •s xO^^. -i V ^^V 3^ 1) TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR WILLIAM SCOTT, M. P. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY, &c. THE AUTHOR OF THESE REMARKS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATES THEM : NOT SOLELY, IN DECLARATION OF PRIVATE GRATITUDE; TO AN EXALTED INDIVIDUAL, WHO CONDESCENDS TO HONOUR HIM WITH A NOTICE, WHICH HE PRESUMES NOT INDEED TO DESERVE, BUT WHICH HE HOPES NEVER TO DISCREDIT, AND WHO HAS CONFERRED UPON HIM OBLIGATIONS, TOO GREAT TO BE REQUITED, AND TOO FLATTERING TO BE FORGOTTEN ; BUT ALSO, IN TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC DEFERENCE, TO AN ILLUSTRIOUS STATESjVIAN AND JUDGE, EMINENTLY DISTINGUISHED BY SOLIDITY OF ARGUMENT IN THE SENATE, BY ACCURACY OF DECISION IN THE COURT, AND BY ELEGANCE AS WELL AS PERSPICUITY OF EXPRESSION IN both; AND, EVEN STILL MORE APPROPRIATELY, TO AN ACCOMPLISHED SCHOLAR OF CLASSICAL TASTE, AND DISCRIMINATION, NOT LESS CONSPICUOUS f OR THB POSSESSION, THAN CANDID IN THE DISPLAY OF CRITICAL TALENTS. CONTENTS. CHAP. I. GriesbacHs Edition of the New Testament-— Effects produced by it. p. 1 . CHAP. II. Origin of GrieshacHs Theory, JBengel, Semler, Number of Classes, Remarks upon their Li- mitation to three. Inadequacy of the Result, p. 8. CHAP. III. GriesbacJis Mode of Classification, No standard Text, Principle of Classification fallacious^ Inaccuracy of his Calculations, Corrected Statement, p. 27 o CHAP. IV. More correct Mode of ascertaining the Class of a Manuscript, Comparison of A with Origen^ With G or the Western Text. Affinity of A to the Byzantine greater than to the Western^ or the Alexandrine. p. 42^ vi CHAP. V. Comparison of the Colbert Manuscript with A. Mistakes of Griesbach, Controverted Reading of\ Tim. iii. l6. Existence of the Alexandrine Text problematical. Conclusion, .^ p. 64* APPENDIX. Readings of Origen alone. Of A with Origen, A C with Origen, Of A alone. Readings of G alone. Of A with G, Of A alone. Re- marks upon the joint Readings of A C and Oiigen, Upon the general Coincidences of Origen with the Western Text, and with other Alexandrine Writers, Affinity to the Western Text predominant, p. 95. Sold ly J. Parker^ Oxford ; and hy Messrs. Rivington^ St, PauVs Church'Yardy London, I. Critical Reflections upon some important Misrepresen- tations contained in the Unitarian Version of the New Testament. By Richard Laurence, LL. D. Price 5s. II. The metaphorical Character of the Apostolical Style, and the predominant Opinion of the Apostolical ^ra, as elucidating the Doctrine of Atonement, considered : a Sermon, preached at the Visitation of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbuiy. By the same. Price Is. 6d. III. A Dissertation on the Logos of St. John, comprehend- ing the substance of Sermons preached before the Univer- sity of Oxford. By the same. Price 3s. IV. On Singularity and Excess in Philological Literature : a Sermon preached before the University of Oxford. By the same. Price Is. fid. ALSO, Critical Remarks on detached Passages of the Nevr Testa- ment, particularly the Revelation of St. John. By the late French Laurence, LL.D. M. P. &c. Price 63. CHAP. I. GrieshacHs Edition of the New Testament-^ Effects produced by it, iM O question, it is presumed, relative to the cri- ticism of the Greek Text in the New Testament, the original language of that inspired volume, upon which our faith is founded, can be consi- dered by Christians of any denomination as wholly unimportant. The doctrine indeed of its miraculous identity seems now completely exploded : for to suppose that a superintending Providence presided over the pen of every tran- scriber from the first to the fifteenth century, preventing the occurrence of those little lapses to which human transcripts are liable, is surely to suppose the existenbe of a miracle, not only against direct proof, but without an adequate necessity. Of all the critical editions of the Greek Text, the most celebrated is that of Griesbach. The peculiar feature of his system, it is well known, consists in the arrangement of manuscripts un- B der certain heads or classes. The accuracy of this arrangement it is the object of the follow- ing pages to examine. But before I enter upon the investigation, I must be permitted to make a few preliminary observations upon the effects which have been produced by his repeated labours in critical correction. As it is an incontrovertible truth, that opi- nion must be regulated by the text, and not the text by opinion ; when it was known that an author, so highly respected as Griesbach, was preparing a second edition of his New Testa- ment, expectation was upon the tiptoe among those, who, conscious that the received text will not '^ without a little straining" satisfactorily entwine with their favourite tenets, are always anxiously anticipating the probable chances of relief, attainable by an unreserved use of the critical pruning knife. The Unitarians not only applauded and patronised his undertaking, but exerted every means in their power to carry the work with credit through the press, and to give it publicity in this country. But what has been the result ? As far as relates to doctrinal points, the great object of their contemplation, their hopes have been completely frustrated ; for no- thing more was omitted in the second, than what had been exposed as illegitimate in the first, edition. If it be asked, what were the passages rejected, and what was the impression made upon the mind of him who rejected them; a better answer cannot be given than in the words of Griesbach himself, which occur in his preface to the Apostolical Writings, published in the year 177^» " Interim uni tamen dogmati eique palmario, doctrinae scilicet de vera Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri posset nonnullis, qui non solum " locum istum celebratissimum 1 Joh. v. 7» e " textu ejectum, verum etiam lectionem vulga- '^ rem loci 1 Tim. iii. l6. (ut et Act. xx. 28.) " dubitationi subjectam et lectorum arbitrio per- " missam, invenient. Quare ut iniquas suspi- ^' ciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et ^^ hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam prse- *^ ripiam, primum publice profiteor atque Deum " testor, neutiquam me de veritate istius dog- B 2 a a ce a ce cc a ce '' matis dubitare. Atque sunt profecto t am mu/ia " et luculenta argumenta et ScripturcB loca, qui- bus vera Deitas Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem intelligere vix possem, quomodo^ con- *^ cessa Scripturse sacrse divina auctoritate, et admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a quoquam vocari possit. In primis locus ille Job. i. 1^, 2, 3. tarn perspicuns " est atque ormiihus exceptionibus major, ut ne- " que interpretum neque criticorum audacibus co- *^ natihus unquam everti atque veritatis defen- *^ soribus eripi possit." From the preceding quotation therefore it ap- pears, that Griesbach felt it necessary to apolo- gize in his first edition for only three peculiar readings as affecting opinion, out of the im- mense number which he had collected ; viz. the omission of 1 John v. 7« and the substitution of h for ^fo? in 1 Tim. iii. l6. as well as of nu^tou for S^fou in Acts xx. 28 ; readings, he might have added, which had been again and again contro- verted before he himself was born. And what did he effect in his second edition ? Nothing more than subsequently to extirpate that which he had previously marked for extirpation. Whe- ther indeed the decision of his judgment in the three instances alluded to be correct or not, is a question which I do not undertake to investi- gate. It seems then than no new weapon of Unita- rian warfare has been obtained from the critical armoury of Griesbach, which once glittered in the latitudinarian eye with so much promise ; but that the integrity of the Trinitarian text, in every undisputed passage of Scripture, re- mains precisely in its former state unattacked, and perhaps we must now presume unattack- able. The ancient weapons however of the party, it may be remarked, have at least re- ceived a sharper edge : but those who may thus boast should recollect, that, in defence of the same hostile ground, which was originally as- sumed by Clark, Whiston, Wetstein, and others, they have merely acquired the additional sup- port of another individual : of one whom they hold in equal admiration and contempt ; ad- miration for his critical, and contempt for his theological, talents. b3 6 All men indisputably are not critics : but all men, who feel a real attachment to the rehgion which they profess, are alike interested in the result of critical investigation, when applied to an object so important as the adjustment of scriptural readings. It is natural therefore to expect, that every novel mode of ascertaining the validity of a reading will be at first received with caution, and long watched with jealousy. And notwithstanding the ability which has been displayed in the support of Griesbach's theory, notwithstanding the high tone which it has as- . sumed in the literary world, I must confess, that it is far from producing in my own mind complete conviction. I shall not however, I hope, be misapprehended, as arguing upon ex- clusive principles against the general doctrine of a classification of manuscripts, if indeed an ac- curate classification be attainable; but shall only be understood as urging the propriety of cir- cumspection upon the points of the practical conception and application of Griesbach's par- ticular hypothesis. It is indeed true, that this even in his patient hands has produced effects only to the trifling extent alluded to^: but as it is extremely liable to be misconceived as well as misapplied ; is so intricate in its construc- tion ; is so difficult to be detailed with precision, or even to be made out in its subordinate ar- rangements ; and is so readily convertible to party purposes ; surely we should again and again contemplate it, and that in every possible point of view, before we consent to admit the conclusions which have been deduced from it into general currency. * Giiesbach himseliP remarks in tlie Prolegomena to the first Tolunie of his last edition : '^ Nulla emendatio a recen- '^ tioribus editoribus tentata uUam Scripturae sacrae doctri- " nam immutat aut evertit ; paucae sensura sententiarum af- " ficimit." P. xxxvii. B 4 8 CHAP. II. Origin of GrieshacKs Theory, BengeL Semlerj^ Number of Classes, Remarks upon their Li- mitat'ion to three. Inadequacy of the Result, THE critical talents of Griesbach have long ranked high in the estimation of the public ; and an implicit confidence seems to be placed in the rectitude of his judgment and in the ac- curacy of his statements. If I do not however mistake the character of the man from his writ- ings, he is himself the last to claim infallibility in the one case, or impeccability in the other. He certainly may be, and I believe he is^ what Dr. Marsh denominates him, " the most con- " summate critic that ever undertook an edition " of the New Testament^." But his perfection will still only be relative, upon a comparison with the merits of his predecessors in the same arduous department. Complete exemption from error eitlier in hypothesis or in collation is ^ Michaelis's Introd. vol. ii. p. 629. 9 surely what the vainest of verbal critics will scarcely venture to arrogate. Wetstein'^ accused Bengel of permitting his theological prejudices to influence his criticism^ while Wetstein him- *^ As the circumstance itself is curious, and not perhaps generally known^ I shall subjoin it in the language of its author. In a criticism upon Heb. ii. 9. Bengel had remarked, "^ Haec expositio non potuit placere iis^ quos etiam firmiora '' pro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt." Wetstein, animadverting on this passage, among other severe cen- sures has the following : '* Quaenam fuit ratio ex omni hu- '' mano generi eos solos eligendi, quos etiam clariora de Dei- " tate Christi argumenta urunt, nisi ut animum malum pro- '' deres, et immerenti invidiam conjiares ? — Hie nigrae succus " loliginis, haec est aerugo mera." And in the subsequent paragraph retorts upon Bengel in this singular and unex- pected manner : " Bengelius nomen Jesu, si recte calculum " posui, minimum vicies et quater contra plerosque codices " scriptos et contra plerasque editiones receptas, vel ex con- *' textu sacro ejecit, vel in margine toUendum esse pronun- " tiavit. Quid erat, quaeso, causae, cur nomen Jesu virum "" doctum atque jiium tantopere ofiFenderet r Si quis illi sua " verba hie regereret : Hoc non potuit placere lis, quos etiam ** Jirmiora pro Deitate Jesu Christi argumenta urunt ; nonne '' majori specie id faceret? Absit autftn a me, ut convicium " convicio rependam. Alia, si quid video, ejus erroris fuit '' occasio. Vivit Bengelius inter eos, qui, quoties nomen' *' Jesu vel proferunt vel proferri audiunt, caput aperire so- (C g Curae in Epist. Paulinas, &c. A.D. 1777. sect. 1. §. 9. ^ Prcf. p. V. 16 Before Griesbach undertook the task of cor- recting the received text upon the decisions of his own judgment, Semler had pubhshed a tract containing observations upon the critical prin- ciples of Wetstein and Bengel, and another upon what he termed " The Hberal Interpreta- " tion of the New Testament." In these, as well as in the third volume of his Hermencu- tische Vorbereitung, he distinctly characterized what he denominated " varias recensioiiesr A few short extracts will shew how much Gries- bach was indebted to him. Commenting upon a passage in Bengel's Apparatus Criticus, he re- marked : " Codices nee sunt omnes eo^ wv aurog vtto vo^qv. x. 2. sS'aTrrto'^Tjcrav for itctTtrKTOLvro. Ibid. 33. 66 a reading common to both texts, because it has the manuscript D united to that of A. Surely, if the ground of his reasoning be inconsistent, the result of it must be unsatisfactory. As Griesbach flatters himself that, in his comparison of the Colbert manuscript, he has fully illustrated the character and estimation both of the Alexandrine and Western texts, it may be presumed, that he has been correct in the number of his quotations. But to this pre- sumption I cannot accede. He complains that the Colbert manuscript has been most negli- gently collated. In the eighteen first chapters of St. Matthew alone, he collected, he says, no less than three hundred readings omitted by Mill ; and adds, that it has been as carelessly treated in the Epistles. He had not himself time, he observes, to make a complete collation of it ; but he accurately examined the first Jive chapters of the Romans, and the fifteenth of the first Epistle to the Corinthians^. To these ^ *' Quinque prioja Epistolae ad Romanes capita, et deci- mum quintura prioris ad Corinthlos, denuo accurate con- tuli." Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p. 88. " In iis utriusque Epistolae €€ €€ 67 chapters alone therefore I will limit my remarks^. Of the readings peculiar to the Alexandrine text, he enumerates in these chapters fifteen ; seven in which the Colbert manuscript agrees with A or C, and eight in which it dissents from them ^. But this enumeration is strangely incorrect, as he omits one reading in the agree- ments, and not less than eighteen in the dis" agreements"^. Besides the single agreement *' capitibus, quae, dum codicem tractarem, Integra perlegi et *' curatissime excmsi, &c." Ibid. p. 132. Of the remainder he only says, '' Reliqua utriusque Epistolse capita cursim inspexii '' posteriorem ad Corinthios et caiteras Paulinas hie ibi tan," " turn evolvi.'* ^ The seven agreements are Rom. i. 24.==Haj A C. 17. Tb. 29.=7rop£tai sin irccvfocg A C. Ibid. 25 = (5'iar7;; titrraoo^ A. Ibid. 30. siirsp for sitsiTrs^ A C. iv. 1. TtpoTfciropcc for itccrsccL A C. Ibid. 11. itspirowr^v for TTspirou^Yj; A C. Ibid. 19, = oy A C. 1 Cor. xv. 36. ^ouoyO" vEiTOLi for ^woitoisi'Tcci A. Ibid. 54. the order of the passage reversed AC. "^ The omitted agreement is Rom. i 27. a§pcvs$ ev a§pB(n for apasyss sv a^ffsa-i A 17. F 3 68 omitted, there is indeed another, which he has confused with the coincidences of the Western text. It is 1 Cor. xv. 31. where he notices the addition of the word uhX(poi in A G 17? &c. and accordingly represents the reading as comnnon to both the Alexandrine and Western texts. But the truth is, that the manuscript G has no addition of the kind. It was a blunder of Wet- stein, which Griesbach copied in the first edition of his New Testament, but very properly cor- rected in his second. In his reasoning however upon the validity of this addition it is remark- The following are the omitted disagreements : Rom. i. 17. ?£ for yap A. Ibid. 28. =:o^so$ A. ii. 1. accray.pivsi^ for xpiv£i$ C. Ibid. 5. avraitohasvus for aTToxaAu^/sw^ A. Ibid. 14. Troiw- eriv for tsoii] A. Ibid. 16. t) for ors A. iii. 7. Ss for ya^ A. Ibid. 22. sv Xpitrtuj Iijcroufor Irjcrov X^icrrou A. Ibid. 29. y.i) for ij A. iv. ll.=Kai. Ibid. 15. 8s for ya,§ A C. Ibid. 16.-f ij A. V. 2. + £v A. Ibid. 3. y.ccvy^uiiJisvoi for ycav^uj^s^oL C. Ibid. 13, iXXoyoLro for sKXoysiro A. Ibid. 17.=ri5; SiKaioa-vvr^s C. 1 Cor. XV. ly. + 'KUi A. Ibid. 31. ^y^srs^ocv for vpLsrspav. And yet of the reading Rom. ii. 14. iroiooa-iv for iroLyj Griesbach was aware, when he published his second edition of the New Testament ; because in the Addenda be states, upon the au- thority of Birch, that, in the manuscript under considera- tion, the word is not iroiri as the received text has it, nor flTOiwcriy as the manuscript A, but itoiei. 69 able, that he proves himself to have been aware of another reading in the same verse in which A and the Colbert manuscript 17 disagree, but which he has not noticed in the disagreements. His words are, " Additum ut videtur ad decla- *' randum TjfxsTt^otv jcaup^rictv, ne JjWfTEoa et iijw,ste^» " confundentur. At nihilo tamen secus code:e *^ Alex, et iEthiops y\^i'xi^0Lv exhibent^ etsi aSeX^oi ^^ addunt".'* By recurring to the omitted dis- agreements which I have given in a note, we find the substitution of %ia£t£^o(,v for JjonTE^av, which, like all the others, I w ill not say by de- sign, because I do not believe it, but from haste or inattention, he neglected to notice ! Adding then the whole together, we perceive, that, in^ jstead of seven agreements and eight disagree- ments, as he makes them, there are in fact nine of the former description, and twenty-six of the latter. It is to be presumed, that the instances of omission, which I have referred to, could not have been overlooked by him as readings of little « Symbolae Criticae^ vol. ii. p. 105. F 3 ro importance, and therefore not worth recording, because they are to be found in his own notes upon the New Testament ; whereas two^, which he himself reckons among the seven agreements above alluded to^ were deemed too insignificant for insertion in the same notes of either edition. The conclusion therefore seems to be, that all of mine are alike important, occurring in his own critical selection of readings ; but that some of his are not so. I have confined my remarks to the five first chapters of the Romans, and \h& fifteenth chap- ter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, be- cause he represents these as the only chapters in which he had made himself certain^ by a per- sonal and accurate inspection, of the readings attributed to the Colbert manuscript. He has indeed himself, notwithstanding this assertion, grounded a calculation upon the general read- ings of the manuscript in every part of the Epi- stles alluded to ; but it appears a loss of time and labour to follow him step by step into so ° Viz. the transposition of r^) anti- " quissimi omnium classium testes. Contra, ^^ vero vulgatum S^eof nee Alexandrinae, nee Oc- *^ cidentalis recensionis primitiva lectio fuit, « *' sed juniorum tantum codicum, ad Constanti- " nopolitanam potissimum recensionem, perti- *^ nentium." It would be foreign to my purpose, were I to ©nter at large into the prolix disputes which 73 have taken place respecting the true readings of A and C in this passage ; or even to par- ticularize the arguments^ by which each party believes that it has rendered its position im- pregnable. Griesbach discusses the question at much length in his Symbolse Criticae; where, although his own opinion remains by no means problematical, he nevertheless so expresses him- self, as if he were contented to rank the manu- scripts A and C as mere neutrals in the contest. He observes : " Certe opponi nobis nullo modo *^ potest hie codex (A), sed nisi a nostris parti- " bus stare judicetur, saltem neutrarum partium " esse censendus est. De codice C supra jam *' vidimus, si vel maxime ad argumentum ab omnium ejusdem familiae testium consensu ductum plane non attendatur, tamen, propter varia indicia in codice ipso oh\'\2iy probabilius ^' ei tribui o? quam ^m p." In his notes however to the New Testament, he admits neither neu- trality in one case, nor probability in the other ; but assumes certainty in both. p Symbols Criticaej vol, i. p. 25. 74 Let us now take a summary view of his ar- gument. Every manuscript which he classes as Byzantine uniformly has S^io?, F and G Wes- tern manuscripts have og, and D has o ; but A C 17, 73 all have oj, and three of these he contem- plates as more or less Alexandrine. The affi- nity indeed of 17 he does not place in the high- est rank ; but that of A and C he regards as a very close approximation. The proof therefore that his adopted reading belongs to the Alexan- drine text rests upon the classification of these manuscripts; and, pronouncing them to be A- lexandrine, he concludes that their reading also must be Alexandrine. Doubt, however, but the legitimacy of his classification, and his con- clusion instantly falls to the ground. To the Byzantine and Western Fathers, in corroboration of their respective readings, are made many satisfactory references ; but in his appeal to the direct testimony of the Alexan- drine, Griesbach is not merely scanty, but de- fective. Athanasius and others, he states, are silent. Clemens says, jotuo-Tii^tov /asS-' ^fxoov £i$ov ttl nyyiXoi 70V ^kttov : therefore it is to be supposed, 75 that Clemens certainly did not read ^iti^% be- cause he substitutes p^^^to-rov for 5£ov. Not that it would have been conclusive had he read ^fo?, because Gregory Thaumat. or rather Apollinaris, uses indeed ^eof, (his words being 3^fo? iv a-ot^yn q)uvs^u^ng,) but is notwithstanding represented as meaning ^pi which is masculine. The re- lative » OCT means simply quij, not necessarily ille qui as Wet- stein seems to have supposed ; and is more frequently so used than » alone. 80 in the Arabic by ^ and in the iEthiopic by (Df that is^ by the same letter waw in the different characters of the different languages expressive of the same conjunction and; so that the pas- Sage must unavoidably be rendered, " which " was manifested in the f^esh, and was justified "in the Spirit, &c." But I may be reminded, that I have forgotten the Armenian version. I have not forgotten, but purposely omitted to mention, it : and that for this plain reason ; because it reads neither k or 0, but, in conjunction with the Byzan- tine text, S^£o?. For proof of this I refer to the edition pubHshed by Uscan at Amsterdam in 1666, the princeps editio, and to a subse- quent one in duodecimo by another editor at the same place in 1698 ; all, except the octavo edition of 1668, (merely a republication of Us- can) * with which we are acquainted. Now in both of these the reading certainly is lu^ God, This blunder is not solely imputable to Gries- bach. It seems to have been first made by ^ Marsh's MichaeliSj vol. ii. part i. p. 103. 81 Kuster, who, I apprehend, attempted no ne\y collation of the versions, but simply republished that of Mill. Mill however does not name the Armenian version in his note upon the passage ; but Kuster does^ probably inserting it by mis- take from the hurry of transcription. Wetstein appears to have copied from Kuster, and Gries- bach from Wetstein. Had Griesbach depended upon manuscript and not printed authority, it is presumed that he would have quoted it as such, precisely as in his note upon 1 John v. 7- But in which way soever the blunder be accounted for, the fact of the reading is incontrovertible : and it is equally incontrovertible, that the anx- iety of accommodating their version to the Vul- gate, which has been attributed to the Arme- nians, to Uscan in the seventeenth, as well as to Haytho, a king of Armenia, in the thirteenth, century, whatsoever effect it might have else- where produced, assuredly did not operate here. Of every version therefore thus quoted, Gries- bach's statement is incorrect : for one, instead of reading ej or o, reads 3-io? ; three others, in- stead of necessarily reading o?, probably read h ; G 82 and the remaining three, instead of indifferently reading c? or o, indisputably read o. I have been the more particular in my remarks upon this celebrated passage from Timothy, be- cause it is one, in which the consequences, de- ducible from Griesbach's theory of the classifi- cation and comparison of manuscripts, are most conspicuous. He is deficient in the direct tes- timony of Fathers, and even upon his own state- ment but partially supported by the collateral one of versions ; yet he pronounces o? to be the Alexandrine reading, principally influenced by the presumed authority of certain supposed Alexandrine manuscripts : then, annihijating the Western reading o, which is, in his judg- ment, a mere corruption of o?, (the very reverse of Wetstein's argument,) he represents Ig as common to both the Alexandrine and Western texts, and thus establishes a preponderance of classes against the Byzantine. Yet even ad- mitting his principle, but correcting his inaccu- racy, ought we not to draw a very different con- clusion ? Should we not rather say, that, be- cause the Byzantine text, with an infinity of 83 manuscripts and Fathers, reads Bios^ and because eight (viz. 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47.) out of eleven Alexandrine manuscripts coincide with it, while only one certainly opposes it, the other two being doubtful, therefore the preponderance of classes is against the Western ; and that Sro?, not or oj, seems to be the genuine reading ? I shall of course be understood as confirling my observations solely to the doctrine and effects of Griesbach's classification. To discuss also the deductions of his conjectural criticism > would be irrelevant to the subject before me. y To one point however I must be here permitted slightly to allude. Griesbach supposes that 02 was mistaken for ©S, because the transcriber knew that the passage was usually interpreted of God, the Word. " Nimirum OS facile *' transiit in ©2, cum librarii non ignorarent, locum hunc *' vulgo de S-foy Aoycy intelligi." But surely transcribers by profession (and such, before the invention of printing, were those who transcribed manuscripts) are never in the habit of reasoning upon the sense of what they copy. Ask a law- stationer of the present day, after he has engrossed the con- veyance of an estate with a long description of the title, whether that title accrued by descent or purchase j and he will perhaps be puzzled to answer the question. A tran- scriber therefore, in the case under consideration, having « 2 84 Upon the hypothesis therefore under consi- deration, which represents the Alexandrine text his attention rivetted to words and not to things, would be more likely, I apprehend, to commit an error by omission than by addition -, to overlook the horizontal lines which distinguish ©X from 05), than to supply them. I cannot help adding another remark with respect to the particular reading of the manuscript A. Mill states, that at first he suspected the reading of ^eos assigned to it j but that afterwards he clearly distinguished the ancient traces of the horizontal line which formed the : '' Verum postea perlus- " trato attentius loco, lineolse, quae primam aciem fugerant, " ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendi, praesertim " ad partem sinistram." Wetstein however conceives that Mill deceived himself, mistaking, for the horizontal line of the theta, that which belongs to an epsilon in a word on the op- posite side of the leaf. Prolegomena, p. 22. But VVoide main- tains this to be impossible, because the line of the epsilon in question is not precisely at the back of the theta, but a little he- low it. Not. Cod. Alex. §.87. The veracity of Mill, (to omit the testimony of others,) that he saw a line of this descrip- tion, seems unimpeachable. Can it be deemed remarkable, that it should have disappeared, after so long a lapse of years, in a manuscript perpetually examined in this particular place and injuriously treated, when it is considered, that Griesbach ad- mits the possibility of the evanescence even of whole letters in the Ephrem manuscript (sleeping quietly in the royal li- brary at Paris without molestation) between the short pe- riod of Wetstein' s time and his own ? " Immo vocabula non- 85 as the most ancient and most valuable, common prudence requires, that no manuscript be ad- mitted into an alliance with that text, except upon the most indisputable proofs of affinity. If an improper one be incautiously ranked with it, the confusion introduced must be incalcula- ble ; for the single testimony of this manuscript will then be regarded as outweighing that of an hundred others belonging to the Byzantine class. And if it moreover happen to be sup- ported by another of the Western, (no uncom- mon occurrence,) its reading, as far as the pre- ponderance of classes is to be regarded, will be deemed extremely probable : if supported by one or two more of its own class and of the Western together, indisputable. " Quotquot ^' enim ad eandem recensionem pertinent, testes *^ inter se consentientes, pro unieo haberi de- " bent. Usu igitur venire potest ut duo tresve " codices tantundem valeant, quantum alii een* " nulla, quae ego legere baud potui, assecutus erat ille, sive '^ armatis oculis ea perliistraverat, quod equidem baud fece- " ram, Mve liter arum ductus ^ ut credibile est, inde a Wetstenii *' tempore magis etanuerint." Symb. Crit. vol. L p. 6. G3 86 " turn ^." Indeed the principal use to be derived from the estabhshment of different texts, as laid down by Griesbach, is professedly the de- fence of readings, approved by critical conjec- ture, but discoverable in only a few manuscripts, against those of an almost innumerable crowd of later and inferior ones. ^^ Praecipuus vero recen- " sionum in criseos sacrae exercitio usus hie est, " ut earum auctoritate lectiones bonas, sed in ^^ paucis libris superstites defendamus adversus juniorum et vulgarium codicum innumerabi- lem paene turbam ^." It seems evident then, that the arrangement of classes is not intended to supersede, but to act in subordination to, conjectural criticism. Thus we perceive in John vii. 8. the word oux substituted for oMfrtMi (fyw o^nui avxQuivca us rnv Io^tiov rauriov) upon authority in this respect inferior; while in John i. 18. the word ^ioq is not substituted for uto?, (o fAovoyovns vlos) or even consigned to marginal probability, although countenanced by authority of the kind every way superior, ^ Prolegomena, p. 79. * Syrabolae Criticae, vol. i. p. 122. ., \ a c< 87 ' But how is this design of Griesbach^ particu- larly in the Epistles of St. Paul, to be carried into full effect, if he be precluded from his ap- peal to the Alexandrine text by a defect of evi- dence? Or rather perhaps, when the appeal sole- ly applies to manuscripts, from all evidence whatsoever ? Yet this, if my statement and mode of reasoning be more accurate than his, appears to be the unavoidable result of my in- quiry : for, if A and C are not Alexandrine, the class of the others, determined only by a com- parison with them, falls to the ground instantly. In all the preceding observations I have adopt- ed, after Griesbach, the supposed existence of three texts at least ; the Alexandrine, the West- ern, and the Byzantine : but I must add, that the existence of the Alexandrine seems to me very problematical. That there is a frequent diversity of readings between the Latin version and the received text is unquestionable ; and that this diversity is sufficient to constitute a distinct classification of readings may fairly per- haps be presumed. That there are also many Greek manuscripts generally coinciding with G 4 88 the Latin version (whether derived lineally or collaterally from the Greek original of that ver- sion, or from some other Greek copy or copies subsequently rendered conformable with it, I do not apprehend makes any great difference in the question) will, I doubt not, be readily grant- ed. Nor will the argument be aifected by the presumption, that the Latin version and its relatives are nothing more than illegitimate branches of an ancient Greek text ; because, whatsoever credit we may attach to their pecu- liar readings, they nevertheless still afford us a separate classification : but that there exists an Alexandrine text, more valuable as well as more ancient than either the Byzantine or the Western, has in my judgment been never prov- ed. There is certainly no manuscript to be re- ferred to as containing any thing like a clear specimen of such a text. And what is the tes- timony of the Alexandrine Fathers ? Do they all accord in appropriate readings of their own ? Or do even two of them thus accord of any one century? They indeed often coincide with the readings of the Western text; but do they often 89 read against it? I do not mean simply against three or four Western manuscripts ; but also against the Latin writers and the Latin ver- sions *'. For it seems not sufficient to demon- ^ The possibility that manuscripts written in Alexandria might have been adapted to the Latin text^ is thus stated by Michaelis in his remarks upon the manuscript A commonly called the Alexandrian : ** I confess that I am of the same *' opinion j because the inquiry turns not so much on the " Codex Alexandrinus as on the more ancient manuscript, " of which this is a copy. For if this ancient manuscript *^ latinized, the Cod. Alex, must do the same, in whatever " country it was written : and since it is by no means ne- *' cessary, that books constantly remain in the same countiy, *' and they may be transferred from one library to another, *' it is possible, that latinizing copies were brought from Italy '^ or the west of Africa into Egypt or Greece ; a faithful tran- *' script therefore from any one of these would likewise *' latinize, though written in Constantinople, Greece, or '* Egypt," Vol. ii. part i. p. 196. The following is the note of Dr. Marsh : '' The possibility that Greek manuscripts in *' AlexaTidria were altered from the Latin, no one can deny. ** Even so early as the time of Origen single alterations *' might have taken place j for the learned Father, in a pas- •*' sage quoted by Wetstein in his note to Matt. viii. 28. " complains of erroneous readings sv foi$ lAAryvixoi^ avri^ *' 'Yp!X(poi$, which clearly implies the use of manuscripts "" written in some other language tban the Greek : and, as he spent some time in Rome, it is not impossible that he ft 90 "strate, that Origen, or any other Alexandrine Father, has numerous variations from the By- zantine text : but also that these variations from the Byzantine do not coincide with the West- ern, that mighty rod of Aaron ever prepared to swallow the feebler rods of Egypt ; nor even to shew, that they are occasionally unconnected as well with the Western as with the Byzantine, unless it can be proved, that their irregularities in this respect are constant and peculiar ; not mere anomalies arising from accidental causes, and common to both the other texts. At pre- sent we can only presume upon the frequent recurrence of characteristical readings, until a collection of them be made and published from the joint writings of the Alexandrine Fathers. This however is a task which has never been at- tempted, although it seems to form an absolute preliminary to decision ; and which, I appre- hend, if ever undertaken, will at least prove as difficult in its accomplishment as hopeless in its effect. " made use of the established version of a church, which at all times maintained the highest authority." (C 91 I am aware that the reflections which I make run counter to pubHc prejudice, to the opinion of many whose Hterary talents concihate my esteem, and whose critical acumen command my respect. But, in the republic of letters, no supremacy is admissible but that of truth ; and I flatter myself, that I possess the same claim to the candour of others, which Griesbach has to mine. I shall not therefore, I trust, be mis- construed as wishing unnecessarily to diminish the number of classes adopted by him, from an overweening fondness for any pre-conceiv- ed system of my own, to which his allotted number might be deemed inimical. On the other hand, I sincerely wish that it could be augmented, convinced that the rule of classifica- tion would afford no inconsiderable advantages to textual criticism, could it be in more in- stances satisfactorily exemplified. I have ne- vertheless censured what appears to me an im- portant oversight in his argument; the presump- tion of five or six classes, but the investigation of only three, and that with the persuasion of as decisive an issue as if a perfect knowledge of the 92 whole had been attained : for I cannot admit the accuracy of that reasoning, which, from de- fective premises, attempts to draw complete con- clusions. Instead of estabhshing five or six classes, I confess that I see not good ground for the admission of even three. I do not however deny, that these, or more than these, exist, be- cause their existence is possible ; but I contend, that it has not been sufficiently proved. The idea of a classification of manuscripts on an extended scale is doubtless captivating, fraught with hope, and pregnant with promise : but the moment we commence its reduction to practice, difficulties start up on every side, and conjecture begins to supply the place of convic- tion. By an intricate and involved analysis we are tempted to exalt possibilities into probabili- ties, and probabilities into certainties ; we raise class over class in our system, as children pic- ture castle rising over castle in a stormy cloud, soon to be immerged in gloom and obscurity. But, although the prospect before us affords enough to satiate, there is, I fear, little in it to satisfy. We find ample scope for the sportive 93 gambols of imagination, but no very solid foot- ing for the soberer exertions of reason : while we fancy ourselves to be walking in the broad light of day, we may prove to be but wildly wandering in the dark, and stumbling at every step. APPENDIX. Readings of Origen alone^ where the Manuscript A agrees with the received Text, The Extracts are taken from the second Volume of the Symbolae Criticae, and limited to passages in which nei- ther Origen nor A is defective. JlvOMANS i. I. X^idTs Irjo-tf for 1*3(78 Xpia-rs, Ibid. Il^ =T<. Ibid. v[ji,iv ^(^oipKrfjia. for yoLpiaiKot. vfiiv. Ibid. i8. on for yap. Ibid. 25. aAAa^avrsj for ^usraKKoL^aVT^, Ibid. 27. otpcsvss for agfsvsg, B D G Ed. ii. 8. xocxiu for oBixia. Ibid, g. + xon, Ibid.=Ts. Ibid. 10. =§6 D et MSS. Ibid. 16. £V XoKTTco I>j(rtf for ^tx I)j(r« XpKTTov* iii, 19. Kuhsi for Aeya. Ibid. 21. = t«. Ibid. 2^.'=sig svhi^iv T>3J hxcuoavvr}^. Ibid. 30. = 6. v. 3. }cotv^oo[/.£voi for xaup^co- /uts^a Tert. Ibid. 5.'J-t8. Ibid. 7. jxoytj for jxoA3V. ix. 7. oo'oj for or e*(r*. Ibid. Travrw? for TravTSf. Ibid.H-xai, Ibid. i2.^ayT)] D clar. Aug, 96 Ambrst. Beda. Ibid. 13. xada^rep for xo^wj. Ibid. 23. = xai Vulg. Hier. Pel. Sedul. Fulg. Ibid. 33. = £7r' olutm *x. 4. -|-xai Trgo^YjToov Cyril. **Ibid. 8. + r) ygot^vi D E F G Vulg. It. &c. Cyr. Ibid. 10. jotsv for yap. xii. 14. Touj ep^<&^8f y)ju.6oy for t«j Stcoxovraj ^ju,aj. Ibid. 16. u\J/)jXo- ^gov8VTs$ for ra uv|/*jXa (ppovsvrsc, xiii. 2. o» avdeftjxorgj for 6 ctVTnu(r(roixsvog. Ibid, av^ig-avrai for av3^ef>jxev. * Ibid. 9. 00 fovev(rsiS} ov fi.oi^sv(Tsi$ for 8 [j,oi^sv(rstg, a (povsvo'sis Clera. * Ibid.=:oux e%i^v[jLYi(T6ig Clem. Ibid, sv tco Xoyop tovtoo for rovTco Tw Xoycjp D E F G. Ibid. la. sxBuo-ajxevoi for aTrodco- /xe^a. Ibid. 13. ou for ]x>j. Ibid, ou for jw.)j a second time, xiv. 9. = xa» avs^Yiasv F G Vulg. xvi. 20. = t))j sipv^vrig. Ibid. 25« = xa* TO TtYipuyiiu Itjcrou Xpia-Tov. Ibid. 26. + xai T>jj £7ri(pav6iaj Ttf xu/5»« r^cov Iijcs X^tftf. Codd. ap. Hier, This addition occurs thrice. I Corinthians i. 23.4-I>30'8v. ii. 2. firfisv sihvon for « aSsVai T<. * Ibid. 5. rijawv for ujotcov Clem. Mt. k. Ed. Ibid. II. w§ 8hig oihv for rig oihv, ** iii. I. ufjuv \txXrijj for t>)j sjw-^js. Ibid. 14. §»a^>)v for ^>;v. Ibid. 19.4 awTcov. * * Ibid. 22. xepS^jcrco for crojcrco Clem. Tert. Aug. Hier. x. 11. a-uvs^amv for a-ws^aivov. Ibid, ly. + xaj. Ibid. 32. = xa* sAX>3(n. xi. 4. sv^ofxsvog for tt^oct- sv^o[ji,svos. Ibid. 25. sav for av. Ibid. 29. + 5/5. Ibid. = e«y- II 9; Ttt), xii. S. + dsoy. Ibid, ll. ravTa le itoLVTct for Travret ^f Tiscara. Ibid. = To D F. Ibid, x^q^f^y^y for 5j. Ibid. 26. a for sits. F G Vulg. It. Ambr. Pel. Beda. Ibid, xa* a for ej. Ibid. STrtTsKeiv for rsAeiv Ibid. 17. jM-sv for yap. Ibid. 19. f^oi^sioti Tropveiut Sec. for ^LOi')(sia. TtopvsiOL &C. Ibid. = axa^ap(na. Ibid. 25. ftvzvu.aixi ^oofjt,sv for JctifAsv Trvsvpi-uTi, * * vi. 8.=layToy Cyril. Aug. Cassiod. Ephesians i. 4. H-s/j ro before eiva*. Ibid. 5.=Ti5(roy. Ibid. ly. + Tow ,&£oy. Ibid. 21. i^^ovcwv for BwaiJi^soog. ii. 2.^ WTTO for xara. Ibid. 3. >j|U.g^a for )jjw.sv. Ibid. 6,+r)(jLoig. Ibid. 12. ccKXorpiOi for ciTroXXwTfiaopLsvoi, Ibid, roy ^soy for Tijf e^rayyeAiaj. iii. lo'^yyv F G Vulg. cjar. Boern. Tert. H 98 Aug. &:c. iv. T4.=T)jf. Ibid. 27. Jwre for SiSorf. v. 2. eawTOV TrapgSoJxev for Traps^coxsv exvrov. Ibid.=7rpocrjju.«;v after (roipxoi:, ** Ibid. = too (yw^arog tcov dixugTtcov, Tert. Cypr. Cyr. Ibid. 14. ripiv for ijpxev D G. Ibid. 15. ^piay^Ssva-us £V roo ^vkop for ^pnxix^^sucrug uvrovg ev ocutco. iii. ^,-\-a(J's\'YeioLV, Ibid. 9. exSuo-aju-svoi for ccnsy^vcruij^evoi* 1 Thessalonians ii. 7.=aAA.*. Ibid. 14. ra ayra for TuvTu F G multi MSS. Chrys. iv. 13. (as for Ku^a)$, v, 19. oy (T^swuTUi for jxr^ c^swure. Ibid. 23. 6 Se dfioj for aa- To^ 8s 6^60$. Ibid.=T)35 sipv^vYi^, 2 Thessalonians ii. 2. = Tap^ea;j. Ibid. 8ia Xoyov ftrjre 8i« TrvsviJuuTog for 7rvsv[j.uro$ /xijre 8<« Koyov, 1 Timothy i. 15. Irjo-oyj X^/oroj for X^kttoj I*jo-ouj. ii. 9. xoa-fxicos for noa-f/^icti D F G. Ibid. 15. sTrav |u.eiv>j ev for SUV ixeivoo(nv ev, v. 9. e(TTco for xaraXeyscr^co. vi. 8. 83Xo(ppoysiv. Ibid.=^jw-iv. Ibid* wavra TrXovaricog for TrAoycico^ ^ravra D E multi MSS. Vulg, clar. germ. Pel. Ibid. 18. aya^ijj for xaXoij. Ibid. 21. Efauayrjcrav for ijo-Top^^ijtrav. 2 Timothy u ^.-{-(lov D E Vulg. clar. germ. Am.- 99 brst. Pel. Cassiod. Ibid. jo. xvpiov for a-wr-ripog'. Ibid. 16. 6 xu^joj s\so^ for lA?oj Kvpiog, Ibid. ]7. o-Troy^aicoj for iT'^ovdciiOTSpov D F G. ii. 21. = a7ro rourwv. iii. II. £9ra^oy for jofcoi eysvsTO. iv. 2. '7rupuK(xXs)V. * Ibid, 23. jjXAafavro for viWu^oiv. Cyr. Mt. g. k. 9, 3* Theod. TheophyL **n.^, + xui D multi MSS. Martin papa. Theodul. Cyr. CEc. Chrys. Ibid. hKUioavvrig for hxouoKpia-iu^. Ibid. 14. Ss for ya^. G Boern. utrumque* Ibid. Pi roiO'jToi for outoi G Vulg. It. Ibid. 1^. to /SoyA^jaa for TO epyov. Ibid. iJ.a.gTupovjcroy Xpia-Tou, vii. 9.=t»jj. viiL 8. ^cyvxej for ovre^. ibid. 13. T>3f 3va<. *Ibid. 28^ 4- to before ayabov multi MSS. Mt. b. al. 5. Theophyl. Clem. Ibid. 29.4-^)5^ So|>j?* Ibid. 3O.=T0UT0a^. ix. II. f^yihTrca for jO-rjTroj. Ibid.4-iW'»3T's before yevv)3.&£VTajy. Ibid, fx-^jre for jutyj^s. Ibid. l2. + auT»2 D clar. germ. harl. Aug. Ambrst, Beda. Ibid. eA^r- TfiVA for ihu]V foF 11$ Tl-' |x>)v (Txsuoj. * X. 4. irXYipoifjuu for xeAoj Clem. once. lb. 6, = evT>j KotghiA j5 D E F G Vulg. MS. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. lb. ev aTroSafa 8f ju,aXXov for aXA' ev a^roBafa. lb. twv Xoyoov for Koyoig, lb. 7. Sfxaicov for y)jxa)V. lb. 8. TOUToa tow aiaivog for tou aicovoj tow- Tou. lb. XpKTTov for xupiov, lb. 9.= a. lb. o<5s for eiS?. lb. ii.=tou oLv^pcjoTTov F G Boern. Hil. Ambr. Vigil. lb. + 6VOixoyv. lb. 12. UTTO for u^ro. lb. 13. -GrvevfjioiTixot •crveu- /xaTixoi^ for ijTvsu[JioiTixots 'crvsujtx.aTixa. lb. 14. eo'Tiy aoTw for ctuTO) fcTTiv. iii. 3. (ragxtvoi for cra^xixoj D F G. lb. I5» = §£. lb. l9.=TooToy. iv. I.+Tojv. lb. II. = xai. lb. 13. =Tot;. V. ^. = lri). Ib, = ev. lb. Sg for ju,>j5s. vii. 5« ^oiv jji^i^ti for ci ju^vjti ccv. lb. (rv(ji(^covius for (njy.(^(avov, lb. 34. TrvsujW-aTi xa< (Toifj^otTt for a'co[jt,uri xai wvsujxaTi. lb. 39. = before the second avTj^. lb. ^povov d av>3^ auTijj 5»; for ^povov |tj avij^ oivtyi^, viii. 5. 'dsoi Xs- yoy^Bvoi for Ksyoiuevoh ^soi. '^ f lb. 6. = xai y//ttfij aj auTOv Clem, z^/ videtur Cassiod. lb. 8. Trspia-asvofxe^a. for 7re- pi3f, * * lb. 9. = Sff D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Hilar. Ambrst. alii. Clem, lb. 9. aXAw for Irepa). lb. 26, (ryvSofa^sTai for (TvyKCiipei, ** lb. 27. fisXovs for jocspouf D Vulg. clar. germ. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Beda. Cyril. lb. 3i.=Ta. xiii. 2. ^KTTiv iroLO-ay for 'kolo'olv T)jv 7r»(rT]. Ib. = xai auTO^ 0. lb. 35. e^si 8s for uX\* ipsi Ti§. lb. o» vsxpoi sysigovToii for syeipovTOLf oi Vcxpoi. lb. xat -TTOiw for TTotM h. lb. 38. yap for 8s. lb. 42.=t«;v. lb. 50. dwuTcti for 8yvavTa«. lb. = xXy3povo/xa. 2 Corinthians i. 5. = sij ^jxa?. Ib. = 8j ^ u7rsp/3oX>j T»)f 80- vuy,soog rov ^sov for ^ uTrsp^oXYi t>3j 8uvajU,sa;j ^ tou ^sou. xii. 7. xoXa(pKr>j for xoAai^iJrj. xiii. 4. e/ yag for xm yap st, lb. ctTTS^ocvsv for eo-Taupw^yj. Galatians i. 4. cuTro for ex. ii. i9.4-'raj. lb. 20. = 8e. iv. I. jXYjOsv for eSey. lb. 16. vpi^iv for u/jtcov. lb. y/x-iv ctXri^svcov for aA>)^eua>v ujxjy. lb. 21. tov vofji^ov uvoiyivcoa'xovTs§ for vtto vofiov ^sXovTsg eivon. * * lb. avayivojo-xsTe for uxowsts B D E F G Vulg. It. Hier. Ambr. Ambrst. Beda. Cyr. lb. 23. «3 102 Kui for akXu, V. 8. = oyx D. Codd. Lat. ap. Hier. et Se- dul. clar. germ. lb. 2:2. X^P*^ £ip>)v>) ayuTrr} for ayaitri ^apa s

3vi3. lb. 22. xapTro* for KOLpito^, vi. 8. xa< for 5g. lb. i4.=^jX£tfj/. lb. )} for a/xrj. lb. ^^^ttou \y^yQvvT0§ vuv for vuv evspyovvrog, lb. 7. XpYjaTorrjTog for y^upiTOc. lb. 20. ojxoSojU,>j.&=vrej for eTroixoSojavj^evrgs'. lb. ray before '7rpoj'7rjOi. lb. ev tjj jxedoSeia for £v 'Truvovpynx. Tcpog TTjy ju-g^oSsiav. lb. g7r< rijv ^.v^sictv for £v tjj xv^siu. lb. TOU TTXoiVQVS for T)JV 7rA«V))f. lb. 27. TTOVYipcO foT dux^oXco. Philippians i. 23. xuXXiov avaXuo-at for ryjy gTridujOnay s^f^ f'? TO avaAuo-a*. Ib. = yoe^ D E F G Vulg. It. Aug. Pel. Cassiod. Beda. ii. ic-fx?*^"^®^' ^^^* ^^' '^i"'"^" ^"^^ ^ju^a^y. Golossians i. 16. gxTjf before yvoiosoos D. Clem, semel. lb. 8.=t«;v. lb. 14. =xa^' ^jxwy. lb. 16. xpivsTM TIC ya«j for Tig viJiot; xpivsTM. lb. xa* for >j. lb. ^i. ]u<»j twice for [XYjh Ambr. Aug. Ambrst. iii. 4. 6 be- fore Xpio-roj. Ib. + T>j. lb. 10 =ayTOv. lb. gvSyojxevoi for evSycra/jisvoi. iv. 6. onroKpivoKr^cn for u7roxpivsjcroyy. lb. i6. ^ ogyij ew* uvTovs for stt' avTov$ yj ogyv}, iv. r5. = sv in MSS. lb. l5, -^Tou before ^sov. lb. uyyeKou for up^^^ocyysXov, v. 2?i = a7ro. lb. 23. Ty;^)jde7rega<^o^evoj F G. Ib. = As- yofjisvov, lb. S. + '^soj after xvgio;. lb. q. + tow before \[/£y^ ^oy^ * * lb. I2. = ev D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Cyr. 1 Timothy ii. i. + u/xaj. Ib.=7ravTa)v F G Boern. Ibi 8. Toug ccv^ga; Trgoarsv^sa-^ai for Trpocreup^eo'^'ai rouj uv^pois D F G Vulg. in Wetstein. lb. oo-ius for 6crjj for si; ripuriv, iii. 16. owo-a for xa*. Ib. + ecTTj, iv. 4. aTroorgefpovrsj ayryjv for rrjv axor^v Titus iii. 3. = 7roTs. lb. uvor^roi uTrei^sis for aTrsj^eij avo- >3T0<. lb. =7rAav«;ju,£vo<. lb. +'ro^A«*? >ta*« lb. 5«+'roy. lb. =:uyiov, 245 Constant 199 Inconstant 245 444 To these the following eleven should be added, which were accidentally omitted in the calculation. Constant, ** i Cor. ii. 27. kutukt^vvyi tsc aopng trans- posed D Vulg. clar. germ. Cyr. lb. 28. = tou xoo-- fwu. lb. 29. iva for ottmc. iii. 11. XpiG-jog Ikjo-okj for \r,(T(jv$ H4 104 X^/cTTo; D E Vulg. clar. germ. Patr. Lat. x. t. fjuoovs-riv for ju-cocDjy F G alii. Patr. xii. 6. xai for 6 h, Galatians * * iv. '26.r=cravTcov D E F G Vulg. It. Tert. Ambrst. alii. Isidor. Cyr. Colossians * iii. 5.=6^cyy Clem. Inconstant, i Corinthians ** xv. 4y. = xvpiog D E F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Ath. Cyr. Isidor. ** lb. ^^, xev- rpov and viko$ transposed. Vulg. Tert. Hier. alii. Ath. Cyr. I Thessalonians * * ii. 7. VYiTrm for Yi-Trm D F G Vulg. It. Ambrst. Pel. Aug. alii. Clem. Cyr. The whole number of the Constant readings will then amount to 207, and of the Inconstant to 248 ; of both, to 455. N. B. A single asterisk * denotes a passage in which Origen agrees with one or more Alexandrine writers ; and two asterisks * * denote, when he agrees not only with one or two Alexandrine writers, but also with the Western text. Agreements of A with Origen, where the re- ceived Text reads alone, Romans * * i. 19. ^sog yap for 6 yap ^eog D E G Ath. * lb. 27 • oippsvs$ sv appecrt for otga^sve; sv otg(rs(ri 17, al. 6. Clem. Theod. ii. 8. opyri xai ^uixog for ^vfxos xa* ogyy^ D E G Vulg. It. Patres Lat. * lb. 14. ttoicoo-i for ttoiij 47, 67, 73. al. 2. Mt. b. Clem. viii. 26,=:u7rsp Yjfjccov D F G clar. Boern. ** lb. 36. kvsxsv for kvsxa F G Clem. ix. II. jjv cucrs/Sco^ for suas^Mg ^>)v. ^^ Agreeinents of A with Origen, where Or'igen reads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A and with the received Text, Romans * * vii. 14. Is for yap D E Hil. Ruf. Ambr. Aug. semel Beda. Cyr. viii. 28. + -^so;. ix. 19. jw,o/ «v for ow /xo*. « . I Corinthians ** ii. ii. = av^pco7r«;v Ath. Cyr. Vigil, taps. * iv. 13. Su(r9>3|aouju,£vc»i for ^X(X(T = ^s Vulg. MS. Cypr. alii. ** lb. ^g.=ctuTY}g Vulg. MS. Vig. taps. Cyr. * viii. 8. Trupaa-rrio-i for Tra^jcrryjo-j Clem. Ath. x. 4. =aoTO. * * lb. ii.=%civTu Cyr. Pacian. xii. 31. f/,si^ovot. for xpEiTTQvu, Vulg. Hier. xiii. io,=tots D F G Vulg. It. Ambrst. Aug. alii. xv. 25.=av D E F G MSS. alii. lb. + ayroy E Boern. harl. Tert. Vict. alii. lb. 38. w di'Baxriv etvTco for avTo) h'^ooo'iv unnoticed by Griesbach in New Test. 2 Corinthians iil. i8. {ji£rci{jiop(pov[jt.svoi for iizraiuop^Qr^' fjti^oi unnoticed in New Test. iv. 6.=:lr}(rou Tert. Galatians i. 4. aicavo^ rs svsfcorog for t8 svss-cjoTog oncovos. Ephesians ii. 3. (puasi rstcvct for tsxvcc (pu(T£i D E F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. lb. 7. to v-TtspfSuXXov TrXourog for tov wrsplSocXovrci -TrXovrov D F G. * * vi. I2.=T0U oiioovo$ D F G Vulg. It. Patr. Lat. Clem. Ath. 2 Thessalonians ii. 8. avsXst for uvuXcoara D F. Ibid. io. = £v D F G Vulg. It. Tert. Aug. Ambrst. alii. Ibid. 1 1 . 'crsjaTra for •ursfji.i/si D F G Vulg. MS. Ambrst. Ibid. 12. (XTTuvTsc for -sravrgj. • I Timothy ii. 9. xui for >3 before xpucria) D F G jclar. 29 • Agreements of A C with Origen^ where the re- ceived Text reads alone, * * Romans i. i6.=Toy y^pi(rrou A B C D E G Vulg. It. Cyr. Ibid. 2,4, — kui A B C 17, 31, 47, 75. Vulg. * * iii. 22. = xa* stti isuvtols ABC Codd. Lat, Aug. Clem. Cyr. * Ibid. 30. si-psp for sTrsiTrsp A C, Clem. Cyr. * * Ibid. 31. laTuvoiJisv for la-Tcofxsv A B C F (rTuvo[/.5v G Cyr. vi. i2. = auT>j sv A B C 4, 39, 47, 67, 80. Vulg. Hier. Aug. &c. * * viii. 38. ovts svsa-Tooru ours jjisXXovTU OVTS hwocixsig for OUTS 8yva/xs3 crKctvhuXi^sTui yj ao-^^^sva A C 67. 108 Orig. hue usque tan turn exeitans versum. Ruf. Aug. semel. * * I Corinthians i. 23. e^vecri for IXX>3^ofa(na/ A C 23, 46, 57, 71, 74. Vulg. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem. **vii. 3. OipaXifjv for OJ^aXo/xevy^v euvoiav A B C D E F G 6, 17, 46, 67, 71. Vulg. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrst. caeterique Latini. Clem. **Ibid. 5.=t»j vrjcrraa xai A B C D E F G 9, 10, 17, 29, 46, 47, 67, 73. Vulg. It. Cypr. Ambrst. Pel. Hier. Aug. Ambr. Clem. Cyr. ** Ibid. jT£ for (TxoAaJijTs A B C D E F G 39, 46, 73, 74, 80. Dion. Isid. **Ib. vjTs for avvsgx^a^s A B C D E F G Boern. Aug. Clem. Cyr. **Ib. y.,h for yap A C D F G 17, 23, 39, 46. It. Tert. Cypr. Hil. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Aug. Cyr. * * Ibid. £p^a ^txpKTfxa, for ;^a/ji(rjxa s^si A B C D E F G It. Cypr. Clem. Cyr. ix. 8. r; xa/ 6 vofj,o§ tuvtu ov \syst for »3 ou;)^i voju^oj TctuTu ksyst A B C D E.46. Vulg. clar, Ambrst. Aug. ^ * Ibid. 10. o^aXa en eXTriSi for en eXnih o^aXaABC 17,31,37,46^ 80. Vulg. Aug. Pel. Beda.Cyr. ** Ibid, stt' sXTTiSi T8 fxers^stv omitting the subsequent en sXtt/Si ABC Vulg. Pel. Beda. Aug. Cyr. ** Ibid. 16. yup for Ss A B C D E F G 6, 10, 17, 23, 39, 46, 71. Vulg. It. Hier. Ambrst. Aug. Ambr. alii. Cyr. * * Ibid. 21. 109 ^sou for ^e«j A B C D E F G 7, ly, 26, 31, 37, 42, 46, 6y, 73. Vulg. It. Ambrst. Hier. Aug. Pel. Cyr. Isid. lb. + TOUJ before otvofjiovs A B C D 17, 71, 73. editio Coli- naei. * * x. i. yap for Se A B C D E F G 17, 39^ 46, 73, 80. al. 6. Hilar. Clem. Cyr. * * Ibid. 11. tottikms forruTro* A B C F lo, 17, 33, 31, 46, 47, 57, 71, 73, 80. In figura Vulg. It. Patres Latini. Cyr. * * Ibid. i3.=u^«j AB C D E F G I 17, 32, 46, 47, 52, 6y, 73, 80. Vulg. It. Cyr. * Ibid. 32. xa* louSaioij yivso-^s for yivea-^i xcn louSaioij ABC 17, 37^ 73. Cyr. xii. 21* + 6 before o^^uXfxo^ A C D E F G I 23, 46, 48, 72, 73, 74, 80. al. 7. Mt. a. d. i. al. 6. * * xv. 49, 71. 73p ^o, Mt. f. Vulg. It. Patres Latini. * * Ephesians iii. 5.=£y A B C D E F G 17, S7i 73> 110 So. al. 41. pluresve. Mt. a. al. 10. Vulg. It. Hier. alii. Clem. * * Ibid. 6, = uvTorj A B C D 17, 73. Vulg. MS. clar. germ. Hier. Pel. Cyr. * * Ibid. 8.=t«;v A C D E F G alii multi. Mt. a. m. al. 10. Cyr. * Philippians i. 24. = sv A C 19, 45, 47, ^^, 61, Mt. c. k. Clem. Petr. Alex. Cyr. **Colossians iv. i. spuvwfor spavois A B C 19, 31, ^y, 39, 57, 73. Mt. f. Edit. Colon. Fulg. unnoticed by Griesbach. Clem. 2 Timothy iii. 6. ai^fxaXuiTi^ovreg for ui^fxotXooTsvovTeg A C D E F G 17, 31, 47, S7> 7U 72, 73' 74- al. 8. Mt. k. n. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. Ibid.=Ta A-C D E F G 57) 71? 72) 73? 74) 80, 87. al, 11. pluresque. Mt. a. al. 9. Chrys. Theophyl. Titus i. 5. u'KB'Ki'Kov for. kutsXittov A C D F G 17, 23, 3i>45> 57^ <^7W3- Mt. a. 53. Agreements of A C with Origen^ where Origen reads inconstantly^ agreeing both with A C and with the received Texts, ** Romans i. 21. riv^upis-yia-av for euxo^pig-ria-eiv A C D E 17. Clem. Ath. Cyr. viii. 14. vloi ^eou zia-iv for e^(T^v v\oi ^£tf A C D 39, 47, 80. Vulg. MS. clar. germ. Cassiod. I Corinthians i. 29. roy ^sou for uvtou A C D E F G I 17) 235 ^1^ 39^ 4<^) 47) 48) 57) 6I) 72) 73^ 74) 80. al. 41 . Mt. a, al. 1 1 . It. Chrys. Aug. * * Ibid. 30. 3crouy A B C 5^ 17, 46* Vulg. Ambrst. Pel. Ambr. Victor. Aug. Sedul. Bed. Cyr. * * Ibid. xy^*o; lri ^o- al. 23. Mt, a. al. ^. Clem. 19. Agreements of A with Origen 53 ■ — ' inconstant 29 Agreements of A C with Origen 53 ' '-' inconstant 19 Total agreements of A with Origen 154 112 Deviations of A alone, in opposition both to Ori- gen and the received Text, Romans i. 17. 5s for re. Ibid. 28. = 6 ^soj. ii. 5. av- TaTToSoo-ccoj for wTroKoiXu^satg. iii. 4. v/x>jo-eij for v«x>)(r*jj un- noticed by Griesbach. A D 29, 30, 32. Wetstein. lb. 42. 6V 'KpKTTcti Ir)(rou for I)3crou Xg«(rTOu. Ibid. 25. = 8»a t>j; wicTTfooj. V. 13. eXXoyuTO for eXXoyeixo. Ibid. 15. + 0UV. Ibr 17. 6v Ivi for Tw Tou evoj. Origen has ev hog. vii. 3. + ^ before yuvrj. Ibid. 2^.=tco vofjt,(o ra voo? fjiov. viii. 30. xai ouj for 06$ 8s. Ibid. Tposyvu) for Trpocopias, Ibid. 39. tow xvpiov for T«j xuptto, ix. J 6. eAfoovroj for «Xsouvtoj. Ibid. 20. CO avd^coTTS fjLsvouvys for /tsvouvye ei> uv^pwnc. xi. 20. wv|/>jXa (ppovei for o\|/>)A.o^^ovfi. Ibid. 26. = xa(. xiii. I. utto for aTTO, Ibid.= gfowericti. Ibid.=TOo. Ibid. 9. + e(rTiy lb. 12. ijyyKTsV for ijyyixev. Ibid, e^ya for bitXci, xiv. ]0. -^sou ior ^pi(T70\), xvi. 20. cvvrpi^on for ), xai ra a(r^ev>j tou xoc/tou e^sXefaxo 6 ^50j, ii. 9. ocra for «. Ibid. Jj. + Ta. iii. 7. = ot/T6. Ibid. 10. e^ijxa for Tsdeixa. iv. 2. «8ff for 68e. Ibid. ?»)T£/ts for JijTgiTaj. v. 8. lopTa^Ojxev for sopTot^ctifxsv, Ibid. >)XixpiViaj for etXixpivsiois. Ibid. II. jxr; for jxijSs. vi. 10. ou for oure. Ibid. = ou before xX)j^oyo/A>j- (Toua-i, Ibid. 15. fi/xcov for u/xa>v. vii. 12. Xgyco gyco for syco Xeyui, Ibid. 32. a^ecr*j for ageasi. Ibid. 39. aTro-^avyj for xo«]tt>j3ij. viii. 6. ujttiv for yi{jhv. Ibid. 8.=5yap. Ibid. + jtJt-'J before the first ^ctyooiji^ev, and subsequently omitted, x. 3. TTveufj^otuxov s(puyov ^§ai[xoi. for ^pcti[ji,u TzvsviLunyiOv s<^ayov. Ibid. = auTo. xi. 5» >««' wacra for Tracra 8e. Ibid. 25, = 6(ra- xig av TTivriTs sig tjjv >jjx>]v uvotfjivr^(nv» xii. 26. = sv. xiii. 4. 'TTspTTOpsusTui for 'TrspTTspsusTcii. XIV, 1^, 'ff§o(rsv^cti[jiui forTrpoo-- pujojxai. Ibid. 21. iTg^wv for erspois, xv. 5. STretTa fer 5*Tat 113 ibid. 19. SV p(pia-TCp YlX'TTUOTSg S(TIXSV (JiOVOV for -riKTTlTiOTSg £0"]a=y sy ^pKTTcp ij^ovov. Ibid. 2^.=^Tov. Ibid. 24. 7r«paS<§«; for TTupoi^cti. lb. 28.=Ta. Ih, ^J, + ot.hX3 ev TOO (Tctiu.ciTi Y}fji.oov for £V TM (yu)[jt.aTi Yjixcov !puvepco^Yi, xii. 7- =*v« /xrj xjivspcupwixoLi, Ibid. 9. TeAs](pa5. iii. 28. ej-s ^picrrov I»jcroy for S5"£ ^i' %§'r)(rao-^a< tor xav^oKT^ai. Ephesians iv. 8. Y}^(/.jTe. V. 31. T>5 yuvatxt for 'irgog rvjv yuvaixa, Philippians i. 29. rjjotjv for i/|a»v. ii i^.-\-hvcitji.sis. iii. 8- Ir^trou ^pKTTOv for -^pKyTOv Iyjo-qu. Ibid. 2i. = sjj TO y=V£(r3a» «uto. iv. 7. ^pKTTOu for deou. Ibid. I3.=p(^^i- (TTCO. Colossians ii. j^.=tov. Ibid. i8.=jay3. iii. 4. = cryv avTco. 1 Thessalonians iv. 13. Xu7rejo-^s for XuTnjcr^s. 2 Thessalonians ii. S. + lvi&ag. 1 Timothy i. i. p^picrrou lyjo-ou for li^o-ow ^pijf for sTn'^iop^Mo-r}, lb. 15. /itep«- l/,svoi$ for ixsi/.iu(ri/,svois, iii. 5. ro eXsoj for tov sXeov. lio The deviations of A C, in opposition both to Origen and the received text, have been already given in a note, pp. 385 39. Their amount is 30, which, added to the preceding no, makes 140, the total of the de- viations of A alone. Headings of the Boernerian Manuscript G, where A agrees with the received Text. Romans i. 16. stti suuyysKiov for to evciyyEXiov. Ibid. = £3p»av. Ibid.rriTT^wTov. Ibid. 1 8. -|-t«;v before av- ^pMTToov, Ibid. 19. oTi for ^ioti. lb. 20. bpara. for uoqccra.. Ibid. 21. aoLptioL auTciiv for uvtmv xotpliot. Ibid. 26.'\-^pY}(nv. ii. 8.=ftev. Ibid. 9. lAAijv* for IXA>}voj. Ibid. 14. rot e^vr} for e-&v)j. iii. %.-=-yot.p. Ibid. 19. Asyei for XolKzi, v. 8. 6 deof e«j ^/xac for eij fijw-a^ 6 ^eoj. Ibid. £« er* for st*. Ibid. 12. 63f. Ibid. I5.=touto. viii. iy. = xKi^govoixoi [xsv ^sou (TvyK}j before sv a-o^io.. Ibid, 6. = 0u8£ TWV app^OVTOJV Toy CUCUVGS TtfT8. Ibid, II. Ta £V TO* dew for Ta T« ^£8. Ibid. 1 2. + T8T8. Ibid, I3. = a. Ibid. . iv. i. + t8 before dss. Ibid. 2* Tig TTKTTog for TTKTTog Tig, Ibid. 5. = 0^. Ibid, II. loj^ for u^piT^gk Ibid. I2. + xa<. V, 5, ayTOv for Tov TOioyrov. Ibid, 8. fropvsioLg for TropvYipictg. vi. 3. ocrcra; fjiotXXov for ju-rjTi ys. vii. 2. Ttjv Tropvsioiv for Ta; Tropvsiug. Ibid, 7.+ Toy before '^£8. Ibid. 18. £xX>3d>3 T3'^>5. Ibid. 39. + xa«, Ibid, yajw^vjdij for y«ja>)-&>]ya<. Ibid. 40. s^oo for £xs5 for £V Tp vsi^eXii xai £V t>j daAacro-rj. Ibid. I2. = r) before wsTpa. Ibid. 13. xaTaAa^>] for sjAtji^sv, Ibid, «

](r£i for £a(r£j. Ibidl4-oy before Syvao-^s. Ibid, 4-y^5V£yx£iv after the first ^woio-^s. Ibid, 20, ^cuimovK^v I % 116 icoivcjov8§ for >coivwv8§ Tcov lonii^Qvioiv, Ibid, sivai for yivicr^of. Ibid. 31. iroisiTe n for t< ttoisits. Ibid. = 7roj before xg(paA>). Ibid. I9. = £j/ Uja«v. xii. 3. = AaX(a;v. Ibid. 25. ayid^hOLTa for j7rt« xaTrjpyyjxa for xaTYjpyrjxocTcc T8 VYi7ri8. Ibid. I3. = vuvi. xiv. I5.=:8e. Ibid. 21. hepai^ y\ui(r(rai$ for sregoyXootraoig. Ibid. 8h7roo for wS' owTcoj. Ibid. ei(rocx8(rcTOLf for eia-a.K8(rovTcLf. Ibid. 32. 7rv=UjU,a for 'CTvsvy.uTcc, xv. 5* evSexa for ScoSexa. Ibid. 6.-=^xoif, Ibid, 8.=Ta;. Ibid, xa/ £ju,o< for xuf/^oi. Ibid. 12. ex vsxgoov on for oTi ex vsxpMv. Ibid. 20.+t«;v before nxpoov. Ibid. 23.4-0* sATTKravTej. Ibid. 25. = auT«. Ibid. 27. + «yTaj. Ibid. '^6.-\-'GTpviT0v, Ibid. 40. = (rtt;jU.aTa. Ibid. 41. + 8e. Ibid. 5e for xot/. Ibid. 47* + 8gotviog, Ibid. 48. = xa/. Ibid. 8gotvtoi for 67r8guvioi, Ibid. 49. = x«/. Ibid. 50. yap for 5e. Ibid. = BuvayToe/. Ibid. 52. poTrrj for p<7r>j. Ibid. ^;^. for TO. Ibid. =THTo, Ibid. ^/^. = 6tixv h to jT«/ «^av«- 2 Corinthians i. 5- + '*'^** iii* 7* ^^ 7p«/X]aaT/ for ev ygccfj,- lUOLdiV, Ibid. rvTruifLiVYj for evTSTUTrajjuteyy). Ibid. p. + ecTTiv. Ibid. 15. xsiToii ETTi rrjv xapSiav ayrwv for e7r» ttjv xup^iotv avTwv xsto/. Ibid. 16. OTav for r^vixa. Ibid. 18. aTroTTTpi- |ojM.evo» for xa.TO'rrTpi^oi/.evoi, iv, 4. for 6j. Ibid. 5. xvpiov I>jo"oyv for ^^^^icttov Irjcroyv xvpiOv. Ibid. 6. = 6f. Ibid. ayTow for Tou deou. Ibid. 10. Ijjo-ou p^pio-Tou for T/jo-oy. xii. 9. a- TTsv for oprjxey. Ib.=/xou. xiii. 3. KukovvTog sv spLoi for ev Sjtco* KaK8VT03(paj. Ibid. 12. ex 'S7spiro[XYicrovTa$ for ex TTspiTOjxrjg. iii. 19. iir^a^aicov for "^jTixpot^ua-ewv. Ibid. I9.=p^a^/0"&y>'« iv. 6. sv co xpu^oixsv for Ttpu^ov. Ibid. 10. svi(xuT8g xolj xaipoug for xaj^ou; x«/ evtau- T8^. Ibid. II. exoTTiaxa for KsxoTtiotxu. Ibid. 27. jtcrj for 8. V. 6, = ovTc 7:sgno[xv) t» j(r;;^u£<. Ibid. 15. Saxvere xcq xaT- sa-^isre aAAjjAouc for aXX-^Kovg SaxvsTS xctf xarecr^iSTe. Ibid. avaAwdy^TS utt' ocXXriKcjov for utt' uWYjXctiv avaXw^yjre. Ibid. 25. = xay. vi. 8. rifj cra^xi for s/f tijv (rocpKoc,^ Ibid, aura for koLUTou. Ibid. + «yT8. Epheslans ii. 2. + T«ro. Ibid. 2.=t8. iii. 5. ayre aTro- (TToXois for a.%Qa-TO\oig otuTOU. Ibid.=Ta;. Ibid. 8. eXa^KTTw for s\(x^K7roTepw, Ibid. 18. ti^'o? '^^ /Sa^oj for /Sa^oj xat o^/oj, iv. 8. + ev. Ibid. =Toif. Ibid. 14. H-t>j before Tra- voy^yia. Ibid. I9. coPyiXttikotss for onrYi\yy]xors$, Ibid, -sra- cr>3f axot^apcnag for ff,xa$5ap<7iixc -sjao-yjj. Ibid. 26. + 5s after o^yi^ecde. v. 8. ^uvi for vuv. Ibid. 31. xoXXyj-^yjcrsTa* for %po5J' cra^xa. Ibid.=Taj a^xaj xot/. Ibid. 16. 13 veo[XYjVio<. >} (ru^^aTo^ for >) vsof^Yiviag rj (rci(S(3aTcov, Ibid. 17. 6 for a. iii. 4. 4-xa/ after (pavspM^Yj. Ibid. U|aa;v, for y|jW,coy. Ibid. 5* 'SJ'Asove^jav, •sra^oj, sTri^ufxiav for -nra^Of, i%i^v[xi(xv xoLXY^Vy xouf TT^v TrXsove^ixv, Ibid. 8, xaTa TravTa for ra TTavToc. lb. 10. + civrov, I Thessalonians i. i. ^SiT£ foF 'GTOLDU^tM- 2 Thessalonians ii. 2.=rov. Ibid. 4. sironpofjievo^ for vTTspatpofxzvo; in Wetstein. Ibid. 7. eo^? av for lajj. Ibid. 10. e^s^s^ocvTO for e^e^avTO. Ibid. ll.==aur«j. I TiiiJOthy ii. 2. = ev. Ibid. 8. xa^ avSpa^ 'CT^oo-suygcr^a/ for 'UTfO(rsvx^<^^oii tovs avlgu;. iii. 2. Ss for «v. Ibid. 12. 4-85. V. io. + 8e. Ibid. 17. =tuj before 3e«;. Titus iii. ^.■+hix. Ibid. 10. /x,:t« nt>av vadso-iav xa/ Sey- Te/3av for /xsra jotiav xot/ Scurepav V8^s(nxv, 234 To these must be added the following 46 passages already given in the readings of Origen alone. Constant. Romans i. 27. viii. 11. x. 8. xiii. 9. Ibid. 12. xiv. 9. I Cor. vii. 32. xii. ii. xv. 12. Ibid. 28. 2 Cor. xii. 9. Galat. iii. 19. v. 19. Ibid. 25. Coloss. i. 34. ii. 14. I Thess. ii. 14. iv. 13. i Tim. ii. 9. vi. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Inconstant. Romans ii. 14. Ibid. viii. 13. xiii. 9. Ibid. I Cor. i. 26. Ibid. 30. ii.4. iii. 3. ix. 9. Ibid. 22. x. 4. xii. 9. Galat. iy. 21. Ephes. ii. 20. iv. 9. Ibid. 13, Philip, i. 23. 1 Thess. ii. 7. 2 Thess. ii. 4. Ibid. 12. I Tim. ii. i. Ibid. 8. Ibid. Ibid. 9. The whole number will then amount to 280. Agreements of A with G, where the received Text reads alone, N. B. In passages, in which A and Origen have the same readings, reference is only made to the chapter and verse. Romans i. i5. Ibid. 19. ii. 8. iii. 4. v)TaT= for ^yjra-ro/. Ibid. 9. = on. v. 7. Ibid. 7. vii. 3. Ibid. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Ibid. 6 fxev for og jxsv and 6 8s for 6g h. Ibid. 32. apscr>] for agg- ers, viii. 5. ix. 16. Ibid. svuyyiXKTooixcLj for suotyysXi^Mfxcq, Ibid. 20. +jw.»j oov uvTos v-jTO vo^ixiv. Ibid. 21. Ibid. Ksphuvca for Ksp^^a-oi. Ibid. 22. x. l. Ibid. 2. s^aitTio-^i^G-ocv for e^aTTT^cravTo. Ibid. 13. xi. 5* ayn^j for lauT>)^. xii. 5. = £$•*. Ibid. 21. xiii. 10. xiv. 15. Trpocreufwjxo/ for Trpoasv' ^ofxoLi, Ibid. 38. XV. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 19. sv %^icrT«3 )jX- TTiXOTcJ cCTjtAsV for >]X7rj uTtzpaipviy^oui, Ibid. 9. xgAa- TO/ for rsXsi8T0Lj, Galatians i. 4. ii. 14. Ibid. iii. lo + or*. iv. 24. + a/. vi. 14. Ephesians ii. 3. Ibid. 7. iii. 5* Ibid. 8. iv. 8. = x«/, lb. 27. jw-^jSs for ju,)5T6. v. 14. lb. 31. T>3 yuvaixi for -sr^oj T>;v yuvaixa. vi. 12. . Philippians ii. 5. ^govetre for fpovsi^a). Ibid. 11. iii. 21. z=eig TO yzVs^oLf uuto. Colossians iii. 12. 14 120 1 Thessalonlans ii. 15. iv. 13. Ibid. Ku7rci(r$rs for 2 Thessalonlans ii. 2. Ibid. Ibid. 8. + I>j(r8j. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. • 1 Timothy i. i, = x,vf>i8. Ibid. %/53 A G. vii. 3. Ibid. 14. h for y«^ A inconstant. Ibid. 23. viii. 14. vloi ^s8 si) (^TioLvluKilsTajj )j ac^evs* A C. xvi. 20. Ibid, 121 1 Corinthians i. 2. = ^ju,«;y A. Ibid. 20. ii. 3. xayw for syoi AC. lb. 9. Ih. J I. = oiv^poo7roov A in. lb. syvcoxsv for oihv A C in. Ibid. 15. iii. l. (ruffxivois for capxixoij A C, Ibid. 2. = xa/ A C in. Ibid, ^^. = >£ot/ '^ixoTTcctna^ A C. Ibid. 7. iv. 13, Sya (^Tja^ftsvoi for /SXacr^prj^aajtcsvoi A in. Ibid. 21-. V. 4. =o^^3crt A in. Ibid. Tbid. ix. l. 8;c ajtjtj aTrog-oAo^ ; 8x sjjTx* cAsu^s'poj ; transposed A. ]hid.=^gis'ov A. Ibid, 8. >j x«^ 6 voj^cf TixvToi Ksysi for >j oup(^» 6 vojaoj raura Asya A C. Ibid. 10. 0(^SiXsi STT 6>y.7ridl for 67r' gATTiSi 0(^SlK£i A C, Ibid. OT sXTTidi m [JLSTs^siV for rvj^ gA^riSoc aurov {xste^siv A C. Ibid. zi. + T8§ before avoy.8^ A C. Ibid. 22.=coj A. X. 3. Ibid. Ibid. 4. = au'ro A in. Ibid. 4. -srvcUjU.aTtxov ETTiov 7rO|U,a for Trojxa 'jTvsvfx.otTiKov STTiov A C in. Ibid. II. = 7ravra A in. Ibid, tvttixcc^ for tutto* A C. Ibid. 33. xot/ Isduioig yiv=cvptovlYijv for (povYiv (raA7r*yf A. Ibid. 21. XV. 5. Ibid. 12. sv vixiv rivsg for tj(paXjov for vv^tpuXeov A. G has Vc(p«X« ' N ' ^^^ ,^^ -^C^. "-^^ ^ '/- * 3 N ^. ', O -^^ ."V "^ %^ -^ -' * <. ^Ct^"^^^ ^0 r> ^ "'" -^^ s^\^r^\ y 'KS-o- it ' \.' <^ ^ * « ^ ^., .^' c. /■ ■^ ^ :.>•' ^ ^^.#' ,^ 9 I A 'i¥I sf :# .0^ c » '- •■ <" Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide G » ~?^^f . ^ '''^_. Treatment Date: June 2005 ^^ PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township. PA 16066 (724)779-2111 N. MANCHESTER, INDIANA ^: