u iUl ' A FULL ACCOUNT AND COLLATION ' OF THE GREEK CURSIVE CODEX EVANOELIUM 604 (WITH TWO FACSIMILES) [EGERTON 2610 in the BRITISH MUSEUM]. Together with TEN APPENDICES CONTAINING (A) The Collation of a Manuscript in his own possession. (B) A reprint with corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between the editions of Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the Complutensian, together with fresh evidence gathered from an investigation of the support afforded to the various readings by the five editions of Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, by the Aldine Bible 1518, by Colinaeus 1534, by the other editions of Stephen of 1546, 1549, 1551, and by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582, 1588-9, 1598, and the 8° editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604. (C) A full and exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the support given in the one case and in the other by the subsequent editions of 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, and 1678 (D) Facsimile of Codex Paul. 247 (Cath. Eps. 210), with correction of previous descriptions. (E) Report of a visit to the Phillips MSS., with corrections of and supplement to previous information concerning them, and collations of parts of some of them, (F) Report of a visit to the Public Libraiy at Bale, with facsimile of Erasmus' second MS. Evan. 2, and a collation of Codex Apoc. N° 15. (G) Report of a visit to the Public Library at Geneva, with corrections of Cellerier's collation of Evan. 75, as supplied to Scholz. (H) Report of a visit to the Library of Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A., with information concerning the sacred Greek codices there. (1) Some further information conceiiiing Codex I'', an Evangelistary at Andover, Mass. U.S.A. (J) Note on 1 Tim. iii. 15. HERMAN C. HOSKIER LONDON DAVID NUTT, 270, 271, STRAND MDCCCXC Richard Clay and Sons, Limited, london and bungay. V- TO THE MEMORY OF THE LATE J0H:N' WILLIAM BUEGOINT, B.D, DEAN OF CHICHESTER, AND FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD, THIS VOLUME IS IN SIMPLE AFFECTION Bebicatcb IN RECOGNITION OF HIS TRUE FRIENDSHIP, FELLOWSHIP, AND HELPFUL INTERCOURSE, AND IN MEMORY OF HIS UNTIRING ZEAL AND UNFLAGGING EFFORTS TO PREPARE RELIABLE FOUNDATIONS UPON WHICH MIGHT SECURELY REST THE TRUE SCIENCE OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE :^EW TESTAMENT. 250553 ^u Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/fullaccountfiollaOOhoskrich PREFACE. " While the. harvest is plenteous, the labourers have hitherto heenfew 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 home some fruit, and seem to promise yet more, in a department of sacred learning, which yields to none in its interest and importance." — Scrivener. Addendum, to Codex Augicnsis, 1859. Three and a half years ago I was in Dean Burgon's study at Chichester. It was midnight, dark and cold without ; he had just extinguished the lights, and it was dark, and getting cold within. "We mounted the stairs to retire to rest, and his last words of that night have often rung in my ears since : " As surely as it is dark now, and as certainly as the sun will rise to-morrow mornii^g, so surely will the traditional text be vindicated and the views I have striven to express be accepted. I may not live to see it. Most likely I shall not. But it will come." The way is not clear yet, and the sun has not yet risen, but I believe those words to-day much more than I did then. We are in a period of calm at present. The champions of opposing schools are some dead, some past all work and almost all the rest far past the meridian of life. A little longer, and with more work and the publication of that which already exists, it will surprise me if we do not rapidly near the sun's rising above referred to. And as the Truth must ever triumph, soon or late, in every exact science, so shall it be in this department of Biblical learning, even though it be by means of instruments so poor, so inconsistent, so weak as we are. And I would specially direct attention to the late Dean Burgon's earnest appeal throughout the Revision Revised to the fairness of the English-speaking race, so that they may not hopelessly prejudge an issue, but be away with prejudice and the Schools, and calmly and dispassionately weigh the balance vi PREFACE. of evidence when collected, being content to "judge of the authenticity of any particular reading — whether in Justin Martyr or Irenaeus on the one hand, or in Stephen and Elzevir on the other — by the test of Catholic Antiquity." I am content for my part so far to labour in a humble sphere, to produce material and leave it to more learned men to utilize, but I am prepared, if need be, to vindicate any statement I may have made in the following pages It has been said that the collator should not associate himself too closely with the questions which he himself raises. But very often the Textual Critic has a much too limited knowledge of the marvellous experience gained by actual and extended collation. Though seemingly dry and laborious work (and of a truth it is the latter to a large extent) some of the most wonderful truths, some of the most interesting problems present themselves to his mind as letter by letter, line by line, and page by page the patient collator toils along slowly at his task. Dean Burgon has passed away, out and beyond the region and the sphere of imperfection. His MagTmim Ojpus, had he lived to edit it, would have for ever vindicated his reputation, his views, his methods, nay, the very manner of expressing himself, if by a too decided front he had made himself enemies and curtailed the extent of his hearing for a time. A misjudged man by many, as hard a worker as any, as generous and true a heart as any brother could desire, his name, his efforts, his labours will still be revered. And in the near future shall we not blame ourselves for being so blind and so prejudiced, so narrow and so human, as not to be able truly in an even balance to weigh real merits and demerits, real work against mere speculation, sincere investigation against imperfect and hasty conclusions ? " It will come." The collation of Evan 604, which follows, was completed more than three years ago, and fully justified Dean Burgon's prediction (sixth letter to the Guardian, July 20, 1882) that this Codex would become, when its readings had been gathered and made known, one of the most famous codices in the world. The publication of the results of my collation, which will allow others to judge for themselves of the accuracy of this contention, has not been withheld for this length of time with intention. At Dean Burgon's request, I should have let it appear side by side with collations of Evan 556 (the companion of Evan"^ 13-69-124-346-348-624), and those of other manuscripts by Prebendary .Scrivener in a fresh series of collations which he had in hand, but alas, failing eyesight has deprived him of the power of preparing these collations for the press, and as I do not wish to keep back my account of Evan 604 any longer, I submit it for consideration in the following pages. On pp. XV— xxi. of the Introduction I have been obliged to speak in somewhat harsh terms of Mr. Simcox's collation of St. Luke's Gospel. I should like to add here that these pages were in type before I was aware of PREFACE. vii his death. Although I have nothing to unsay in respect of my criticisms of his work in this connection, I would gladly — on the principle of " nil nisi honum," etc. — withdraw anything in the expression of them which might give pain to his immediate circle of relatives or friends. I have been at great pains to produce the lists of evidence on pp. xxxvii. to cxv. of the Introduction which sufficiently illustrate the rarer readings of our MS., and to these the attention of the student is invited at once. Besides the unique readings, pp. xxix. to xxxvii., these lists present features of the utmost interest and importance, and will I hope assist students in forming a correct estimate for themselves of the character of the body of the cursives hitherto examined, which contain the more important variations from the Textus JReceptus. Unfortunately there are no published Collations extant of such im- portant cursive MSS. as Evan* 1, 13, 28, 33 in extenso, their several readings being embedded in the notes to many critical editions, and from these hiding- places we have, with due labour and a care for the reputation of the respective collators, extracted them. Only Evan* 69 and 473 can be said to be well edited, and I have even at this day occasionally had to mark Evan. 69 with an interrogation or quote the collators of 473 against each other, Belsheim's edition of St. Mark's Gospel in 473 is very valuable, but as we dc not know with what copy of the " Textus Receptus " he made his collations of the other three Gospels (which appear much too meagre, and are sometimes proved so by Muralt), the extraordinary and interesting text of that MS. is not yet on as firm a basis as could be wished. In fact, for fear of error, I have sometimes cited Evan. 473 on Muralt's authority when I think he is very likely in the wrong. It is a great pity that ^ and are defective in the Gospels of SS. Luke and John, as their readings would doubtless have proved most instructive and interesting. The applied attention requisite to an accurate presentment of such lists has to be of the most absorbing nature and is very difficult of attainment. Thus, knowledge of the exact history of every MS. mentioned and dealt with is a necessaxy pri^na facie qualification. We have to be careful to distinguish between opposing citations of Tregelles and Tischendorf where they occur, to verify all their quotations from older authorities, to diligently compare with the phototype edition of B. all places where error in previous citations may possibly have occurred. Sometimes to quote C. (teste Wetstein) against Tischendorf s careful edition for fear of oversight on the latter's part. We have perpetually to consult Scrivener's thorough edition of D. and verify by its aid the innumerable quotations of different authorities from Mill onwards (quotations so often imperfect or at variance among themselves) from this interesting, but bold, eclectic, and unscrupulous MS. We have also to differentiate between the first and the later hand which filled in the large lacuna in the MS. viii PREFACE. To see that no quotation from such MSS. as N. T. Y is allowed to creep in where these MSS. are defective. To allow Wetst-Scholz-Gries. sometimes to tell us what K. reads in defiance of later authorities. To see that Scholz does not mislead us in his quotations of L. nor by his misquotations from Matthaei. Not to allow the silence of Birch or Alter to deter us from giving a reading alleged only by one or the other of them from the same MS. To do full justice to Wetstein's numerous citations from many Evangelistaria, hardly ever reproduced since his time. To do the same justice to Scholz's readings from the large number of MSS. which he must evidently have examined pretty carefully, whatsoever may be his general inaccuracies from his perhaps having attempted too much in a superficial manner. To see that the Ferrar-Hoflfmann-Ceriani-Abbott edition of 13-69- 124-346 does not mislead us too much by its infantile silence, and to follow Dr. Scrivener concerning Evan. 69 as a rule contra mundum. Often perforce to quote Mill's, Wetstein's or Griesbach's distinct readings from Evan* 56-58- 61 with a query, as Dobbin's edition of these MSS. is executed in such an utterly misleading manner. To remember that Scrivener gives additional readings from Evst. 257 (Bentley's MS. collation) elsewhere than in his Collation of 20 MSS. of the Gospels. To bear in mind that Wetstein's Evan. 87, is Matthsei's v. from John vii. onwards, and that this is the same as Evan. 250. And to mention these things is only to adduce evidence of one hundredth of the difficulties connected with such work. They are brought forward not to point to painstaking efforts in the collection and arrangement of materials for work in a very dry field, but as indications of the difficulties attendant upon this work, and as a warning not to undertake it lightly or unadvisedly so as to darken knowledge instead of to increase it. The " points of contact " of certain MSS. (as I should like to designate them) are most instructive. My practice, in arriving for instance at the absolutely unique readings of Evan. 604, has been to set aside at first those readings which in the initial stage of my examination appeared to be solecisms. Gradually these lists were of course narrowed down, until they reached the irreducible minimum. And it was in the course of this reduction in the number of apparently unique readings that these points of contact were most vividly illustrated. Thus, in S. Matthew, compare «. t. Evan* 1, 4, 24, 56, 58, 61, 124, 142, 238, 346. Evst. 257, etc. In S. Marh, «. B. D. A. t. ^. Evan* 1, 5, 13, 28, 56, 61, 108, 124, 131, 157, 209, 238, 258, 271, 346, 433, 473, 511. Evst* 48, 196, 234. Arm. Orig. etc. In 8. Luke, «. B. D. F. R. E. Evan* 1, 11, 56, 67, 69, 73, 124, 131, 157, 220, 234, 243, 253, 254, 508, 515. Evst" 21, 22, 47, 50, etc. In S. John, B. D. H. U. Y. V. Evan* 49, 53, 56, 58, 73, 74, 127, 131, 219, 258, 440, 511, 513, 566, 572, etc. These Lists, then, comprise some 1700 passages — (Matthew 462, Mark 633, PREFACE. ix Luke 455, John 1G4, = 1714) — and very curious combinations they certainly ex- hibit. Had, for instance, either t^, B, D, L, A, S, or Evan* 1, 69, 473, etc. been unknown to us, the unique readings of Evan. 604 would have been very largely increased. For besides finding ourselves often alone with occasional cursives here and there — once with each — (viz. Evan* 11, 14, 24, 33, 38, 44, 62, 65, 67, 73, 99, 107, 131, 142, 157, 225, 234, 243, 253, 300, 414, 433, 440, 475, 508, 513, 543, 566. Evst. 22) we find ourselves alone with the uncials as follows : — With fc^ siM times (3 + + 3 + 0). With L/owr times (1 + 2 + 1 + 0). A once (in S. Mark). „ R once (in S. Luke). B eleven times (4 -}• 1 + 5 + 1) ! „ U once (in S. Luke). D twenty times (7 + 9 + 3 + 1) ! „ A three times (1 + 2 + + 0). F once (in S. Luke). „ S twice (1 + 1 + + 0). K once (in S. John). And with the following cursives more than once : — Evan. 1 six times (all in S. Matthew). Evan. 238 twice (1 + 1 + + 0). 28 ^mce (in S. Mark). „ 473 «wew^3/-m?ie times (0+26-|-3+0)t 61 three times (1 + 1 + 1 + 0). ,,511 four times (0+0 + 3+1). 69 /Mir times (0 + 2 + 1 + 1). „ 515 twice (0 + + 1 + 1). 108 twice (1 + 14 + 0). „ 572 twice (1 + + + 1). 124 twice (in S. Mark). Evst. 196 three times (1 + 0+2 + 0). The following further combinations of uncials alone with 604, cursives alone with 604, and uncials and cursives alone with 604 (a list not by any means exhaustive), should be carfully noticed and weighed. t^B. nine times (5 + + 4 + 0). BITA. once (Matthew), V(D. twice (1+0 + 1 + 0). BAH. once (Luke). BD./owr times (1 + f 3 4- 0). b^BCD. once (Matthew). B. once (Mark). i>5BDL. tvAce (Matthew). CD. once (Mark). «BDT«. once (Matthew). DR. once (Luke). t^BLH. three times (Luke), NS. once (Matthew). BCLR. once (Luke). b^BC. tiuice (Matthew). BDLZ. once (Matthew). ^^BD. once (Matthew), BLRH. once (Luke). t^BL. three times (2 + + 1 + 0). b^BCLA. once (Mark). t^CD. once (Luke). «BDLA. once (Mark). «DX. once (Matthew). «BDLH. three times (Luke). «LA. once (Mark). i«^BCDLA. once (Mark). ASU. once (Luke). b^BDFLH. once (Luke). BCD. once (Matthew). ^^BDLN(S). once (Matthew). BDL. once (Luke). PREFACE. Evan* 1, 13. once (Matthew) „ 1, 33. once (Matthew). „ 1, 1^1. four times (Luke). „ 1, 473. three times (Mark). „ 1, Evst. 196. once (Matthew). „ 4, 238. once (Matthew). „ 11, 59. once (Luke). „ 13, 124. once (Matthew), 13, 219. once (Luke). 28, 124. once (Mark). „ 28, 473, hoke (Mark). 38, 473. once (Mark). „ 54, 473. once (Mark). 56, 473. once (Mark). 59, 61. once (Matthew). „ 124, 473. twice (Mark). „ 220, 242. once (Matthew). „ 225, 508. once (Luke). „ 240, 244. once (Luke). „ 406, 473. once (Mark). ,, 473 511. once (Mark). „ 473, Evst. 195. once (Mark). „ 476, 511. once (Mark). Evan"^ 3, 11, 510. once (John), 13, 124, 346. once (Matthew). 28, 73, 127. once (John). 33, 124, 157. once (Matthew). 56,58,61.^^reetimes(0+0+2+l). 59, 131, 219. once (John). „ 61, 515, 575. once (John). 83, 86, 440. once (John). „ 123, 253, Evst. 150. once (John). „ 157, 258, 440. once (Mark). Evst'' 21, 47, 50. once (Luke). Evan* 1, 28, 209, 473. twice (Mark). 1, 28, 299, 473. once (Mark). 13, 69, 346, 435. once (Mark). 1, 33, Evst* 24, 31. once (Matt.) 1, 13, 69, 124, 346. once (Luke) 13,(69),346,473,511.o?ic6(Mark). 13,69,124,346,473,511.owce(Mk.) «. Evan 1. once (Matthew). r. Evst. 26. once (Matthew). «. » 259. once (Mark). A. Evan. 28. once (Matthew). «. )> 476. once (Mark). A. » 122. once (Luke). B. >j 1. once (Matthew). A. jj 238. once (Mark). B. 5J 473. once (Mark). t. 55 4. once (Matthew). C. 5J 157. once (John). t. Evst. 234. once (Matthew). C. Evst. 222. once (Luke). D. Evan 1. once (Matthew). «B. Evan. 1. once (Luke). D. 5) 28. twice (Mark). KB. 55 33. once (Matthew). D. J> 51. once (Matthew). «D. 55 124. tivice (Matthew) D. 5) 225. once (Mark). «D. 55 473. tivice (Mark). D. » 238. once (Matthew). i^L. 55 44. once (Matthew). D. J> 473. forty times (all in Mark)! BD. 55 32. once (Matthew). L. 5J 1. twice (Matthew). BD. 55 124. once (Matthew). U. J> 245. once (John). BH. 55 512. once (Luke). U. Evst 234. once (John). DS. 55 473. once (Mark). X. Evan .21. once (Matthew), DU. 55 473. once (Mark). X. » 440. once (Matthew). FM. 55 92. once (Mark). PREFACE. LH. Evan. 33. once (Luke). «BD. „ 33. once (Matthew). h^BD. „ 157. OTice (Matthew). ^^BL. „ 33. once (Matthew). b^BZ. „ 1. once (Matthew). t^B$. „ 61. once (Matthew). LFA. Evst. 259. once (Matthew). «BCL. Evan. t^BDL. „ t^BDL. ,, t^BDL. „ «BDL. .. 33. once (Matthew). 1. once (Luke). 11. once (Matthew). 33. once (Luke), 259. on^e (Luke). fe^BDL. Evan. 473. once (Mark). «BDZ. „ 33. once (Matthew). b^BDA. „ 473. once (Mark). b^BDH. „ 157. once (Luke). b^BLH. „ 157. once (Luke). t^BLH. „ 473. once (Luke). ^BZt. „ 1. once (Matthew). BDLH. „ 69. once (Luke). «BCDL. „ t^BDLS. „ «ABCLA. „ NBCDLA. „ 473. twice (Mark). 1. once (Luke). 28. once (Mark). 209. once (Mark) «. Evan. 1 Evst. 259. once (Matthew). N. Evan-^ 20, 473. once (Mark). N. „ 254, 346. once (Luke). D. „ 1, 28. once (Mark). D. „ 1, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 11, 22. once (Matthew). D. „ 13, 69. once (Luke). D. „ 27, Evst. 196. once (Matthew). D. „ 28, 473. Uvice (Mark). D. „ 33, 473. twice (Mark). D. „ 40, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 124, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 235, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 406, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 473, Evst. 49. once (Mark). D. „ 511, 575. once (John). L „ 1, 131, once (Luke), P. „ 106, 247. once (Matthew), U, „ 220, 245, once (Mark). V. „ 124, 218. once (Matthew). r. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). t. ,, 238, 511. once (Mark). «. „ 13, 124, 346. once (Matthew) B. „ 1, 69, 209. once (Matthew), B, „ 13, 124, 346, once (Matthew). xii PREFACE. D. Evan" 1, 72, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 1, 209, 473. twice (Mark). D. „ 63, 240, 244. once (Luke). L. „ 59, 237, 251. once (Matthew). U. „ 91, 127, 248. once (John). B. „ 1, 22, 33, 124. once (Matthew). B. „ 1, 28, 209, 473. once (Mark). D. „ 1, 13, 69, 131. once (Luke). D. „ 1, 28, 118, 209. once (Matthew). D. „ 1, 28, 209, 473. once (Mark). G. „ 1,229, 299, 473. owce. (Mark). 4>. „ 1, 13, 346, 473. once (Mark). B. „ 13-69-124-346. mice (Luke). D. „ 13-69-124-346. once (Mark). F. „ 44, 64, 511, 513. once (Mark). D. „ 1, 13, 69, 129, 131. once (Luke). I). „ 13, 69, 124, 346, 473. twice (Mark). D. „ 1, 13, 69, 124, 346, 473. once (Mark). O. „ 1, 13, 69, 124, 346, 473. ojice (Mark). ^^B. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). «B. „ 6, 33. once (Matthew). . Ar. „ 124, 229. once rLuke). BC. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). BD. „ 1, 33, once (Matthew). BD. „ 33, 124. once (Matthew). BL. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). BA. „ 75, 235. once (Matthew). DE. „ 157, 473. ooice (Mark). DG. „ ], 118. once (Matthew). T>t. „ 33, 435. once (Matthew). CD.. „ 1, 118, 131. once (Luke). «B. „ 1, 13, 124, 346. once (Matthew). «B. „ 1; 118, 131, 157. once (Luke). «D. „ 1, 28, 122, 131. once (Mark). «D. „ 1, 68, 86, 473. once (John). BD. „ 1, (13), 124, (346). once (Matthew). D:^. „ 1, 28, 242, 473. once (Mark). T>t. „ 1, 13, 69, 346, 473 once (Mark). PREFACE. NBL. Evan" 1, 22. once (Matthew). BDT« „ 1, 124. once (Matthew). BLH. „ 1, 239. once (Luke). «BD. „ 13, 124, 340. once (Matthew). NBL. „ 1, 157, 209. otice (Luke). fc^BL. „ 13, 33, 73. once (Matthew). i^LZ. „ 1, 33, 124. once (Matthew). ALP. „ 1, 33, 131. once (Luke). BDS. „ 56, 58, Evst. 222. once (Matthew). BDL. „ 1, 13, 124. 346. once (Matthew). i^BDL. „ 1, 22. mice (Matthew). NBDL. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). NDLZ. „ 1, 22. once (Matthew). «BDL. „ 1, 131, 157. OTice (Luke). ^^BCDL. „ 33, 473. once (Matthew). «BDLH. „ 1, 131. once (Luke). NBDLA. „ 1, 118, 124. once (Luke). N'-^BDLXH. „ 1, 33, 131. once (Luke). And now I must crave indulgence for introducing 8uch long lists into the Preface, whereas they properly belong to the Introduction. As a matter of fact, the whole Introduction had gone to press, before I decided to tabulate, as above, the more extraordinary combinations of the " Lists." The trouble has been amply compensated for, however, and I am myself astounded at the result. It is so clear, so unambiguous in its teaching. We have here spread out before us a whole history of corruption, a whole world of license. I would ask attention to this group : D. and Evan. 604 = 20 times. Evan* 473 and 604 = 29 „ D. Evan'' 473 and 604 = 40 „ Total 89 times in the Four Gospels, (75 times in S. Mark's Gospel alone), do these three manuscripts invite us to follow them against all the rest ! The reader is earnestly besought to give to the foregoing pages careful thought and attention, to remember — or to learn — that this tabular state- ment presents the self-same features, (often in the same proportions), as xiv PKEFACE. Burgon's and Martin's previous researches in the same field, and to be governed, in his estimation of the codices here dealt with, by a rigorous and independent computation of the value of such double-minded MSS. It may seem very paradoxical to make the following statement, but, if it is not at once apparent, I confidently leave it to time to decide whether I shall be proved right or wrong in my contention, and I think I may be credited with an unbiassed opinion on the subject, as my argument tends directly to minimise the importance of the readings of what might be thought — from the attention bestowed upon it — were my pet codex. What I have to say is this : that as such codices as Evan* 28, 33, 69, 131, 604 have been unveiled, the testimony of each instead of helping ^^. B. D. A. etc. out of their lonely positions has only emphasised them in their singularity, for if we examine care- fully each of these remarkable cursives, — as indeed is also the case with such uncials as t^. B. D. L. A. S. ^- etc. — we find that each rejoices in such a large number of readings which are unique and peculiar to them, that it becomes more and more clearly evident that the scribes or rather the compilers of such codices were, to an enormous extent, their own critics, leading them to altogether independent treatment of the Sacred Text. See how the individual MSS. of the seven-fold group of 13-69-124-346-348-556-624 will each have their unique readings, and how our Evan. 604 has no less than 250 in the Four Gospels. Of course every codex has a few peculiar readings, but these, which are of any importance, can generally be counted on the fingers of one's hand as regards the body of the cursives. It is very noteworthy how the members of this seven-fold group oppose each other sometimes. In Mark ix. 4 + IBov (post Kai prim.) — of the 4 which have been collated — is read by 13-69-346 (and Tiot by 124), but in the same verse ay^dr^aav by 124 (and not by 13-69-346). Again Mark ix. 14 7rpo9 avrov^ (pro avrot^) is read by 124, (and not by 13- 69-346), but in the next verse evdvo t^ J— 1 00 00 to CO CO »o (N -* "* I-H CO C5 .^ P^ Pxq O f^ ^ (4 d ^ H !^ o > O < pj H