ii. 19) states he found in the middle of the fourth century, ἐν τοῖς

παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων, in Eph. i. 1, viz. τοῖς οὖσιν without ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, though now read only in this and the Sinaitic manuscript _primâ manu_, and in one cursive copy (Cod. 67) _secundâ manu_, seems in itself of but little weight. Another point that has been raised is the position of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this argument can apply only to the elder document from which the Vatican MS. was taken, and wherein this book unquestionably followed that to the Galatians. In Cod. B it _always_ stood in its present place, after 2 Thess., as in the Codices cited p. 74, note.

144 Besides the twenty-five readings Tischendorf observed himself, Cardinal Mai supplied him with thirty-four more for his N. T. of 1849. His seventh edition of 1859 was enriched by 230 other readings furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855.

145 “They would not let me open it,” he adds, “without searching my pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper.... If I looked at a passage too long the two _prelati_ would snatch the book out from my hand.” Tregelles, Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the N. T., p. 84.

146 The great gap in the Pauline Epistles is filled up from Vatic. 1761 (Act. 158, Paul. 192) of the eleventh century.

147 Other editions of the Vatican N. T. appeared at Ratisbon; at Leyden (1860) by A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, with a masterly Preface by the latter; and at Berlin (1862) by Philip Buttmann, furnished with an Appendix containing the varying results of no less than nine collations, eight of which we have described in the text, the ninth being derived from Lachmann’s Greek Testament (1742, 1850), whose readings were all obtained second-hand. Tischendorf does not much commend the accuracy of Buttmann’s work.

148 “Angelus Mai, quamquam, ut in proverbio est, ἐν τυφλῶν πόλει γλαμυρὸς βασιλεύων, non is erat cui tanta res rectè mandari posset:” Kuenen and Cobet, N. T. Vat. Praef. p. 1. Tischendorf too, in his over querulous Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas &c., 1870, p. 11, is not more than just in alleging “Angelum Maium in editionibus suis Codicis Vaticani alienissimum se praebuisse ab omni subtiliore rei palaeographicae scientiâ, ac tantum non ignarum earum legum ad quas is codex in usum criticum edendus esset.” The defence set up for Mai in the Preface to the Roman volume of 1881, was that he intended to produce only a new edition of the “authentic” Septuagint of 1586-7, chiefly for the use of Greek-speaking Catholics.

149 The Dean himself on Feb. 20, 1861, and for four subsequent days, “went twice over the doubtful passages and facsimilized most of the important various readings,” in spite of much opposition from the Librarian, who “insisted that our order from Antonelli, although it ran ‘per verificare,’ to verify passages, only extended to seeing the Codex, not to using it.” (Life by his Widow, pp. 310, 315.)

150 “Novum Testamentum Vaticanum post Angeli Maii aliorumque imperfectos labores ex ipso codice edidit Ae. F. C. Tischendorf.” Lipsiae, 4to, 1867.

151 To his hand Tischendorf assigns seven readings, Matt. xiii. 52; xiv. 5; xvi. 4; xxii. 10; xxvii. 4. Luke iii. 1 (_bis_), 7. “For some six centuries after it was written B appears to have undergone no changes in its text except from the hand of the ‘corrector,’ the ‘second hand’ ” (Hort, Introd. p. 270). What then of B2?

152 It must surely be to these, the earliest scribes, that Cobet refers when he uses language that would not be at all applicable to the case of B2 or B3: “In Vaticano duorum librorum veterum testimonia continentur, et nihilo plus in primâ manu quam in secundâ inest auctoritatis ac fidei. Utriusque unaquaeque lectio ex se ipsâ spectanda ponderandaque est, et si hoc ages, modo hanc modo illam animadvertes esse potiorem. Hoc autem in primis firmiter tenendum est, non esse secundae manûs lectiones correctoris alicujus suspiciones aut conjecturas, sive illae sunt acutiores sive leviores, sed quidquid a secundâ manu correctum, mutatum, deletum esse Maius referat, id omne haud secus atque id quod prior manus dederit, perantiqui cujusdam Codicis fide nixum esse.” (N. T. Vat. Praef. p. xxvi.)

153 It may be mere oversight that in Matt. xxvii. 4 he does not say in 1867 of what hand the marginal δικαιον is: in his eighth edition (1865) he adjudges it to B2. In Matt. xxiv. 23 πιστευητε and ver. 32 εκφύη he gives to B3 in 1867 what he had assigned to B2 in 1865. The Roman Commentary gives no light in the other places, but assigns πιστεύητε to B2, B3.

154 “Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Auspice Pio IX Pontifice Maximo, collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae, et Josephi Cozza Monachi Basiliani editus. Romae typis et impensis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide,” square folio, 1868.

155 The feeble rejoinder of the Roman editors was followed up in 1870 by Tischendorf’s Responsa ad Calumnias Romanas, &c., the tone of which pamphlet we cannot highly praise.

156 This practice is plainly confessed to in the Preface to the volume of 1881 (p. xvi) without any consciousness of the fatal mistake which it involves: “Facies libri Vaticani repraesentata est [ut] ea primum omnia apparerent, quae a priore codicis notario profecta adhuc manifesto perspiciuntur, tum ea tantum a posterioribus sive emendatoribus, sive instauratoribus commutata adderentur, quae sine scripturae confusione legi possent.”

157 In 1 Cor. vii. 29 Vercellone joins ἐστιν and το closely, but Tischendorf leaves a space between them, with a middle point, which he expressly states to be _primâ manu_. Again, in ver. 34 Vercellone joins μεμερισται with the following και. Tischendorf in 1867 (but not in his last edition of the N. T.) interposes a point and space. In these _minutiae_ Vercellone, who was not working against time, may be presumed to be the more accurate of the two. The editors of the sixth volume have no note at either place. Tischendorf detects an error of Vercellone, ειτε for ειχε Heb. ix. 1, but this has been corrected by the hand in some copies of the Roman volume, as also in the Commentary.

158 His reasons for regarding the Sinaitic manuscript as the younger (_see_ p. 89, note 2) are valid enough so far as they go (Praef. p. vi): its initial letters stand out more from the line of the writing; abridgements of words are fewer and less simple; it contains the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons instead of the antiquated divisions of its rival, and the text is broken up into smaller paragraphs. Tregelles, who had seen both copies, used to plead the fresher appearance of the Sinaitic, contrasted with the worn look of the Vatican MS.; but then its extensive hiatus proves that the latter had been less carefully preserved.

Eusebius sent to Constantine’s new city (Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. iv) πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις (c. 36) ... ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσι τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (c. 37): on which last words Valesius notes, “Codices enim membranacei ferè per quaterniones digerebantur, hoc est quatuor folia simul compacta, ut terniones tria sunt folia simul compacta. Et quaterniones quidem sedecim habebant paginas, terniones vero duodenas.” But now that we have come to know that Cod. B is arranged in quires of five sheets (_see_ p. 105), that manuscript will hardly answer to the description τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά (see p. 27, note 1) as Cod. א does. Indeed Canon Cook (Revised Version, &c., p. 162) objects to Valesius’ explanation altogether, on the ground that his sense would rather require τριπλόα καὶ τετραπλόα, and that the rare words τρισσά (“three by three”) and τετρασσά (“four by four”) exactly describe the arrangement of three columns on a page in Cod. B, and four on a page in Cod. א. The Canon has since observed that the same view is maintained by O. von Gebhardt (“Bibel-text” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie, Leipsic 1878, second edition). On the other hand Archdeacon Palmer, in an obliging communication made to me, comparing the words πεντήκοντα σωμάτια ἐν διφθέραις ἐγκατασκεύοις (c. 36) with ἐν πολυτελῶς ἠσκημένοις τεύχεσιν τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσὰ διαπεμψάντων ἡμῶν, and interpreting Eusebius’ compliance (c. 37) by means of Constantine’s directions (c. 36), is inclined to refer τρισσὰ καὶ τετρασσά to σωμάτια, as if it were “we sent abroad the collections [of writings] in richly adorned cases, three or four in a case.” It will probably be thought that the expression is on the whole too obscure to be depended on for any controversial purposes. It is safer to argue that if the sections and canons extant in Cod. א be by a contemporary hand (_see_ p. 93, and Dean Gwynn’s _Memoranda_ in our _Addenda_ for that page), that circumstance, the great antiquity of the manuscript considered, will confirm the probability of Eusebius’ connexion with it. Eusebius agrees also with א in omitting ἡ πύλη, Matt. vii. 13, and knew of copies, not however the best or with his approval, which inserted ἡσαΐου before τοῦ προφήτου in Matt. xiii. 35: א being the only uncial which exhibits that reading. So again Eusebius after Origen maintains the impossible number ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα of א and a few others in Luke xxiv. 13. Dr. C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 347, 348, inclines to the belief that B and א were among the fifty MSS. sent by Eusebius to Constantino about A.D. 331-2. Canon Cook’s entire argument (Revised Version of the First Three Gospels (1882), pp. 160-165) should be consulted.

159 Dublin University Magazine, Nov. 1859, p. 620. Even Bishop Lightfoot, a strong and consistent admirer of the manuscript, speaks of its “impatience of apparently superfluous words” (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 316). Dr. Hort (Introduction, p. 235) pleads that such facts “have no bearing on either the merits or the demerits of the scribe of B, except as regards the absolutely singular readings of B,” whereas multitudes of these omissions are found in other good documents.

160 Dean Burgon cites four specimens of such repetitions: Matt. xxi. 4, five words written twice over; ib. xxvi. 56-7, six words; Luke i. 37, three words or one line; John xvii. 18, six words. These, however, are but a few out of many. Nor is Tischendorf’s judgement at variance with our own. Speaking of some supposed or possible gross _errata_ of the recent Roman edition, he puts in the significant proviso “tamen haec quoque satis cum universâ scripturae Vaticanae vitiositate conveniunt” (Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869, p. xvii).

161 The latest Roman editors incline to an Egyptian origin, rather than one suggested in Magna Graecia, but the only fresh reason they allege can have very slight weight, namely, that two of the damaged leaves have been repaired by pieces of papyrus. The learned Ceriani of Milan believes that Cod. B was written in Italy, Cod. א in Palestine or Syria (Quarterly Review, April, 1882, p. 355). The supposed Eusebian origin of both has been already stated.

162 As this manuscript is of first-rate importance it is necessary to subjoin a full list of the passages it contains, that it may not be cited _e silentio_ for what it does not exhibit: Matt. i. 2-v. 15; vii. 5-xvii. 26; xviii. 28-xxii. 20; xxiii. 17-xxiv. 10; xxiv. 45-xxv. 30; xxvi. 22-xxvii. 11; xxvii. 47-xxviii. 14: Mark i. 17-vi. 31; viii. 5-xii. 29; xiii. 19-xvi. 20: Luke i. 2-ii. 5; ii. 42-iii. 21; iv. 25-vi. 4; vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17; viii. 28-xii. 3; xix. 42-xx. 27; xxi. 21-xxii. 19; xxiii. 25-xxiv. 7; xxiv. 46-53: John i. 1-41; iii. 33-v. 16; vi. 38-vii. 3; viii. 34-ix. 11; xi. 8-46; xiii. 8-xiv. 7; xvi. 21-xviii. 36; xx. 26-xxi. 25: Acts i. 2-iv. 3; v. 35-x. 42; xiii. 1-xvi. 36; xx. 10-xxi. 30; xxii. 21-xxiii. 18; xxiv. 15-xxvi. 19; xxvii. 16-xxviii. 4: James i. 1-iv. 2: 1 Pet. i. 2-iv. 6: 2 Pet. i. 1-1 John iv. 2: 3 John 3-15: Jude 3-25: Rom. i. 1-ii. 5; iii. 21-ix. 6; x. 15-xi. 31; xiii. 10-1 Cor. vii. 18; ix. 6-xiii. 8; xv. 40-2 Cor. x. 8: Gal. i. 20-vi. 18: Eph. ii. 18-iv. 17: Phil. i. 22-iii. 5: Col. i. 1-1 Thess. ii. 9: Heb. ii. 4-vii. 26; ix. 15-x. 24; xii. 15-xiii. 25: 1 Tim. iii. 9-v. 20; vi. 21-Philem. 25: Apoc. i. 2-iii. 19; v. 14-vii. 14; vii. 17-viii. 4; ix. 17-x. 10; xi. 3-xvi. 13; xviii. 2-xix. 5. Of all the books only 2 John and 2 Thess. are entirely lost; about thirty-seven chapters of the Gospels, ten of the Acts, forty-two of the Epistles, eight of the Apocalypse have perished. The order of the books is indicated, p. 74.

163 The following Medicean manuscripts seem to have come into the Royal Library by the same means; Evan. 16, 19, 42, 317. Act. 12, 126. Paul. 164. It appears therefore that Cod. C was not one of the manuscripts bought of Marshal Strozzi (Pattison, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 202), which were only 800 out of the 4,500 which belonged to the Queen (ibid. p. 204).

164 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. Part iv. p. 159) reminds us of Wetstein’s statement (Bentley’s Correspondence, p. 501) that it had cost him two hours to read one page; so that his £50 were not so easily earned, after all. This collation is preserved in Trinity College Library, B. xvii. 7, 9.

165 Dr. Hort, with his ever ready acuteness, draws certain inferences to be discussed hereafter from the fact that a displacement in the leaves of the exemplar wherefrom the Apocalypse in Cod. C was copied, which the scribe of C did not notice, proves it to have been a book of nearly 120 small leaves, and accordingly that it “formed a volume either to itself or without considerable additions” (Introduction, p. 268).

166 Very remarkable is the language of the University in returning thanks for the gift: “Nam hoc scito, post unicae scripturae sacratissimam cognitionem, nullos unquam ex omni memoriâ temporum scriptores extitisse, quos memorabili viro Johanni Calvino tibique praeferamus.” Scrivener’s Codex Bezae, Introd. p. vi.

167 Matt. i. 1-20; vi. 20-ix. 2; xxvii. 2-12: John i. 16-iii. 26: Acts viii. 29-x. 14; xxi. 2-10; 15-18 (though Ussher, Mill, Wetstein and Dickinson cite several readings from these verses, which must have been extant in their time); xxii. 10-20; 29-xxviii. 31 in the _Greek_: Matt. i. 1-11; vi. 8-viii. 27; xxvi. 65-xxvii. 1: John i. 1-iii. 16: Acts viii. 20-x. 4; xx. 31-xxi. 2; 7-10; xxii. 2-10; xxii. 20-xxviii. 31 in the _Latin_. The original writing has perished in the following, which are supplied by a scribe of not earlier than the ninth century: Matt. iii. 7-16: Mark xvi. 15-20: John xviii. 14-xx. 13 in the _Greek_: Matt. ii. 21-iii. 7: Mark xvi. 6-20: John xviii. 2-xx. 1 in the _Latin_. A fragment, containing a few words of Matt. xxvi. 65-67 (Latin) and xxvii. 2 (Greek), (Fol. 96, Scrivener), was overlooked by Kipling.

168 It is surprising that any one should have questioned the identity of Cod. D with Stephen’s β´. No other manuscript has been discovered which agrees with β´ in the many singular readings and arbitrary additions in support of which it is cited by Stephen. That he omitted so many more than he inserted is no argument against their identity, since we know that he did the same in the case of his α´ (the Complutensian Polyglott) and η´ (Codex L, Paris 62). The great inaccuracy of Stephen’s _margin_ (the text is much better revised) is so visible from these and other well-ascertained instances that no one ought to wonder if β´ is alleged occasionally (not often) for readings which D does not contain. On a careful analysis of all the variations imputed to β´ by Stephen, they will be found to amount to 389 in the parts written in the original hand, whereof 309 are alleged quite correctly, forty-seven a little loosely, while in eight instances corrected readings are regarded in error as from the original scribe. Of the twenty-five places which remain, all but three had been previously discovered in other copies used by Stephen, so that β´ in their case has been substituted by mistake for some other numeral. One of the three remaining has recently been accounted for by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, who has found καὶ περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται αὐτῷ (Luke viii. 18 from Matt. xiii. 12) in Stephen’s θ´ or Coislin 200 at Paris (No. 38, of the Gospels). I do not find β´ cited by Stephen after Acts xx. 24, except indeed in Rom. iii. 10 (with α´), in manifest error, just as in the Apocalypse xix. 14 ε´ (No. 6 of the Gospels), which does not contain this book, is cited instead of ιε´; or as ια´ is quoted in xiii. 4, _but not elsewhere in the Apocalypse_, undoubtedly in the place of ιϛ´; or as ιϛ´, which had broken off at xvii. 8, reappears instead of ιε´ in xx. 3. In the various places named in the last note, wherein the Greek of Cod. D is lost, β´ is cited only at Matt. xxvii. 3, beyond question instead of η´; and for _part_ of the reading in Acts ix. 31, δ´ (to which the whole rightly belongs) being alleged for the other part. In John xix. 6, indeed, where the original Greek is missing, β´ is cited, but it is for a reading actually extant in the modern hand which has there supplied Codex D’s defects.

169 “Ils s’emparèrent des portes et de tous les lieux forts ... non pas sans leur impiétes et barbaries accoutumées envers les choses saintes” (Mézeray, Hist. de France, tom. iii. p. 87, 1685). Accordingly, travellers are shown to this day the bones of unclean animals which the Huguenots, in wanton mockery, then mingled with the presumed remains of St. Irenaeus and the martyrs of Lyons.

170 One cannot understand why Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. vol. i, 30) should have supposed that Beza _prevaricated_ as to the means whereby he procured his manuscript. He was not the man to be at all ashamed of spoiling the Philistines, and the bare mention of Lyons in connexion with the year 1562 would have been abundantly intelligible scarce twenty years afterwards. It is however remarkable that in the last edition of his Annotations (1598) he nowhere calls it Codex Lugdunensis, but _Claromontanus_ (notes on Luke xix. 26; Acts xx. 3); for, though it might be natural that Beza, at eighty years of age and after the lapse of so long a time, should confound the Lyons copy with his own Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul’s Epistles (D); yet the only way in which we can account for the Codex Bezae being collated in _Italy_ for Stephen, is by adopting Wetstein’s suggestion that it was the actual copy (“antiquissimum codicem Graecum”) taken to the Council of Trent in 1546 by William a Prato, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, to confirm the Latin reading in John xxi. 22 “sic eum volo,” which D alone may seem to do. Some learned man (ὑπὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων φίλων does not well suit his son Henry) might have sent to Robert Stephen from Tren the readings of a manuscript to which attention had been thus specially directed.

171 Not more than eighty-three typographical errors have been detected in Kipling throughout his difficult task, whereof sixteen are in his Annotations, &c.

172 In St. Luke 136 (143 Lat.): in what remains of St. Matthew 583 (590 Lat.), of St. Mark 148, of St. John 165 (168 Lat.), of the Acts 235. The later παραγραφαί, indicated by [symbol] (_see_ p. 51, note 3), though forty-five out of the forty-nine are firmly and neatly made, and often resemble in colour the ink of the original scribe, can be shown to be full four centuries later (Scrivener, Cod. Bezae, Introd. p. xxviii).

173 Bradshaw (Prothero’s Memoirs, p. 97) in a letter to the _Guardian_, Jan. 28, 1863, writes thus:—“I saw Cod. א at Leipsig _per_ Tischendorf. I had been curious to know whether it was written in even quaternions throughout, like the Cod. Bezae, or in a series of fasciculi, each ending with a quire of varying size, like the Cod. Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the-bye, is sufficient to prove”—why, is not quite clear—“that it cannot be the volume which Dr. Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos.”

174 Yet Φ (Beratinus) and Σ (Rossanensis) contain St. Matthew and St. Mark, and are probably a little older than D.

175 H. C. Hoskier, Collation of Cod. 604, &c. Appendix F. Mr. Hoskier saw the MS. on May 18, 1886.

176 In our facsimile (No. 21), over against the beginning of Mark xvi. 8, is set the number of the section (ΣΛΓ or 233), above the corresponding Eusebian canon (B or 2).

177 Dr. Hort more exactly reckons that these leaves apparently contain Mark vi. 53-vii. 4; vii. 21-viii. 32; ix. 1-x. 43; xi. 7-xii. 19; xiv. 25-xv. 22 (_Addenda and Corrigenda_ to Tregelles’s N. T., p. 1019), adding that Tischendorf had access also to a few verses preserved in the collections of the Russian Bishop Porphyry. They are published in Duchesne’s “Archives des Missions scientifiques et littéraires” (Paris, 1877), 3e sér. tom. iii. pp. 386-419.

178 These songs, with thirteen others from the Old Testament and Apocrypha, though _partially_ written in uncial letters, are included in a volume of Psalms and Hymns, whose prevailing character is early cursive.

179 From Tischendorf’s copy of Od Dr. Caspar René Gregory has gathered readings in Heb. v. 8-vi. 10, and sent them to Dr. Hort.

180 I.e., twenty lines on a page, according to the form used in this edition.

181 They had been previously described in a tract “Jac. Frid. Heusinger, de quatuor Evan. Cod. Graec. quem antiqua manu membrana scriptum Guelferbytana bibliotheca servat.” Guelf. 1752.

182 Codex P contains Matt. i. 11-21; iii. 13-iv. 19; x. 7-19; x. 42-xi. 11; xiii. 40-50; xiv. 15-xv. 3; xv. 29-39: Mark i. 1-11; iii. 5-17; xiv. 13-24; 48-61; xv. 12-37; Luke i. 1-13; ii. 9-20; vi. 21-42; vii. 32-viii. 2; viii. 31-50; ix. 26-36; x. 36-xi. 4; xii. 34-45; xiv. 14-25; xv. 13-xvi. 22; xviii. 13-39; xx. 21-xxi. 3; xxii. 3-16; xxiii. 20-33; 45-56; xxiv. 1, 14-37; John i. 29-41; ii. 13-25; xxi. 1-11.

183 Codex Q contains Luke iv. 34-v. 4; vi. 10-26; xii. 6-43; xv. 14-31; xvii. 34-xviii. 15; xviii. 34-xix. 11; xix. 47-xx. 17; xx. 34-xxi. 8; xxii. 27-46; xxiii. 30-49: John xii. 3-20; xiv. 3-22.

184 Published in the Jahrbücher (Vienna) d. Lit. 1847.

185 Codex R contains Luke i. 1-13; i. 69-ii. 4; 16-27; iv. 38-v. 5; v. 25-vi. 8; 18-36, 39; vi. 49-vii. 22; 44, 46, 47; viii. 5-15; viii. 25-ix. 1; ix. 12-43; x. 3-16; xi. 5-27; xii. 4-15; 40-52; xiii. 26-xiv. 1; xiv. 12-xv. 1; xv. 13-xvi. 16; xvii. 21-xviii. 10; xviii. 22-xx. 20; xx. 33-47; xxi. 12-xxii. 15; 42-56; xxii. 71-xxiii. 11; xxiii. 38-51. A second hand has supplied ch. xv. 19-21.

186 For the Coptic style of the letters Tischendorf compares a double palimpsest leaf in the British Museum, containing 1 Kings viii. 58-ix. 1, which he assigns to the fifth century, although the capital letters stand out a little, and are slightly larger than the rest (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. ii. Proleg. p. xliv). But both Dr. Wright and Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, from their great experience in this style of writing, have come to suspect that it is usually somewhat less ancient than from other indications might be supposed.

187 Tischendorf found breathings also in the palimpsest Numbers (Monum. sac. ined. _ubi supra_, p. xxv).

188 I say _almost_, for Bengel’s description makes it plain that this is the Moscow manuscript from which F. C. Gross sent him the extracts that Wetstein copied and numbered Evan. 87. Bengel, however, states that the cursive portion from John vii onwards bears the date of 6508 or A.D. 1000. Scholz was the first to notice this identity (_see_ Evan. 250).

189 Notwithstanding, the Eusebian canons have been washed out of Wb, a strong confirmation of what was conjectured above, p. 61.

190 Codex X contains Matt. vi. 6, 10, 11; vii. 1-ix. 20; ix. 34-xi. 24; xii. 9-xvi. 28; xvii. 14-xviii. 25; xix. 22-xxi. 13; 28-xxii. 22; xxiii. 27-xxiv. 2; 23-35; xxv. 1-30; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 12; Mark vi. 47-Luke i. 37; ii. 19-iii. 38; iv. 21-x. 37; xi. 1-xviii. 43; xx. 46-John ii. 22; vii. 1-xiii. 5; xiii. 20-xv. 25; xvi. 23-xxi. 25. The hiatus in John ii. 22-vii. 1 is supplied on paper in a hand of the twelfth century; Mark xiv. 61-64; xiv. 72-xv. 4; xv. 33-xvi. 6 are illegible in parts, and xvi. 6-8 have perished. Matt. v. 45 survives only in the commentary.

191 Codex Z contains Matt. i. 17-ii. 6; ii. 13-20; iv. 4-13; v. 45-vi. 15; vii. 16-viii. 6; x. 40-xi. 18; xii. 43-xiii. 11; 57-xiv. 19; xv. 13-23; xvii. 9-17; 26-xviii. 6; xix. 4-12; 21-28; xx. 7-xxi. 8; 23-30; xxii. 16-25; 37-xxiii. 3; 15-23; xxiv. 15-25; xxv. 1-11; xxvi. 21-29; 62-71.

192 Not in moveable type, as a critic in the _Saturday Review_ (Aug. 20, 1881) seems to suppose.

193 Mr. E. H. Hansell prints in red these additional readings thus fresh brought to light in the Appendix to his “Texts of the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament,” Oxford, 1864.

194 “Barrett’s edition shows that of the sixty-four pages of the MS. fifty had originally twenty-one lines to the page, and fourteen had twenty-three.” Dr. Ezra Abbot.

195 These are Matt. vi. 16-29; vii. 26-viii. 27; xii. 18-xiv. 15; xx. 25-xxi. 19; xxii. 25-xxiii. 13; John vi. 14-viii. 3; xv. 24-xix. 6.

196 In the St. Petersburg portion are all the rest of St. John, and Matt. i. 1-v. 31; ix. 6-xii. 18; xiv. 15-xx. 25; xxiii. 13-xxviii. 20; or all St. Matthew except 115 verses.

197 Dr. Gregory, Tisch. Prolegomena, p. 401, quotes Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeogr., Lipsiae, 1879, pp. 159, 344, as assigning A.D. 979 as the date.

198 The edition was posthumous, and has prefixed to it a touching “Life” of two pages in length, by his brother and pupil, dwelling especially on Rettig’s happy change in his later days from rationalism to a higher and spiritual life.

199 Viz. Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim. ii. 4; iv. 10; vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 15. Equally strong are the notices of Aganon, who is cited eight times in Δ, about sixteen in G. This personage was Bishop of Chartres, and a severe disciplinarian, who died A.D. 941; a fact which does not hinder our assigning Cod. Δ to the ninth century, as Rettig states that all notices of him are by a later hand. There is the less need of multiplying proofs of this kind, as Tregelles has observed, a circumstance which demonstrates to a certainty the identity of Cod. Δ and G. When he was at Dresden he found in Cod. G twelve leaves of later writing in precisely the same hand as several that are lithographed by Rettig, because they were attached to Cod. Δ. “Thus,” he says, “these MSS. once formed one book; and when separated, some of the superfluous leaves with additional writing attached to the former part, and some to the latter” (Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 197).

200 The portion of this manuscript contained in Paul. G was divided into στίχοι on the same principle by Hug (Introduction, vol. i. p. 283, Wait’s translation).

201 Λ (1) is really an Evangelistary. See Evst. 493.

202 The subscription to St. Matthew stands in _both_: ευανγελιον κατα ματθαιον. εγραφη και αντεβληθη εκ των [sic] ἱεροσολυμοις παλαιων αντιγραφων; των εν τω ἁγιω ορει αποκειμενων; εν στιχοις _βφιδ_; κεφφ. _τνε_. Very similar subscriptions occur in Codd. 20, 215, 300, 376, 428, 573.

203 Cod. Ξ contains Luke i. 1-9; 19-23; 27, 28; 30-32; 36-66; 77-ii. 19; 21, 22; 33-39; iii. 5-8; 11-20; iv. 1, 2; 6-20; 32-43; v. 17-36; vi. 21-vii. 6; 11-37; 39-47; viii. 4-21; 25-35; 43-50; ix. 1-28; 32, 33; 35; 41-x. 18; 21-40; xi. 1, 2; 3, 4; 24-30; 31; 32, 33.

204 Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 1. Bd. 4. Hft., 1883, Leipsig. Also see _Church Quarterly_, Jan. 1884. Prof. Sanday in Studia Biblica, i. p. III. “Would delight the heart of the Dean of Chichester.” _Athenaeum_, No. 302, Sept. 19, 1885.

205 Dean. Gywnn of Raphoe is so good as to remind me that among the other proper names enumerated by Wetstein and Semler as written on the reverse of the last leaf of this manuscript, ΘΕΩΔΟΡΟΣ stands by itself in a hand which may be as old as the seventh century. Common as the name is, the fact is interesting and suggestive. For the orthography compare κωλονια Acts xvi. 12 in Cod. E.

206 It is probable that Mill got this from “Nouvelles Observations sur le Texte et les Versions du Nouveau Testament,” par R. Simon, Paris, 1695.

207 I see no force in Tischendorf’s objection, that if Theodore had brought Cod. E to England, Bede would have used it before he came to write his “Expositio Retractata.”

208 The names and order of the books of the New Testament in this most curious and venerable list stand thus: Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Romans, 1, 2 Corinth., Galat., Ephes., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Colos., _Filimon_, 1, 2 Pet., James, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, Barnabas’ Ep., John’s Revelation, Act. Apost., Pastor [Hermas], Actus Paul., Revelatio Petri.

209 Facsimiles of this manuscript are given by Semler in his edition of Wetstein’s Prolegomena (1764, Nos. 8, 9). Bianchini’s estimate of its age (Evangeliarium Quadruples, tom. ii. fol. 591, 2), as of the seventh century, is certainly too high.

210 Facsimile of 1 Tim. vi. 19-2 Tim. i. 5 is given in Pal. Soc. Pt. ix (1879), Pl. 127.

211 So 1 Cor. xii. 2. For ἄφωνα, Vulg. _muta_, Cod. Aug. ἄμορφα. Rom. viii. 26. For ἀσθενείαις, Vulg. _infirmitatem orationis nostrae_, Cod. Aug. τῆς δεήσεως, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. Infinitives for Imperatives.

212 He betrays his nationality by placing “waltet” _primâ manu_ over the first εξουσειαζει, 1 Cor. vii. 4.

213 In 1 Tim. iv. 2 the Latin h is inserted _secundâ manu_ before υποκρισι.

214 Boerner’s son tells the tale thirty years afterwards with amusing querulousness in his Catalogus Bibl. Boern. Lips. 1754, p. 6, cited by Matthaei Cod. Boern. p. xviii. But there must have been some misunderstanding on both sides, for it appears from a manuscript note in his copy of the Oxford N. T. of 1675 (Trin. Coll. B. xvii. 8), that Bentley considered Cod. G his own property; since after describing Cod. F before the Epistle to the Romans as his own, and as commencing at Rom. iii. 19, he adds “Variae lectiones ex altero _nostro_ MSto, ejusdem veteris exemplaris apographo.”

215 viz. ημας for υμας, Rom. xvi. 17; μετρους for μερους, Eph. iv. 16; εσκοτισμενος for -μενοι, iv. 18. Add to these στωμα for σωμα, 1 Cor. ix, 27, as cited by Bentley (Ellis, Critica Sacra, p. 36).

216 By John O’Donovan, Editor of Irish Annals. I have been favoured with corrections by the late Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, Dublin, and recently by the Rev. Robert King of Ballymena, whose version I have ventured to adopt.

Téicht do róim [téicht do róim]: To come to Rome, to come to Rome, Mór saido becic torbai: Much of trouble, little of profit, Inrí chondaigi hifoss: The thing thou seekest here, Manimbera latt ni fog bai: If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not.

Mór báis mór baile: Great folly, great madness, Mór coll ceille mór mire: Great ruin of sense, great insanity, Olais airchenn teicht dóecaib: Since thou hast set out for death, Beith fó étoil maic Maire.: That thou shouldest be in disobedience to the Son of Mary.

The second stanza intimates that as the pilgrimage to Rome is at the risk of life, it is folly not to be at peace with Christ before we set out. The opening words “To come to Rome” imply that the verses were written there by some disappointed pilgrim. Since the handwriting resembles that of the interlinear Latin, Mr. King suggests that both may have been the work of the Scottish Bishop Marcus, or of his nephew Moengal (Rettig, Cod. Δ, Prolegomena, p. xx), who called at St. Gall on their return from Rome, whence Marcus went homewards, leaving his books and Moengal behind him.

217 Here αου standing to represent _au_ shows that the Greek is derived from the Latin, not _vice versâ_.

218 That Cod. G cannot have been taken from Cod. G appears both from matters connected with their respective Latin versions, and because F contains no trace of the vacant lines left in G at the end of Rom. xiv to receive ch. xvi. 25-27. But Dr. Hort (Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 5, pp. 67, 68 note) has come to think that F is a mere transcript of G, the scribe of the former being by far the more ignorant of the two. He meets our argument to the contrary stated above in the text, by alleging that in respect to the division of words F is free from no outrageous portent found in G, while it has to answer for many of its own. But (to take our examples from one open leaf) if the writer of F were so helplessly ignorant as Dr. Hort represents, how could he have set right G’s error in 1 Tim. iv. 7, reading και · γραωδεις for G’s και αιγραωδεις? Again, if F had before him an undivided manuscript, one can easily account for such monsters as in 1 Tim. iv. 2 και · καυτη ριασ μενων· F (_photographed page_), but no one could possibly have so written with G’s κεκαυτηριασμενων before him. That the two copies were compared together in after times seems evident from the fact stated in p. 179, that Latin renderings from G stand in eighty-six places above the Greek of F. It was at the same time perhaps that some ill-divided words in F were corrected by means of a loop from the Greek of G: e.g. 2 Cor. i. 3 οικτιρμων G, οικ [symbol] τιρμων F; ii. 14 θριαμβευοντι G, θριαμ [symbol] βεὐοντι F; iv. 9 ενκαταλιμπαννομενοι G, εν · καταλιμπαν [symbol] νομενοι F; ver. 15 πλεονασασα G, πλεονα [symbol] σασα F. ’Mr. Hort’s view, that F was copied directly from G’ (writes Bishop Lightfoot very gently, Journal of Philology, vol. iii. No. 6, p. 210, note), “deserves consideration, and may prove true, though his arguments do not seem quite conclusive.” Lightfoot elsewhere pronounces that “the divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts” seem unfavourable to Dr. Hort’s hypothesis (Ep. to Coloss. p. 355, note 2). But the latter still adheres to it with characteristic firmness: “we believe F to be as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G [as E is of D]; if not, it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar” (Introd. p. 150). Yet why “inferior”?

219 Epistularum Paulinarum codd. Gr. et Lat. scriptas Augiensem Boernerianum Claromontanum examinavit, &c. Petrus Corssen, H. Fienche Kiliensis, 1889.

_ 220 See_ p. 63, note 1.

221 Scholz describes Codd. 196, 362, 366 of the Gospels as also written in red ink. See too Evan. 254.

222 Dr. C. R. Gregory has read a few words more of this MS. Griesbach and Scholz number the London part as 64, the Hamburg part as 53.

223 Griesbach (Symbol. Critic. vol. ii. p. 166) says that in the Harleian fragment “Iota bis tantum aut ter subscribitur, semel postscribitur, plerumque omittitur,” overlooking the second ascript. Scrivener repeats this statement about ι subscript (Cod. Augiens. Introd. p. lxxii), believing he had verified it: but Tischendorf cannot see the subscripts, nor can Scrivener on again consulting Harl. 5613 for the purpose. Tregelles too says, “I have not seen a _sub_scribed iota in any uncial document” (Printed Text, p. 158, note).

224 Tregelles, wishing to reserve the letter B for the great Codex Vaticanus 1209, called this copy first L (N. T. Part iv. p. iii), and afterwards Q (N. T. Part vi. p. i). Surely Mr. Vansittart was right (Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. 3, p. 41) in protesting against a change so needless and inconvenient; nor has Tischendorf adopted it in his eighth edition of the N. T.

225 Very many corrections have been made in the following Catalogue as well from investigations of my own as from information kindly furnished to me by Mr. H. Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge, by Professor Hort, by Mr. A. A. Vansittart, late Fellow of Trinity College there [d. 1882], by Mr. W. Kelly, and especially by Dean Burgon, to whom the present edition is more deeply indebted than it would be possible to acknowledge in detail. His series of Letters addressed to me in the _Guardian_ newspaper (1873) contains but a part of the help he has afforded towards the preparation of this and the second edition. Ed. iii.

226 For the Authorities chiefly consulted in the list of Cursive Manuscripts given in this edition, see Appendix A to this volume; and for a list of Facsimiles, see Appendix B.

227 Stephen’s margin cites ζ´ eighty-four times in the Gospels, usually in company with several others, but alone in Mark vi. 20; xiv. 15; Luke i. 37. Since Evan. 18 or Reg. 47 contains the whole N. T., and Stephen cites ζ´ in the Acts once (ch. xvii. 5), in the Catholic Epistles seven times, in the Pauline twenty-seven, in the Apocalypse never; Reg. 47 has been suggested to have been Stephen’s ζ´, rather than Cod. 8 or Reg. 49. On testing the two with Steph. ζ´ in eight places, Mr. Vansittart found that they both agreed with it in five (Matt. xx. 12; Mark vi. 20; x. 52; Luke vi. 37; John vi. 58), but that in the remaining three (Mark xii. 31; Luke i. 37; John x. 32) Reg. 49 agreed with ζ´, while Reg. 47 did not.

228 Stephen includes his θ᾽ among the copies that αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, which might suit the case of Coislin. 200, as St. Louis would have brought or sent it to France. Mr. Vansittart tested Cod. 38 in Matt. xxvi. 45; Luke viii. 18; xix. 26; James v. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 18, and found it agree in all with Stephen’s θ᾽. What of ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5? In Luke viii. 18 that most careless editor misprints β᾽ when he means θ᾽. See above, p. 124, note 3.

229 “Textus ipse distinctus est in clausulas majores, seu Paragraphos; ad initium notatos singulos literâ majusculâ miniatâ,” Mill (N. T. Proleg. § 1445). Yet since Burgon testifies that its text “is not broken up into Paragraphs after all,” Mill can only intend to designate in a roundabout way the presence of the larger chapters (p. 55) with their appropriate capitals.

230 On the death of Dr. John Moore, Bishop of Ely (whose honesty as a book-collector is impeached, on no fair grounds, by Tew in Bridge’s “Northamptonshire,” vol. ii. p. 45, Oxon. 1791), in 1714, George I was induced to buy his books and manuscripts for the Library at Cambridge, amounting to 30,000 volumes, in acknowledgement of the attachment of the University to the House of Hanover. Every one remembers the epigram which this royal gift provoked. _See_ “Cap and Gown,” p. 15.

231 “We often hear,” said a witty and most reverend Irish Prelate, “that the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses is a _gloss_; and any one that will go into the College Library may see as much for himself.” It was a little bold in Mr. Charles Forster (“A New Plea,” &c., pp. 119, 120, 139), whose zeal in defence of what he held to be the truth I heartily revere, to urge the authority of Dr. Adam Clarke for assigning this manuscript to the thirteenth century, the rather since almost in the same breath, he stigmatizes the Wesleyan minister for a “self-taught philomath” (p. 122). Dr. Clarke tells us fairly the grounds on which he arrived at his strange conclusion (Observations on the Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, Manchester, 1805, pp. 8-10), and marvellously unsound they are. But what avails authority, _quum res ipsa per se clamat_? The facsimile made for Dr. Clarke nearly seventy years ago has been copied in Horne’s Introduction and twenty other books, and leaves no sort of doubt about the date of Codex Montfortianus.

232 This Froy or Roy is believed by Mr. Rendel Harris (Origin of Cod. Leic., p. 48) to be the forger of Cod. 61.

233 Another facsimile (Luke xxi. 36-John viii. 6) is given by Abbott in his “Collation of Four Important Manuscripts” (_see_ Cod. 13). In all four the _pericope adulterae_ follows Luke xxi. 38.

234 See the style of the Evangelistaria, as cited above, pp. 80-83; Matthaei’s uncials BH and Birch’s 178 of the Gospels, described below. So B.-C. ii. 13, to be described hereafter, reads in St. Matthew only ἀρχ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ ματθαῖον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Compare also Codd. 211, 261, 357, and B.-C. iii. 5 in SS. Matthew and Mark.

235 Of the 183 manuscript volumes bequeathed by William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury [1657-1737] to Christ Church (of which he had been a Canon), no less than twenty-eight contain portions of the Greek Testament. They are all described in this list from a comparison of Dean Gaisford’s MS. Catalogue (1837) with the books themselves, to which Bp. Jacobson’s kindness gave me access in 1861. Corrected by E. M., to whom similar kindness has been shown. See also “Account of some MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford,” by the Rev. Charles H. Hoole, Student.

236 These formal revisions of the Latin Bible were mainly two, one made by the University of Paris with the sanction of the Archbishop of Sens about 1230, and a rival one undertaken by the Mendicant Orders, through Cardinal Hugo de St. Caro (_see_ above, p. 69), and adopted by their general Chapter held at Paris in 1256. A previous revision had been made by Cardinal Nicolaus and the Cistercian Abbot Stephanus in 1150. A manuscript of that of 1256 was used by Lucas Brugensis and Simon (Wetstein, N. T. Prol. vol. i. p. 85). Canon Westcott calls attention to a _Correctorium_ in the British Museum, King’s Library, 1 A. viii.

237 On fol. 4 we read ἡ βίβλος αὕτη (ἥδε 178) τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Προδρόμου | τῆς κειμένης ἔγγιστα τῆς Ἀε[αι]τίου | ἀρχαϊκὴ δὲ τῆ μονῆ κλῆσις Πέτρα. Compare Cod. 178 and Montfauc, Palaeogr. Graeca, pp. 39, 110, 305.

238 Noted “Ex libris Georgii Wheleri Westmonasteriensis perigrinatione ejus Constantinopolitanâ collect. Anno Domini 1676.” See Evan. 68; Evst. 3.

239 Cod. 101 better suits Bengel’s description of Uffen. 3 than 97: they are written on different materials, and the description of their respective texts will not let us suspect them to be the same. Wetstein never cites Cod. 101, but the addition of τὸν θεόν at the end of John viii. 27, the reading of the margin of Uffen. 3, has been erroneously ascribed in the critical editions to 97, not to 101.

240 Cod. Ravianus, Bibl. Reg. Berolinensis [xvi], 4to, 2 vols., on parchment, once belonging to Jo. Rave of Upsal, has been examined by Wetstein, Griesbach, and by G. G. Pappelbaum in 1796. It contains the whole New Testament, and has attracted attention because it has the disputed words in 1 John v. 7, 8. It is now, however, admitted by all to be a mere transcript of the N. T. in the Complutensian Polyglott with variations from Erasmus or Stephen, and as such has no independent authority.

241 (Wetstein.) THE VELESIAN READINGS. The Jesuit de la Cerda in his “Adversaria Sacra,” cap. xci (Lyons, 1626), a collection of various readings, written in vermilion in the margin of a _Greek_ Testament (which from its misprint in 1 Pet. iii. 11 we know to be R. Stephen’s of 1550) by Petro Faxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who had taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the king’s library, in the Escurial. It is never stated what codices or how many support each variation. De la Cerda had received the readings from Mariana, the great Jesuit historian of Spain, then lately dead, and appears to have inadvertently added to Mariana’s account of their origin, that the sixteen manuscripts were in Greek. These Velesian readings, though suspected from the first even by Mariana by reason of their strange resemblance to the Latin Vulgate and the manuscripts of the Old Latin, were repeated as critical authorities in Walton’s Polyglott, 1657, and (contrary to his own better judgement) were retained by Mill in 1707. Wetstein, however (N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 59-61), and after him Michaelis and Bp. Marsh, have abundantly proved that the various readings must have been collected by Velez from _Latin_ manuscripts, and by him translated into Greek, very foolishly perhaps, but not of necessity with a fraudulent design. Certainly, any little weight the Velesian readings may have, must be referred to the Latin, not to the Greek text. Among the various proofs of their Latin origin urged by Wetstein and others, the following establish the fact beyond the possibility of doubt:

(For each of these, there is the reference, the Greek Text, the Vulgate Text, the Vulgate various reading, and the Velesian reading.)

Mark viii. 38; ἐπαισχυνθῇ; confusus fuerit; confessus fuerit; ὁμολογήσῃ; Heb. xii. 18; κεκαυμένῳ; accensibilem; accessibilem; προσίτῳ; ——xiii. 2; ἔλαθον; latuerunt; placuerunt; ἤρεσαν; James v. 6; κατεδικάσατε; addixistis; adduxistis; ἠγάγετε; Apoc. xix. 6; ὄχλου; turbae; tubae; σάλπιγγος; ——xxi. 12; ἀγγέλους; angelos; angelos; γωνίας.

242 (Wetstein.) THE BARBERINI READINGS must also be banished from our list of critical authorities, though for a different reason. The collection of various readings from twenty-two manuscripts (ten of the Gospels, eight of the Acts and Epistles, and four of the Apocalypse), seen by Isaac Vossius in 1642 in the Barberini Library at Rome, was made about 1625, and first published in 1673 by Peter Possinus (Poussines), a Jesuit, at the end of a catena of St. Mark. He alleged that the collations were made by John M. Caryophilus [d. 1635], a Cretan, while preparing an edition of the Greek Testament, under the patronage of Paul V [d. 1621] and Urban VIII [d. 1644]. As the Barberini readings often favour the Latin version, they fell into the same suspicion as the Velesian: Wetstein especially (N. T. Proleg. vol. i. pp. 61, 62), after pressing against them some objections more ingenious than solid, declares “lis haec non aliter quam ipsis libris Romae inventis et productis, _quod nunquam credo fiet_, solvi potest.” The very papers Wetstein thus called for were discovered by Birch (Barberini Lib. 209) more than thirty years later, and besides them Caryophilus’ petition for the loan of six manuscripts from the Vatican (Codd. BS, 127, 129, 141, 144), which he doubtless obtained and used. The good faith of the collator being thus happily vindicated, we have only to identify his eleven [Cod. 141 of the Gospels being also Act. 75, Paul. 86, Apoc. 40. Another of his manuscripts was Act. 73, Paul. 80.] remaining codices, most of them probably being in that very Library, and may then dismiss the Barberini readings as having done their work, and been fairly superseded.

243 In Codd. 115 and 202 _Eus._ is usually, in Codd. 116, 117, 417, 422, and B. M. Addit. 15,581 but rarely, written under _Am._: these copies therefore were probably never quite finished. See p. 62, and note 1.

244 Meerman’s other manuscript of the N. T., sold at his sale in 1824, is No. 562.

245 A collection presented to Urban VIII (1623-44) by Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria, from the spoils of the unhappy Elector Palatine, titular king of Bohemia.

246 Or rather A.D. 1274. According to Engelbreth the letters stand ψτψπβ, which can only mean A.M. 6782 (_see_ p. 42, note 2).

247 Thus, at least, I understand Moldenhawer’s description, “Evangeliis et Actis λέξεις subjiciuntur dudum in vulgus notae.”

248 Others F.

249 By double _syn._ Moldenhawer may be supposed to mean here and in Cod. 232 both _syn._ and _men._

250 Readings extracted by Griesbach (Symb. Crit. i. pp. 247-304) from the margin of a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in the Bodleian, in his own or Thomas Hearne’s handwriting, were placed here, but are omitted. Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis, Introd. p. xxxvi) has shown that they were derived from Evan. 440.

251 Holmes, Praefatio ad Pentateuchum, describes his Cod. 32 as “e Codicibus Eugenii, olim Archiepiscopi Slabinii et Chersonis.” Nicephorus also is named by Holmes as the editor of a Catena on the Octateuch and the four books of Kings from the Constantinopolitan manuscripts (Leipzig, 1772-3), and is described as “primo Hieromonachus, et postea Archiepiscopus Slabiniensis et Chersonensis, sedem Astracani habens” (_ubi supra_, cap. iv).

252 Written in three several and minute hands (Hort):—A for the Gospels, the Epistle of Pilate and its Answer, and a treatise on the genealogy of the Virgin; B for the Apocalypse and a Synaxarion; C the Acts, Cath. Paul. (Hebrews last), and Lives of the Apostles, followed on the same page by the Psalter by B, so that Apoc. and _syn._ probably stood last.

253 This manuscript appears to be the only Greek witness for the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac variation Matt. i. 16 ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθῆσα παρθένος μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν _ιν_ τὸν λεγόμενον _χν_. But then it was written in Italy, as Ceriani judges.

254 The asper or asprum was a mediaeval Greek silver coin (derived from ἄσπρος, _albus_); we may infer its value from a passage cited by Ducange from Vincentius Bellovac. xxx. 75 “quindecim drachmas seu asperos.”

255 450. Great Gr. Monastery at Jerusalem 1 [July 1, 1043], 8vo, _syn._, _Eus. t._, first three Gospels with an Arabic version, neatly written by a reader, Euphemius. This appears to be Coxe’s 6, 4to, St. Luke only.

451. Jerusalem 2 [xii], 8vo.

452. Jerusalem 3 [xiv], 8vo.

453. Jerusalem 4 [xiv], 8vo.

454. Jerusalem 5 [xiv], 8vo.

455. Jerusalem 6 [xiv], 4to, with a commentary.

456. Jerusalem 7 [xiii], 4to, St. Matthew with a commentary, neatly written.

_Perhaps_ Coxe’s 43 [xi], in gold _uncial_ letters.

457. St. Saba 2 [xiii], 4to, _syn._, _men._, is Act. 186, Paul. 234.

458. St. Saba 3 [dated 1272, Indiction 15], 16mo.

459. St. Saba 7 [xii], 8vo.

460. St. Saba 8 [xii], 8vo.

461. See Evan. 481.

462. St. Saba 10 [xiv], 4to, is also Act. 187, Paul. 235, Apoc. 86.

463. St. Saba 11 [xiv], 4to, _chart._

464. St. Saba 12 [xi], 4to.

465. St. Saba 19 [xiii], 8vo.

466. St. Saba 20 [xiii], 8vo, is Act. 189, Paul. 237, Apoc. 862 or 89. Also “from a monastery in the island of Patmos.”

467. [xi], 4to.

468. [xii], 8vo, with a commentary.

469. [xiv], 4to.

256 The Psalter 5pe (Petrop. ix. 1) [994], containing the hymns, Luke i. 46-55; 68-79; ii. 29-32, is like our Evan. 612, which see.

257 In addition to Evann. 73, 74, Gaisford in 1837 catalogued, and Scrivener in 1861 inspected, these fourteen copies of the Gospels in the collection of Archbishop Wake, now at Christ Church, Oxford. They were brought from Constantinople about 1731, and have now been described in the Rev. G. W. Kitchin’s Catalogue of the Manuscripts in Christ Church Library (4to, 1867).

258 The letter χ is quite illegible, but the Indiction 9 belongs only to A.D. 831, 1131, 1431, while the style of the manuscript leaves no doubt which to choose.

259 Of these manuscripts Thomas Mangey (Evan. 483) states on the fly-leaves that he collated Nos. 12, 25, 28, 34 in 1749. Caspar Wetstein collated the Apocalypse in Nos. 12 and 34 for his relative’s great edition; while in the margin of No. 35, a 4to Greek Testament printed at Geneva (1620), is inserted a most laborious collation (preceded by a full description) of eight of the Wake manuscripts with Wetstein’s N. T. of 1711, having this title prefixed to them, “Hae Variae lectiones ex MSS. notatae sunt manu et opera Johannis Walkeri, A. 1732.” John Walker, most of whose labours seem never yet to have been used, although they were known to Berriman in 1741 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, pp. 102-4), was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where so many of his critical materials accumulated for the illustrious Bentley are deposited. Walker d. 1741, Archdeacon of Hereford, after Bentley’s will, six months before him. The codd. in Trinity College were bought from Bentley’s heirs (not from Richard Bentley) when Wordsworth was Master (1820-41), and so were not in Bentley’s hands when Walker died. Old Latin Biblical Texts, xxiv-vi. Of his eight codices, we find on investigation that Walker’s C is Wake 26; Walker’s 1 is Wake 20 (collations of these two, sent by Walker to Wetstein, comprise Codd. 73, 74, described above); Walker’s B is Wake 21; Walker’s D is Wake 24, both of Gospels; Walker’s E is Wake 18, his H is Wake 19, both Evangelistaria; Walker’s q is Wake 12, of which Caspar Wetstein afterwards examined the Apocalypse (Cod. 26); Walker’s W is Wake 38 of the Acts and Epistles, or Scholz’s Act. 191, Paul. 245.

260 Bentley specifies “argumenta inedita Cosmae Indicopleustae in 4 Evangelia, et versus iambici fortasse Jacobi Calligraphi: argumenta incerti ad Actus: prologus ineditus et argumenta Oecumenii ad Epistolas omnes.”

261 Matt. iv. 1-vii. 6; xx. 21-xxi. 12; Luke iv. 29-v. 1; 17-33; xvi. 24-xvii. 13; xx. 19-41; John vi. 51-viii. 2; xii. 20-40; xiv. 27-xv. 13; xvii. 6-xviii. 2; 37-xix. 14.

262 In Mr. Coxe’s “Report to Her Majesty’s Government,” we find an account (which illness compelled him to give at second hand) of several copies of the Gospels and one palimpsest Evangelistarium, all dated [xii], still remaining in this Prelate’s Library.

263 For Add. 11,837, which is mscr, see Evan. *201.

264 Belsheim (Cod. Aureus, Proleg. p. xvii and note 3) gives a short life of that noble Swede, John Gabriel Sparvenfeldt [1655-1727], who was sent over Europe by his master, Charles XI, to procure manuscripts for the Royal Library, and bought the Latin Codex Aureus at Madrid in 1690.

265 Gregory considers this to be (not a duplicate but) the same as Cod. 634.

266 For the other Evann. at Patmos, _see_ No. 1160, &c.

267 For all these MSS. (Evann. 1148, 1149, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1265-1268, 1274-1279), _see_ Ἱεροσολομιτικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη, κ.τ.λ., ὑπὸ Α. Παπαδοπούλου Π. Κεραμέως. Τόμος Πρῶτος. Ἐν Πετρουπόλει, 1891.

268 Mr. Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. xxviii, xxix) represents, among facts which I am better able to verify, that Act. and Epp. 25, 26, and Epp. 15, were collated by Wetstein, and his labours preserved at Trin. Coll. Cambridge (B. xvii. 10, 11). The manuscripts he indicates so ambiguously must be Paul. 25, 26, and Act. 15, since Wetstein is not known to have worked at Act. 25, 26, or Paul. 15.

269 Covell once marked this codex 5, but afterwards gave it the name of the Sinai MS. (little anticipating worthier claimants for that appellation), reserving 5 for Harl. 5777 or Evan. 446.

_ 270 See_ under 98.

271 Cod. 162 has attracted much attention from the circumstance that it is the only unsuspected witness among the Greek manuscripts for the celebrated text 1 John v. 7, 8, whose authenticity will be discussed in Vol. II. Ch. XII. A facsimile of the passage in question was traced in 1829 by Cardinal Wiseman for Bishop Burgess, and published by Horne in several editions of his “Introduction,” as also by Tregelles (Horne, vol. iv. p. 217). If the facsimile is at all faithful, this is as rudely and indistinctly written as any manuscript in existence; but the illegible scrawl between the Latin column in the post of honour on the left, and the Greek column on the right, has been ascertained by Mr. B. H. Alford (who examined the codex at Tregelles’ request) to be merely a consequence of the accidental shifting of the tracing paper, too servilely copied by the engraver.

272 Scholz says 1344, and Tischendorf corrects but few of his gross errors in these Catalogues: but A.M. 6902, which he cites from the manuscript, is A.D. 1394.

273 Here again we banish to the notes Scholz’s list from Cod. 182 to Cod. 189, for the reasons stated after Evan. 449.

182. (Paul. 243.) Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [xii], 8vo, also another [xiii] 8vo.

183. (Paul. 231.) Library of the Great Greek monastery at Jerusalem 8 [xiv], 8vo. This must be Coxe’s No. 7 [x], 4to, beginning Acts xii. 6.

184. (Paul. 232, Apoc. 85.) Jerusalem 9 [xiii], 4to, with a commentary. This is evidently Coxe’s No. 15, though he dates it at the end of [x].

185. (Paul. 233.) St. Saba, Greek monastery, 1 [xi], 12mo.

186. (Evan. 457.)

187. (Evan. 462.)

188. (Paul. 236.) St. Saba 15 [xii], 4to.

189. (Evan. 466.)

274 From the monastery of Grotta Ferrata, near Tusculum, “Ubi degunt ab antiquo tempore monachi, ordinis S. Basilii Magni, ritum Italo-Graecum observantes,” Holmes. Praef. ad Pentateuch. on his Cod. 128, which came to the Vatican from the same place. It is the traditional Villa Luculli.

275 Birch shows the connexion of Caryophilus with this important copy (which much resembles the Leicester manuscript, Evan. Cod. 69) from James v. 5, and especially from 3 John 5 μισθόν for πιστόν, a _lectio singularis_. In this codex, as in the others cited, Heb. stands before 1 Tim.

276 The gold ducat coined for the Military Order of St. John at Rhodes (_see_ Ducange) was worth 9_s_. 6_d_. English money.

277 Here again we set Scholz’s codices in a note, substituting others in their room. Scholz’s run, 231. (Act. 183.) 232. (Act. 184.) 233. (Act. 185.) 234. (Evan. 457.) 235. (Evan. 462.) 236. (Act. 188.) 237. (Evan. 466.) 243. (Act. 182), two separate codices.

278 Mr. B. W. Newton superintended the publication of Tregelles’ last part of his Greek New Testament under circumstances which disarm criticism, but Tregelles could hardly have meant that in the Apocalypse “much of Cod. 14 (Leicestrensis) has been supplied by a later hand from the Codex Montfortianus, Apoc. 92” (Introductory Notice, p. 1). The original hand remains unchanged in the Leicester copy, even on the last torn leaf containing portions of Apoc. xix, but the converse supposition is very maintainable, though not quite certain, that the Apocalypse in Cod. 92 was transcribed from Cod. 14.

279 Gregory has substituted this for Scholz’s 23, which he finds does not contain Apoc. Whatever readings he cites under these three numbers, are simply copied from Wetstein (Kelly’s “Revelation,” Introd. p. xi, note). Dr. Gregory has seen all the four.

280 After this again we withdraw Scholz’s copies, as virtually included in Coxe’s, putting others in their room. They are 85. (Act. 184.) 86. (Evan. 462), thrice cited ineunte libro (Tischendorf). 862 of Scholz, being 89 of Tischendorf (Evan. 466).

281 We cannot identify 109, Bentley’s R (Regis Galliae, 1872): cf. Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Intr. p. xxix.

282 In the sixth lesson for the Holy Passions the prefatory clause to Mark xv. 16 is founded on an obvious misconception: Τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ οἱ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον τὸν ϊν εἰς τὴν ἀυλὴν τοῦ καϊάφα, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον. We remember no similar instance of error.

283 Laud. Gr. 36, which in the Bodleian Catalogue is described as an Evangelistarium, is a collection of Church Lessons from the Septuagint read in Lent and the Holy Week, such as we described above. It has red musical notes, and seems _once_ to have borne the date A.D. 1028. It is Dean Holmes’ No. 61 (Praef. ad Pentateuch).

284 As with the MSS. of the Gospels, and for the reasons assigned above, we remove to the foot of the page, and do not reckon in our numbering, the twenty-one copies seen by Scholz in Eastern Libraries.

158. Library of the Great Greek Monastery at Jerusalem, No. 10 [xiv], fol.

159. “Biblioth. monasterii virginum τῆς μεγάλης παναγίας a S. Melana erect.” [xiii], fol., very neat (“non sec. viii ut monachi putant,” Scholz).

160. (Apost. 33.) St. Saba 4, written there by one Antony [xiv], 8vo.

161. St. Saba 5 [xv], 8vo, _chart._

162. St. Saba 6 [xv], 16mo, _chart._

163. St. Saba 13 [xiii], 4to, _chart._, adapted (as also those that follow) to the use of Palestine.

164. St. Saba [xiv], 4to.

165. St. Saba 17 [xv], 4to, _chart._

166. St. Saba 21 [xiii], fol.

167. St. Saba 22 [xiv], fol.

168. St. Saba 23 [xiii], fol.

169. St. Saba 24 [xiii], fol.

170. St. Saba 25 [xiii], fol.

171. (Apost. 52.) St. Saba (unnumbered) [written July, 1059, in the monastery of Θεοτόκος, by Sergius, a monk of Olympus in Bithynia], 8vo.

[+]172. Library of St. John’s monastery at Patmos [“iv” Scholz, obviously a misprint], fol.

[+]173. Patmos [ix], 4to.

[+]174. Patm. [x], 4to.

[+]175. Patm. [x], 4to.

176. Patm. [xii], 4to.

177. Patm. [xiii], 4to.

178. Patm. [xiv], 4to, in the same Library, but not numbered.

Some of these MSS. have been removed to Europe since Scholz made his reckoning, e.g. Parham No. 20 (Evst. 236).

285 At the end in small gold uncials the following very curious colophon was deciphered by Dean Burgon and the learned sub-librarian Signor Veludo jointly: Μηνὶ μαΐω Ἰνδ. ΙΔ. ἔτους ϛφνδ᾽. προσηνέχθη παρὰ βασιλείου μοναχοῦ πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἡγουμένου τῆς σεβασμίας μονῆς τῆς κοιμήσεως τῆς θ_κου_ εἰς τὴν ἀυτὴν μονὴν βιβλία τέσσαρα; τὸ ἀυτὸεὐαγγέλιον, ἀπόστολος, προφητεία, καὶ ἀναγνοστικόν, ὁ βίος τοῦ ἁγίου. καὶ ἐστύχηται δίδωσθαι ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῆς προσενέξαιως ἑνὶ ἑκάστω χρόνω ἀπὸ τοῦ δοχείου τῆς αὐτῆς μονῆς ὑπὲρ μνήμης αὐτ νόμισμα ἒν ἥμισον, μέχ[ρι γὰρ τού] τὰ τῶν χριστιανῶν [συ]νίσταται; περιφυλάττεται δὲ καὶ ἡ ἁγία μονὴ αὕτη; ἐν γὰρ τῶ τυπικῶ τῆς μονῆς περὶ τοῦ κατίδους (_sic_) τῶν ἀυτῆς βιβλίων, καὶ περὶ τῆς διανομῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἡμίσου νομίσματος σαφέστερον διερμηνεύει.

286 Thus 222, with only two other Evangelistaria (6, 13) and Evan. 59 by the first hand, supports Cod. א and Eusebius in the significant omission of υἱοῦ βαραχίον, Matt. xxiii. 35.

287 [+]Evan. Td and Te and Λ (1) should also properly be classed as Lectionaries. Apost. 15, and perhaps Apost. 24, also contains Lessons from the Gospels. The two copies of the Gospels, Lowes formerly Askew, membr. 4to, mentioned by Scholz (N. T., vol. i. p. cxix), and stated by Marsh on Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 662, to have been bought at Askew’s sale by Mr. Lowes, the bookseller, are shown by the sale catalogue to have Evangelistaria. They have not yet been traced. (Ed. 3.)

288 In 1721. _See_ Monk’s “Life of Bentley,” vol. ii. p. 149. This is Bentley’s O, John Walker’s collation of which is preserved at Trin. Coll. (B. xvii. 34). Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introd. pp. xxix, xxx.

289 As in our preceding lists, we remove to this foot-note Scholz’s six copies seen at St. Saba, and occupy their numbers by other manuscripts. They are Apost. 49. St. Saba 16 [xiv], 4to, _chart._ 50. St. Saba 18 [xv], 8vo. 51. St. Saba 26 [xiv], fol. 52. (Evst. 171.) 53. (Evst. 160.) 54. St. Saba (unnumbered) [xiii], 4to.

290 An independent mode of reckoning the commencement of the indiction was followed in Egypt under the later Roman Empire. The indiction there began normally in the latter half of the month Pauni, which corresponds to about the middle of June; but the actual day of commencement appears to have been variable and to have depended upon the exact period of the rising of the Nile.—“Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the British Museum,” pp. 197, 198.

291 So Scholz’s index, and we may suppose correctly, but in his Catalogue of Evangelistaria he numbers it 1256.