Once more the African character of e and k comes out clearly, though k has lost two distinctive readings in 'videte' for 'cavete,' and in 'triblationem,' where the parallel quotation in Cyprian from St. Matthew has 'pressuram,' found in St. Mark only in a. In v. 24 several words have fallen out in e through homoeoteleuton: 'cadent' in e is not confirmed by the parallel in St. Matthew, but has been altered into conformity with it; the Greek in St. Matthew is Teσоûvтаι, in St. Mark σovraL πíптоVтES: on the other hand commovebuntur' in k receives real confirmation. What is the source of 'fortitudines' does not appear: I doubt if it is African: the word occurs in a of Mark xii. 30. 'Claritas' is very distinctively African; and so in a less degree is 'colligit,' where d i have congregabit,' a 'concolliget' (b is defective). The curious 'summitates eorum' in St. Matthew corresponds to the Greek ews aкpwv αὐτῶν ; St. Mark has ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ.

There are clear signs here both of African and of identical origin. 'Quomodo' is an African form, and the two MSS. unite in it, where d f have sicut,' and a 'quemadmodum' (b is defective). The two MSS. also combine in 'veniet,' where the others have sit,' or omit altogether, and 'peregrinans,' where a has 'peregre iturus,' d f'peregre profectus.' The form 'reliquit. . et dedit' is more characteristically African than 'relinquens. . dans' which appear to be corrected from the Greek. For 'Sic vigilate,' a d f have 'Vigilate ergo': for 'vespera

n

they have sero': the reading' verum vespera' in k, however, looks like a conflation of serum,' which would be the form habitual to k, and ' vespera,' which would mark a rather later stage of development, though it is perhaps simpler with Tischendorf to regard 'uerum' as a corruption of 'utrum.' The order 'nocte media' is another peculiarity of e k, and so too is 'veniens,' where a d f have 'cum venerit.' For the eccentric reading 'discipulis' in k there does not seem to be any other authority. Perhaps the simplest explanation of it would be that the mind of the scribe was wandering when he wrote it.

Putting together the results of the examination of these passages, which are all in which there is any special contact between e k and Cyprian, the conclusion to be drawn from them does not seem to be ambiguous. My impression beforehand was that the evidence would be more conflicting. I had no doubt that the base of k in St. Mark as well as in St. Matthew was African and Cyprianic, but there seemed at first sight reason to suppose that a larger foreign element had been mixed with it. This suspicion, however, has not been verified. In a passage like Mark xii. 29-31 compared with the double quotation in Cyprian. there will at first appear to be little else than divergence; but when the cause of such divergence comes to be looked into it is found to be for the most part a simple case of corruption from the parallels, and that corruption greater on the side of Cyprian than of k. But even if the points of divergence had been of greater significance than they are, they would still be much overbalanced by the characteristic resemblances. These come out on examination with great distinctness. They are in reality more numerous than the mode of printing adopted above would make them appear to be. For it is highly probable that the points shared with e and k, or with k and Cyprian, by a are also genuine Africanisms engrafted upon a European stock. That again is a point that will need to be more closely tested. The broad conclusion is that with which we are at present concerned, that a comparison of Cyprian and e with k in St. Mark does not reveal any essential difference of relation from that which exists in St. Matthew. Roughly speaking the text in the two Gospels may be treated as homogeneous. How far it also preserves an inner homogeneity will be better seen when the language has been more fully analysed.

§ 14. Peculiarities of Style and Diction.

The last step that we have to take is to put together some materials which may help to give an idea of the linguistic peculiarities of k, and so pave the way for future investigations into the fundamental characteristics and relation to each other of the different forms of the Version.

This may be best treated under two heads (1) style, including peculiarities of grammar and construction both of words and sentences, and (2) vocabulary. A further section will follow on the palaeography and orthography of the MS.

Under each of these heads three courses were open to us. We might at once take k as representative of the African text, and set down only those points in k which were proved to be really characteristic of that text. Or we might select from the peculiarities of k those which really belonged to the distinctive element in the MS. Or we might put down (roughly speaking) all the readings in which k differed from the other leading MSS. whether we had reason to think them characteristic

or not.

This last course has been chosen as the most satisfactory for the purpose before us. In this way the material collected will be fullest and most complete; and we shall escape the risk of anticipating further enquiries, and assuming points the proof of which is as yet imperfect. In matters of this kind it is often hard to say what is important and what is not, and details which for one purpose are insignificant, for another purpose may acquire a significance which had never been contemplated. As therefore we are concerned with the editing of a MS., and as we are not at present determining the original form of the version represented by that MS., it has seemed right to catalogue its individualities as fully as possible.

Here, as before, the comparison has been instituted with the oldest texts, a b d f, to which ff is sometimes added. Points common to k with these are as a rule not noticed; attention is only called to them when the point so noted forms an exception to what is, or might appear to be, otherwise a rule. Especial care has been taken to note exceptions in order that it may be seen at once how far the inductions are valid. The

treatment of these exceptions however has not been quite uniform. In the case of expressions or usages which are common and obvious those only are noticed where the relation commonly existing is inverted, i. e. where the reading usually found in k appears in the European MSS. or the reading usually found in the European MSS. appears in k. In the case of expressions or usage which are less familiar, every exception is noticed. It is possible that there may be some few omissions, as the catalogue was begun on a less exhaustive scale, but any such that may occur are accidental. Words or phrases in brackets (with some exceptions which will explain themselves) are those found in the corresponding places, or those habitually found in the European texts. Where=rel.' is added to a reference, it is meant that in the instance in question the other MSS. collated give the same reading.

The lists that follow were begun by me, but Mr. White has had the larger share in their completion.