« PoprzedniaDalej »
the two lines in sloping uncials at the foot of Fol. 160 6 look more like J's (see p. xxvii), though not so large as the rest of his. F appears once in the Latin (Acts xxi. 18), doubtless to accommodate the version to a change it made in the lost Greek.
(7) The next scribe G, of about the eleventh century, is one of the most diligent, least instructive, and the most troublesome to an editor, of all the many correctors of this manuscript. He uses a kind of yellow ochre (though it sometimes looks rather browner), and his rude, Gothiclooking, sometimes angular, characters cannot be confounded with any other. Facsim. Pl. III, No. 8 represents one line of the Greek and one of the parallel Latin at the foot of 59 b, 60 a, cotal dedeupeva ev tolo ovpavolo erunt ligata in caelis Matth. xviii. 18, and the word vox in the margin. of Acts ii, 2 et factum est repente caelo echo, as an alternative for the Greek echo, instead of which both the Vulgate and Cod. Laud. 35 have sonus : although in Matth. xv. 18; 20; xxv. 25 G corrects the Latin of our manuscript from the Vulgate. G touches the Greek only in four other places (Foll. 417 6 3 ; 421 6 21 ; 426 6 15; 20, besides inserting the breathings and accents in Acts xvi. 19, 20; see p. xix, note 4): for the rest he confines himself to the Latin, busily correcting the lapses
; of the scribe and amending his spelling (especially the interchange of b and u), but after Fol. 118 a (unless the scrawl on 280 a be his, as is probable), he ceases altogether up to the beginning of the Acts (416 a), leaving off after 428 a, unless indeed he re-appears once 438 a 1. 4. The marginal addition 73 a 11. 9–16 looks a little like G's hand, but is not so old, besides that the ink is too brown and good'. His corrections are 283 in all.
(8,9) H and K are both recent, the former somewhat later than G, the latter quite modern, probably not many centuries old. In Facsimile Pl. III, No. 9, we have one of the cases, just enumerated, in which G touches the Greek, oopvoo in the margin being due to him. H, conceiving this correction of ek KOPTOU TYO kapdao avtov Acts ii. 30 insufficient, proceeds to erase kapdia and substitute oopvo in its room ; the earlier and true reading of Codex Bezae is just legible under the later word. This violent process of presumed amendment is perpetual throughout the Acts, .
, as indeed our Adnotationes abundantly shew; and renders the study of the book in this manuscript peculiarly irksome to one who is bound to give account for every change. In No. 10 Acts ii. 20 o nicoo MeTQOTPEPETAL ELOKOTOO was the original reading : B in its smallest hand placed hc (now nearly invisible) over the e (now 10) which followed : but K erases Hc of B and over the first e
($ (which B had probably already changed into a) sets a, and then rudely retraces plotai elok in a coarse dark brown ink or pigment. I have sometimes indicated by K such very recent changes in several hands as Foll. 3 633 ; 6 a 27; 6 6 22; 32 6 17; 47 6 27 ; 50 6 13; 53 b 4 ; 65 6 1; 26; 88 6 29; 90 621; 167 1 8. H is employed
H employed 97 times, K about 74.
We have now to speak of the several persons who have left traces of their diligence (well or ill bestowed) in the margin and elsewhere; and principally of the writer of the Ammonian sections.
(1) On the purpose and general character of these enough has been said (p. xx): we are at present chiefly concerned with their date. Now it is evident from a careful comparison of the marginal numerals of the Ammonian sections with the great body of the liturgical annotations (written in thick, clumsy uncial letters with ink of a purple hue), especially in the Gospels, that they are the work of one scribe, whom we shall call L. This clearly appears as well from many other places, as from the study of Foll. 278 b, 279 b. On the former page the necessity of keeping right the numbers of the sections has forced L to make the only change in the text (excepting Matth.
1 This is the land Porson speaks of as “Teutonic, nearly resembling the Anglo-Saxon” (Brit. Crit. Vol. II, p. 141).
xiv. 34 and possibly Luke viii. 41) he attempts throughout the volume, by inserting in Luke xxiii. 34 at the foot of Fol. 278 b the omitted section TK (o de lo eleyev matip apeo avtolo ov yop odaoi tn
πατιρ αφεσ αυτοισ ου οιδασιν TTOLOVO!), as necessary to be placed before section tha in 1. 33 (see Facsimile Pl. III, No. 11, and
On infra p. 256): here we see that the added clause is the work of the same writer as the sections. turning to Fol. 279 b it is equally evident that the liturgical note in small uncials avvayvooma elu TLV Tapao kevynv (compare too the spelling with matip, Luke xxiii. 34) is in the self-same hand, as are also the numerals abreast of it tke: (Facsimile, as above). These again are plainly written by
the scribe L, who penned the great mass of the other notations of proper lessons though in larger letters, such as Fol. 244 b, 11. 2-5 avvayvooua tepi 78 ooßßatov, with pos : by the side of it: in Foll. 254 b, 257 b, and elsewhere L's lines are longer than in this last specimen, the uncials being sometimes smaller (e. g. 91 6, 95 6). Respecting his age, not Kipling only (Praef. p. xv), whose b
. opinion might carry little weight, but even D. Schulz has ventured to say, “Haec glossemata antiquissima, si minus a primâ quidem manu, at certe ante seculum septimum jamjam adscripta esse (Disputatio de Cod. D Cantabr., Vratislaw, 1827, p. 10) : the clumsiness of the uncials has even been considered a sort of proof that they were written in Egypt, inasmuch as they bear some kind of resemblance to the Coptic characters. L appears in the Acts only on Foll. 423 b, 435 b, 500—502 b.
A bare inspection of Facsimile Pl. III, No. 12 will prove that L, instead of being dated before the seventh century, cannot be placed earlier than the ninth. At the top of 150 b, in the left or outer margin, is seen a liturgical note * in kuptăKY TWV Tpop8onomatov, and under it the labarum with a and w, all in late unicals leaning to the right (J): its date cannot well be anterior to the ninth century, but it must be older than L, which adapts the annotation to its own system by writing over it ανναγνoσμα περη and by tracing over τη κυρι the letters το κυρι in its own paint of a red or purple tinge, though it does not follow the error of the earlier scribe in regard to mpopornomatwv (see pp. 449, 450 ad calcem): L added at the same time ap (i. e. apxn) at the head of the column, and the number of the section qu: The barbarous orthography too is a further argument for a
qH lower date. It is possible that J wrote the omitted lines in Foll. 160 b, 161 a; at any rate these leaning uncials bear some resemblance in the Greek (see p. xxvi).
(2) In Facsimile PI. III, No. 13 we have επ αρρωστουσ χειρασ επιθησουσέιν και καλωσ εξουσιν (Mark xvi, 18) and its parallel Latin (from Fol. 9 b secundae manús) Super egrotos manus imponent [the double letter N as in the writing of the original scribe] et bene habebunt' for which see above, p. xxi, and note 1.
(3) The scrawl found in the upper margin of SS. Matthew and Luke and a few places of S. John, but in the lower margin of S. Mark, is represented in Nos. 14, 15 Facsimile Pl. III, and an interpretation of it in ordinary Greek letters in our Adnotationes, pp. 451-2. Those in S. Mark consist of moral apophthegms, some of them silly enongh: the rest are tirdot, or summaries of the contents of the page. No. 14 is found at the foot of Fol. 302 b eav yvon si. e. yevon] elevxovoïv oe + in capital letters (M,, with whom <=0, y= v), as are all in SS. Matthew and Mark; No. 15 is at the head of Fol. 205 b, and was not easily decyphered even by the help of my learned friend, H. Bradshaw, Esq., Fellow of King's College, whose great and constant assistance throughout the whole work I would thankfully acknowledge once for all : it runs in a cursive scrawl (M.) Tepi davyć?
1 The insertion of the guttural y here and in levyitov letters, and ekporeugomenon from Mabillon de re diplomaFol. 204 6 after v, of v before y in napavyua (paypa)
παραυγμα (πραγμα) tica, lib. v. p. 366 (1681). Mabillon also gives (p. 367) Foll. 301 b, 302 a, and of y even by L in napao kevy. Foll. pisteugo from Thuan. Col. No. 537, of the tenth century, 95 6, 99 b, 279 b, points to a Western and Celtic origin of and Wetstein compares evavyaynoav i Tim. i. 19 from all this marginal writing. See Wetst. N. T. Proleg. p. 31, who cites pisteugo from a Creed in the Bodleian in Latin
ωτε (i. e. οτε) ισηλθεν εν το θυσιαστιρηό και φαγαν τοσ αρτοσ τισ προσθεσεοσ (i. e. φαγειν τουσ αρτουσ τησ, 7 being equivalent to ov). Unlike as the two hands may seem, it is just possible that they are the work of one scribe of about the tenth century, for in Fol. 190 b of ouuew ķ avao Tio Tipoontidoo, ovuew is in capitals resembling those of S. Matthew, the four following words in the running scrawl, and all three decidedly written at the same time, and with the same ink. The apophthegms in S. Mark may be by a different person, whom we will call M,.
In the list of liturgical directions (Adnotationes, pp. 448—450) several other letters besides L are employed to indicate the penmen engaged on this manuscript. I occurs in 130 b, 197 b; it is quite as early as L (of about the ninth century) in uncials leaning to the right, with very thick down strokes. The writer of the marginal scrawl in the Gospels, or one of them if all be not by the same hand, seems to have scribbled the marginal notes in Foll. 191 b (where he is seen from 1. 25 to be later than J), 347 b, and throughout the Acts. We reserve the notation of simple M for the hand that made the coarse corrections of the twelfth century in Matth. xxvii. 65, 66, with the liturgical note in 132 b, in a round semi-cursive style, and for another (somewhat earlier) which occurs about twelve times in the Gospels. M, is assigned to the annotator of Foll. 191 b, 347 b, and some twenty places in the Acts, where the ink differs from that of the scribe last mentioned, though the writer may be the same. N indicates a large scrawl in charcoal (as black-lead would now be used) rather than in ink, chiefly scattered throughout the early pages of the manuscript to denote the beginnings (apx) and ends (tel) of Church lessons, so faint and evanescent as to be barely legible, and sometimes even invisible to the naked eye. Some of these may have been overlooked by the editor, in spite of his best care, and Mr Bradshaw's ever ready and intelligent help. A large vulgar uncial scrawl, dating early in the twelfth century, in vile brown paint, is denoted by 0 (e. g. Foll. 416 b,
6 418 b, 420 b, 462 b, 488 b) eight times in the Acts, where also o, indicates in Fol. 419 b a neat but quite modern note. All these liturgical notices doubtless refer to the established ritual of the Eastern Church, and more time than to some they might seem worth has been spent in assigning them to their different days. From our Adnotationes it will been seen that L at least is very careless, often pointing out the wrong place for the commencement of the lessons, and in fourteen instances even substituting Saturday for Sunday or vice versa.
The danger of inferring identity of hand-writing from seeming resemblance in the shade of the ink in these very old documents (see p. xxi) appears clearly in the case of a mark (r) which occurs 45 times in both languages throughout Kipling's edition at the beginning of lines, a little in the margiu, but which in this volume is uniformly rejected. It is firmly and neatly made, and in many cases no difference in colour can be detected between it and the letters of the original scribe : yet that it must be at least four centuries later is evident from Fol. 206 6 13 where r is written over and partly covers the Ammonian numerals ud, and from Foll. 233 b 20, 234 6 9 where it is placed over the double points (:) which respectively follow ple and pln. It seldom coincides with the commencement of a lesson, and not always with a pause in the sense, so that I am unable to understand what end it was designed to serve'.
Where mere strokes or points are our only guides, therefore, it is always a little uncertain whether a correction is due to an earlier or more recent reviser. This we have already seen in the instance of the dialysis and apostrophus (above p. xix), and hence it seemed advisable to designate
ir is found at the beginning of the following lines : 227 a 7; 233 6 20; 234 b9; 247 a 10; 249 6 7; 27; 12 6 19; 14 6 30; 26 6 and 27 a ll. 29; 39 a 29; 50 250 a 27; 30; 271 a 2; 287 28; 302 a 16; 317 a 11; 32 ; 59 6 12 ; 64 b 23; 78 € 21; 79 6 29; 81 b and 82 a b
338 a 22 ; 343 b 13; 423 a 15: add 48 b 21, not seen by 11. 11; 85 6 18; 91 a 28; 98 6 30; 104 a 21; 115 6 10; Kipling. The following seem later, 299 b 16; 306 b 15; 1 24 6 30; 127 a 3; 153 b 22; 29; 178 6 22 ; 202 6 3; 17
331 b 31, and over initial O 329 b 26. 203 a 31; 206 6 13; 209 b 24; 221 6 18; 24; 226 6 10;
in the Adnotationes simply as s. m. (secundâ manu) all mere erasures (such as that of -to in the six places named 191 b 1. 24), and the numerous points and obeli employed in all ages to cancel what is to be recalled : we cite s. m. in no less than 422 places. Of these the points placed over the letters to be removed seem very old, perhaps from the hand of A or B, and are often found (e. g. Facsimile Pl. I, 1. 8) where a later hand has altogether erased the letters (e. g. Foll. 115 6 6; 124 1 27; 125 6 26). Strokes'"
(Fol. 420 6 19, 20) are occasionally set over words to denote that their order should be changed, ten times in the Acts (e. g. Fol. 415 6 10), thrice elsewhere (Foll. 52 b 19; 68 6 8; 165 6 32). These are, of course, distinctly recorded in the Adnotationes, being really of the
; 6 nature of various readings, as are also some instances where a late hand (mostly K) rejects or expresses doubt about a word by drawing a line under it (e. g. Foll. 71 6 9; 118 a 29; 126 6 2 ; 128 a 28;
; 31). In the Acts especially some sixteen whole clauses are placed within brackets) or by no early hands, which yet we have carefully noted. There are also many other marks, probably intended for reference, placed in the margin by recent scribes, which it seemed needless to enumerate :-such
31, +, |, (Fol. 432 a 26), < (Fol. 458 b ad calcem), 5 (Fol. 307 6 12, 13); although Kipling has strangely inserted in his text some of the most modern of them (e. g. Foll. 442 6 8; 12; 464 b
; 17 &c.). The numbers of the chapters, set down apparently by Beza and Bentley, disfigure the margin of the whole manuscript.
If to the corrections we have enumerated as made in the text by various hands we add 20 places noted where it has been rewritten, 17 where changes are made in the letters by the first hand, and 59 instances where dots, apparently accidental (see however p in 336 a 1. 30), are set over letters prima manu, the Adnotationes Editoris discuss as many as 2149 matters pertaining to the work of the original scribe, besides those which relate to the Appendix (pp. 447—8).
It is really wonderful that an excellent scholar like David Schulz should have so lightly acquiesced in Kipling's belief that Cod. Bezae was written in Egypt, and even have reproduced his very unsound reasons for such a groundless notion (Kipling, Praef. p. xii; Schulz, Disputatio de Cod. D. pp. 6-10). The rudeness of the Latin version will soon be seen to spring from other causes than mere ignorance of that language (see Chap. III), and the long list of Alexandrian forms, if we may so term them, which will be accumulated hereafter (see Chap. IV), will not be found more extensive or remarkable than in other copies of high antiquity; while the errors of transcription in the Greek text certainly do not exceed those found in the Cod. Sinaiticus. As regards the proper lessons for Saturdays set down among the liturgical notes, which Kipling, on the supposed authority of Cassian, conceives to have been a peculiar ordinance of the Egyptian monasteries, they prevail and always have prevailed, throughout the whole Eastern Church', and are found in nearly all codices dating from the eighth century downwards, and consequently older than the earliest hand which was employed on the marginal annotations of D. Kipling's plea that John iv. used to be read in Egypt on the Saturday before the Nile was expected to rise, and that the lessons appointed
1 He cites Cassian, Institut. Lib. III. C. 2, when speaking of the perpetual service kept up in the monasteries of Egypt: “Quamobrem exceptis vespertinis ac nocturnis congregationibus nulla apud eos per diem publica sollemnitas absque die sabbathi vel dominicâ celebratur, in quibus horâ tertiâ sacrae communionis obtentu conveniunt." But though Kipling quotes c. 9 of the same book, he did not observe that Cassian describes this keeping of Saturday as quite general. “Quas (vigilias] a tempore praedicationis apostolicae, quo religio ac fides Christiana fundata est, per universum orientem idcirco statutum est illuscescente
sabbato debere celebrari—because Christ lay in the grave. throughout that day. Credner (Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, Halle, 1832, I. p. 510) saw clearly that Kipling had proved too much, and alleges Constit. Apost. V. 15, VII. 23, Tò oáßßatov MÉVTOL kai την κυριακήν εορτάζετε ότι το μεν δημιουργίας εστίν υπόμνημα ή δε αναστάσεως...."Εν δε μόνον σάββατον υμίν φυλακτέον εν όλω ενιαυτό, το της του κυρίου ταφής, όπερ νηστεύειν προσηκεν, αλλ' ουχ εορτάζειν. Both fast and feast implied a religious service.
for the corresponding Sundays related to the Lord's walking on the sea (Praef. ubi supra), has just no weight at all. John iv. 3 is marked simply as avvayvoorua reading”; it is the Greek lesson for the fourth Sunday after Easter : while as regards the other lessons referred to, which can only be Matth. xiv. 22—33; John vi. 16–21; Mark vi. 45–56, the last of them is not noted at all, that from S. John merely as avvayvooja, though it is the Greek lesson for the second Saturday after Easter, that from S. Matthew is actually set down avvayvooua men to caßato, though it does not belong to a Saturday, but to the ninth Sunday of S. Matthew.
A copy of the Greek Scriptures, furnished with a Latin version, would most likely be written among à people with whom Latin was vernacular. It would require a great deal of proof to rebut this very natural conclusion, while on the other hand every thing we see of Codex Bezae tends powerfully to confirm it. The very order in which the Gospels stand is peculiar to the West (above, p. xiv): our manuscript has it in common only with the great codices of the Old Latin Vercellensis (a), Palatinus (e), Brixianus (f), the Gothic version, and a Greek copy seen by Druthmar, a monk of Corbey in the ninth century'; Cureton's Syriac places S. Mark second, but S. Luke (not S. John) last? The same inference may also be drawn from the insertion of Latin letters in the Greek text; e. g. tublou Matth. xi. 5; ATTEOTalkev John v. 38; Mapcov Fol. 296 b title; gaçopulaklov Mark xii. 43 ; aPost Fol. 469 b title : and of Greek letters in the Latin, from the mere strangeness of the task, e. g. y for u in illym Matth. xv. 22; cyminum ibid. xxiii. 23; wond in the Latin Fol. 196 a l. 13 ; x from xin aenox Luke iii. 37; üpocrita ibid. vi. 42 (so xi. 39; Mark vii. 6); karissimus Mark ix. 7 ; magika Acts viii. 9, and the letters washed out (as stated in the Adnotationes) in Foll. 129 61. 6; 308 a l. 20; 478 a l. 20; 481 a l. 1. Add to these, as indications of a Western penman, those unmistakeable Latin forms and terminations brought into the text by the analogy of the Latin ; such are Onvo avpoo Matth. ii. 11; xiii. 44 only, but thensaurus always in the version ; oajapitavwv ibid. x. 5 only; davınlov xxiv. 15; deTpWoov xxvi. 6 (leprosi in the version always); deyelovno xxvi. 53 (but leylov Luke viii. 30 ; Mark v. 9); playellwoao xxvii. 26 ; Mark xv. 15; Tetpovo nomin. John xiii. 24 ; exeteo Mark vi. 38 ; ypaßartolo ibid. vi. 55 only: * ibid. xiv. 5, both in the Greek and Latin, for dyvapwv; Booleovo
1 “Vidi tamen librum Evangelii Graecè scriptum, qui dicebatur S. Hilarii fuisse, in quo primi erant Matthaeus Johannes, et post [alir priùs] alii duo. Interrogavi verd Eufemium Graecum cur hoc ita esset: dixit mihi, in similitudine boni agrícolae, qui quos fortiores habet boves primos jungit.” Christian. Druthmar. Matthaei Expositio, p. II, Basil. 1528. Wetstein first cited this passage (N.T. Prolegom. p. 28) to shew that the liber Evangelii Graecè scriptus seen by Druth mar, a native of Aquitania, might be Cod. Bezae itself, to which however, his description does not answer very well. Marsh (Michaelis, II. p. 701, ed. 1793), observing that extropevouévu dià atópatos 000 (ch. iv. 4) was wanting both in Druthmar's Latin and in Cod. D, calls for an examination of the former to ascertain whether the Greek copy he employed (for Druthmar knew Greek) was our manuscript or not. I have found on trial that Druthmar usually follows the Vulgate, and never in the least resembles the Latin of Cod. Bezae; that when he departs from the Vulgate to accord with D, the manuscripts of the Old Latin more or less agree with him (e.g. Μatth. iv. 4. αποκριθείς δε ο ισ; ix. 4, είπεν αυτοίς);
; and that the several editions of Druthmar himself vary so much, that that of Basle contains the very clause whose absence (in other editions) was noticed by Marsh. From such premises no safe conclusion can be drawn.
Kipling, in his heedlessness, urges yet another argument;
; namely, that the supplemental Latin leaf of Cod. D, containing Matth. ii. 21-iii. 7, exactly resembles (“omnino convenire” Pracf. p. XVIII) the Corbey manuscript (f) deposited in that very monastery in which Druthmar was a monk : never caring to remark that this Latin page is taken word for word from the more recent Vulgate, but assimilates less completely with ff'.
2 Christian Hermansen the Dane, no unworthy successor of his distinguished countrymen Adler and Zoega, in his valuable Disputatio de Cod. Evangeliorum Syriaco a Curetono typis descripto (Hauniae 1859), together with the familiar instances given above, cites Tertullian contr. Marcion. iv. 2. 5 as following ordinem a vulgari alienum of the Gospels (p. 4). Tertullian certainly draws broadly the plain dis. tinction between Evangelists who were themselves Apostles, and those who derived their information from the Apostles “nobis fidem ex Apostolis Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex Apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi” c. 2, but the order in which he names them is clearly accidental, or rather suggested by the course of his reasoning, so that no stress whatever can be laid on it: not to mention that in c. 5 his order varies, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke.