« PoprzedniaDalej »
the blunder the inference we have already tried to establish (above, p. xxxi—XXXV) “N.B. non correxisse Graeca ad Latina." v. 15. The resolution of ateloavteo into kal ntevigov renders it necessary to read και before ειδον.
Cod. D primâ manu stands alone here, and in hundreds of examples of the same construction: Kipling cites a few (Praef. p. viii). Its perpetual resolution of the participle and verb into two verbs has been urged by Bp. Middleton to prove (what we need not dispute) that the text as we now have it was not arranged by a native Greek, by reason of its exhibiting “a balder and more clumsy phraseology than the other manuscripts :' “I mean," he adds, “ to a person moderately conversant with Greek; for to any other it might appear the more obvious and natural” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix, p. 479, 3rd Ed.).
Again, we find in v. 15 avtw for elo avtov (X omits elo) in D alone : TavteO (for amavted) in XABCDE. escr. 100. 105. 163. 180. Apost. Lection. 6, Theophylact once (arr. twice), and Cramer's Oxford Catena (1838). Kabnuevou (for kabeçouevoL) D. cor. 18. 137. 180. Lastly, to the end of the chapter D alone annexes the frigid gloss cotWTOO Ev Meow avtwv. Such interpolated clauses of D in the fifteen verses of ch. vi. amount to ten, certainly not more than the average in the Acts.
But if the deviations of Cod. D from the ordinary text in Acts vi. be less marked than in some other parts of that book (e. g. capp. xii. xvi.), we yet discover in them abundant means for judging of the genius and general aspect of the manuscript. Discarding from notice mere blunders of transcription, itacisms and such like trifles, we note several instances where its agreement with other principal authorities helps to point to the true reading of S. Luke's autograph (e. g. καταστησομεν, perhaps also-αγιου, υ. 3; χαριτοσ υ. 8; μωύσην υ. 11;-τουτου υ. 13): others where D stands quite solitary in exhibiting variations of no intrinsic excellency (e. g. the glosses in vv. 1; 3; 5; 13; 15), and these, so far as they go, rather damage the witness that vouches
; ; for them: others, again, far more interesting and instructive, where Daccords with one two out of a few very ancient documents derived from remote and diverse regions of Christendom, which serve to prove that the Syrian Churches, the Old Latin translator, and the Western Fathers, were acquainted with a state of the text which, though not so pure as that of the oldest Greek copies, was extensively spread and received by them with credit. We will close the branch of our discussion which relates to the interpolations of Codex Bezae, by citing a few more specimens of the two latter cases from the first five chapters in the Acts, (1) that in which D stands alone, and (2) that wherein it is countenanced by the oldest and most primitive versions and ecclesiastical writers. It would require a volume to exhaust this suggestive and fertile theme.
(1) We know of no other document which supports D in any of the following glosses, scarce one of which seems worthy of the sacred writer. Acts i. 14+ KAL TEKVOLO (after yuvacĚiv); ii. 1 + εγενετο εν ταισ ημερασ εκειναισ (before του συνπληρoυσθαι); ο. 2 + ειδου (before εγενετο); υ. 14 + πρωτοσ (after επηρεν), though Cod. E lias προτερον after αυτου; υ. 37 + και τινεσ εξ αυτων (before eltav), a very strained precaution; v. 42 + ev žepovoalne (after amooto.wv), so tol. at the end of the verse; iii. 1 + το δειλεινον (after ιερον); iv. 5 + ημερας (after αυριον); υ. 24 + και επιγνοντεσ την του θυ ενεργειαν (after ακουσαντεσ); υ. 5 + παραχρημα (before πεσων), though E has
παράχρημα in v. 6 after avastavte de; v. 18 fin. + Kai Etopeven ELO EKOOTOO ELO ta idla (see John vii. 53); υ. 21 + εγερθεντεσ το πρωϊ (after αυτω) ; . 36 + αυτοσ δι αυτου (before και παντεσ), even d omitting the v. + (); v. (
, d words; v. 38 + elow adel po. (after ta vvv, d not rendering elolv). Add to these the following notable omissions or variations, met with only in D: Acts ii. 14 deka for evdeka; v. 19
αιμα και πυρ και ατμιδα καπνου και υ. 30 καρδιασ (praecordia d) for οσφυοσ ; υ. 31 προϊδων ελαλησε περι τησ (one στίχος) ; v() ; v.
() is dropped in Dd, apparently in error: see above p. xviii; v. 47 koopov for laov; iv. 1
o otpatnyoo Tov lepov; v. 12 - nowinpia only (though several Western authorities reject the first
του ιερου; . eight words of the verse); v. 13 - και ιδιωται; υ. 16 φανεροτερον εστιν elegantly for φανερον (but
; manifestum est in d), cf. x. 28 in D; 2 Tim. i. 18; v. 18 kata to for to kabodov, but d has omnino, v. 20
un, so in ch. v. 26 - ov Dd. Many other of D’s lectiones singulares, which are of less moment, we have passed by unnoticed.
(2) The following characteristic additions, variations, and omissions in the same five chapters are also countenanced by the few faithful allies of Codex Bezae, by one or two or several at once: readings more widely supported (e.g. i. 14; ii. 40; 42; iv. 25; 33; v. 24) it is beside our present purpose to enumerate.
Acts 1. 2 + και εκελευσε κηρυσσειν το ευαγγελιον (after εξελεξατο) with the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac (which we shall denote by syr. p. mg.), Augustine thrice, partly by the Thebaic, Vigilius (or Idacius], and lux. of the Vulgate. v. 4 + prou dia tov otomatoo (before mov) with the Vulgate lux., both Aethiopic editions, Hilary, Augustine, Jerome (but d, am. fuld. omit prouv); v. 5 + kai o uelletai laußavelv (after Battio ongeobal) with tol., Hilary, Augustine, Idacius, Maximus Taurinensis; ibid. fin. + ewo TNO TEVTYKOOTNO with the Thebaic and Augustine thrice; v. 11 ELO tov ovpavov secund. with 33 primâ manu, tol., Augustine once, Vigilius [Idacius], Avitus; v. 21 fin. + xpo with the Philoxenian Syriac, both Aethiopic, Augustine.
Ch. ii. 6 talo ylworaio (for on idia dialektw) with the Peshito Syriac version, and syr. p. mg.; Augustine has both expressions, but d. e. and the Vulgate linguâ suả; v. 12 + ETTi tw yeyovori
TW (before και [D] λεγοντεσ) syr. p. mg., Augustine once; υ. 14 + αποστολοισ (after ενδεκα [δεκα D, supra, p. lvi]) with the uncial Lectionary Apost. 12, or Evst. 60 (see page xxxi), the Peshito Syriac, Augustine; v. 16 – wnd with Irenaeus (Latin), Hilary, Augustine, the treatise of the fourth century de Rebaptismate; v. 18
otismate ; υ. 18 - εν ταισ ημερασ εκειναισ and και προφητευσουσι with the same treatise and with Jerome; v. 20 - Kal enribavn with X (Cod. Sinaiticus) alone; v. 37 + TOTE TAVTEO OL ovvedovteo Kai (before akovOAVTeo) with syr. p. mg.; ibid. Lòctovo with 104, the Memphitic and Aethiopic, if Mill may be trusted (N. T. Proleg. $ 440), Augustine twice, the treatise of the fourth century de Promissionibus ; ibid. fin. + ümodećate nuelv with E, syr. p. mg., Bede's Greek, tol. v. 38 + TOV KU (before inu) with E. 60. 69. 100. 163, both Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, (the Peshito and Erpenius, without you), the Thebaic, Armenian, Basil, Cyril, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and nearly all the Latins, Cyprian, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, Ambrose, Augustine, Vigilius; v. 41 TLOTEUσαντεσ (for αποδεξαμενοι), but + και πιστευσαντεσ after αυτου 8gr. p. mg., Augustine; v. 45 οσοι ktnjata elfov (for ta ktnuata) with the Peshito Syriac only, without even Erpenius' Arabic; ibid. + kabnuepav (after avta) with Memphitic, according to Mill.
Ch. iii. 2 + idov (before tio) with the Peshito and Erpenius' Arabic; ibid.
. Lucifer of Cagliari and perhaps the Oriental Versions, but their evidence is hardly available in such a case; υ.. 3 + ουτοσ ατενισασ τοισ οφθαλμοισ αυτου (before oσ [και D] ιδων) only with reg. 5367 of the Vulgate, which stands with D also in v. 7 + cotabn kal (before cotalpewOnoar); v. 8 + χαιρομενοσ (after περιεπατει) with E (χαιρων); ibid. περιπατων και αλλομενοσ with reg. and both Aethiopic; υ. 11. This verse opens with εκπορευομενου δε του πετρου και ιωανου συνεξεπορευετο κ. τ.λ. in D reg. only; v. 13 + xov (after inv) with Pell Platt’s Aethiopic only; ibid. + Elo kplow (after Trapedwkate) E (kpitnplov), syr. p. mg., Irenaeus in the Latin ; ibid. avrov of the received text rests on the support of DE among the uncials, the Thebaic, both Syriac versions, Chrysostom and the mass of cursive copies, against SABC loti (or psor, the best cursive copy of the Acts), some other cursives, and a host of other authorities, which omit the word; ibid. the confused expression in the last two otixol of this verse (which d rather explains than translates, see p. xxxiii), bears some
resemblance to Irenaeus in the Latin (cum remittere eum vellet), to Jerome, to Chrysostom (who seems to have read Delovtoo in one place), and to the loose paraphrase of both Aethiopic editions ; v. 14 eBapuvate (for mpungaobe) with only Irenaeus (aggravastis): v. 17 + avdpeo (before adelpoi) DE only; ibid. + tonpov (after expačate), but to Tovmpov 34 (Cod. Montfortianus), syr. p. mg., Irenaeus in Latin, Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones ex utroque Test. (of the fourth century); v. 21 alwvoo with 19, the Armenian, Irenaeus in Latin, Tertullian, Cosmas Indicopleustes (of the sixth century).
Ch. iv. 1 + ta pnuata tavra (after laov) DE. cser, Peshito Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic (a version from the Peshito, it will be remembered) syr. p. mg., reg., Theophylact once and Lucifer, with some variation in the order; v. 9 + að vuwv (after avakpelvoueda) DE, the Peshito and Erp. Arab., Platt's Aethiopic, reg., Irenaeus in Latin, Cyprian ; v. 14 + Trolno al n (before avtirELV) with reg., even against d; ο. 18D begins συνκατατιθέμενων δε αυτων τη γνωμη φωνησαντεσ (for και καλεσαντεσ) with syr. p. mg., reg., Lucifer; v. 31 fin. + zavti TW Delovni LOTEVELV, with E, Bede's Greek, Irenaeus in Latin, also Augustine (omitting πιστευειν); υ. 32 + και ουκ ην διακρισεισ εν αυτοις ουδεμια (after uia) with E (whose words are k. 0. nu toplojoo ev avtoLO TLO), Bede's Greek, Cyprian twice (discrimen), Ambrose, Zeno.
Ch. v. 10 + ouvotedavteo (before ešnveykav kal) with the Peshito (200 bó, not the same word as in v. 6) and Erpenius' Arabic, against even d; v. 12 + EV TW iepw (after atavteo) with E partly (ev TW vaw ouinyuevol), 42, the Thebaic, both Aethiopic editions; v. 15 fin. + aandaoσοντο γαρ απο πασησ ασθενιασ ωσ ειχεν εκαστοσ αυτων. Here E has nearly the same sense expressed in as different words as possible, kal pvolwolv ato T. O. no eixov, while Lucifer, the Vul
απο αησ ειχον, , gate and some of its manuscripts am., demid., &c. (not fuld. tol.) support either D or E, but none go beyond aolevelao: thus am. and Lucifer render et liberabantur, the printed Vulgate et liberarentur, some add omnes, some have infirmitatibus, others end with suis or suð. This variation detracts much from the weight of their evidence.
0. 22 + και ανυξαντεσ την φυλακών (after παραγεvouevol) with the Philoxenian Syriac with an asterisk, and the Vulgate; v. 31 doển D only with the Thebaic and Latin of Irenaeus (d corrupts claritate into caritate); fin. + ev avtw with the Thebaic, Roman Aethiopic, and Arabic of the Polyglott, Augustine; v. 35 tovo apxovtao kol tovo ovvedplovo
; . αρχοντασ και τουσ (for avtovo) with the Thebaic only; v. 36 +peyav (before cavtov) D, but after eavtov in A secundâ manu (which is of little consequence) E, Scrivener's ko, 5. 6. 15. 18. 32. 33. 34. 36. 42. 43. 45. 57. 69. 180., the Peshito Syriac, both Arabic and some later copies of the Slavonic versions, tol., Origen, Cyril, Jerome, even the Complutensian edition, and the first two of Stephens, which much depended on it; v. 38 + pen plavavteo Tao xelpao (before oti) with 34 (Cod. Montfort.), E and Bede's Greek . un
) having the clause in substance with the variation un poluvoiteo Tao xelpao vuov; v. 39. Before UN TOTE D, the Philoxenian Syriac with an asterisk, and demid. (nearly) have oute üpelo OUTE βασιλεισ ουτε τυραννοι (thus far: E and Bede's Greek: ουτε υμεισ ουτε οι αρχοντεσ υμων) απεχεσθαι ουν απο των ανθρωπων τουτων: 33 marg. 180 contain only the last clause αποσχεσθε (εγκρατευετε 33) ουν απο των ανθ. (ανδρων Syr. 180) τουτ. ; 2. 41 + αποστολοι (after ουν) with 180 and the Philoxenian Syriac; v. 42 fin. TOV KV mm xov (for iv tov xv) with the Peshito (nearly), Thebaic and
την χρν (τον Platt's Aethiopic only: but there is much fluctuation in this passage.
From the foregoing analysis of all the various readings found in Acts vi., and of the characteristic peculiarities of Cod. D in Act. i. —V., the reader will easily judge for himself of its interest and importance. Its chief auxiliaries are Cod. E, though with much difference in the words ; Codd. 33, 34 (Montfort.), 137, 180; the Peshito Syriac (but not in D's larger interpolations, nor D in its own,