Obrazy na stronie

e. g. ch. iii. 2); the later or Philoxenian Syriac, especially the Greek manuscript cited in its margin'; the Thebaic (occasionally too the Memphitic) and Aethiopic versions, the Vulgate Latin and some of its manuscripts (especially reg. tol. demid.); the Latin Fathers in full troop (but rather Cyprian, Lucifer and Augustine than Jerome, who was much conversant with Greek codices), and the Old Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, who in his citations may have followed Western versions rather than the Greek that lay before him. When Bornemann, whose partiality for Cod. D we have before mentioned (p. liv), first considered this strange text with a view to form some estimate of its value, he was led to adopt a notion better suited to account for the glosses found in the later than in the earlier chapters of the Acts. “Fuit igitur quum omnes istas additiones codicis D sumptas esse ex commentariis et ephemeridibus suspicarer, quas Lucas ipse de rebus ab Apostolis Pauloque gestis quovis die vel hebdomade privatum in usum literis mandaverit,” such a diary having been found in after times “in ecclesiae cujusdam sacrario,” and inserted in a few copies of his book by the drop wraí (Act. A post. Praef. p. x). It is obvious, however, that such supplemental matter would consist pretty exclusively of minute facts (such as S. Mark delights in), which S. Luke might have overlooked as superfluous in writing his work, yet would afterwards be supposed to give life and vraisemblance to his narrative. It may be safely said that we meet with no additions of this character in the chapters we have examined, with but very few elsewhere (the best example I notice is xii. 10 kateBroav TOVO . Ballpovo ; others may be viii. 24; x. 25 [cf. Mark x. 50 Codd. XBDLA]; xi. 2 ; xiii. 41 ; xiv. 2; xvii. 15; xix. 9; xx. 18?; xxi. 1): the glosses we have had to deal with are mere rhetorical expansions, which dilute the spirit of the narrative without in the least improving the sense : if they were not condemned, as in fact they are, by the consentient testimony of all the best Greek manuscripts, whether uncial (XABC) or cursive (e. g. loti or pscr; 31 at Leicester or mør, which much resembles D in the Gospels), their own intrinsic emptiness would suffice to bring them into grave suspicion. Bornemann afterwards came to think these additions so good in themselves, as to have been worthy to form a portion of S. Luke's original history, though some of them (e.g. iv. 32 ; v. 15; 18; x. 41 ; xvi. 37; xxi. 1) were subsequently dropped by copyists through the besetting fault of ancient scribes and modern printers, the Homoeoteleuton, or omission of a whole clause because it ends in the same letters as the clause preceding it. But this source of transcriptural error must not be appealed to over frequently, and the student is quite as competent as Bornemann or myself to decide upon the main point at issue between us, the internal excellence or feebleness of the passages for whose absence in the vast majority of documents he has to account.

(6) If we have seemed to linger over our discussion of the interpolations of Codex Bezae, it is because the true character of its text, as well as its relation to other main critical authorities, whether manuscripts, versions or ecclesiastical writers, can best be learned from forming a correct estimate of their nature and extent. The inferences we have hitherto drawn respecting its origin and value


1 The Greek margin of the Philoxenian Syriac supports the additions of Cod. D in just 60 places in the Acts, yet we need not suppose with Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. I. p. 28) that it was the very copy used by Thomas of Harkel at Alexandria A. D. 616. Not only is there reason for thinking that Cod. Bezae never was in the East, but it is quite arbitrary to suppose that there existed no Greek manuscript much resembling it in text. Add to these considerations, those readings of the Philoxenian margin which are met with in E and other authorities, though not in D: viz. ii. 8 (E); 41?; iv. 10 (E); 17 (E); 30?; vii. 17; 18; 25; 60; x. 16 (E nearly); 16 iterum;

19 (E); 22; 30; xi. 21; xii. 7; 9; xiii. 4; xiv. 2 (partly) ; 5; 6; 10 (partly); 19; 22 ; xv. I; 5 (partly); 6 (E 137); 18; 23 (partly); 41 (partly); xvi. 4 (partly); xvii. 26 (137); 27; xviii. 2 (partly); 5; 21; xix. 6; 18; xxii. 7; 7 iterum (E): 40 places, so that D agrees with the Philoxenian margin in but three cases out of every five. Scholz's Cod. 137 (Ambros. 97 at Milan) often accords curiously enough with DE and syr. p. mg., as may be seen above, and in viii. 23; 24; xiv. 10; xvi. II; 35; xvii. 17; xviii. 5. Like most other of Scholz's copies, it seems very ill collated.


will be abundantly confirmed even by the very short review our space will permit us to take of the principal omissions and textual variations exhibited by D.

MATTH. i. 18. Here, though the Greek of D is lost, d has æpi autem generatio, omitting ihu. We know by this time too much of D's Latin version to lay any great stress upon it as indicating for certain the reading of the parallel Greek (see above p. xxxix), but in the present instance d is supported by so many authorities which usually ally themselves with D, that we may safely assume the absence of incov from its text. It is wanting in Cureton's Syriac, in a. 6. c. f. ff., in the Vulgate and its secondary versions, the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, in Wheelocke's Persic, and thrice in the Old Latin of Irenaeus, who grounds an argument upon the reading, though his Greek in one place represents inu: thus too Augustine, manuscripts of Theophylact, and a few others. Cod. B. reads tov de xu ev: Cod. 74, the Polyglott Persic and a Persic manuscript, with Maximus, have tov de inu only. MATTH. v. 4, 5. These verses are transposed by nearly the same authorities, D and just

V. one Greek MS., the important cursive 33, Cureton's Syriac (that close ally of D), a. c. ff. gl?. h. k. l., the Vulgate, the Frankish, Clement of Alexandria, Origen expressly (once, but once tacitly the other way), Eusebius in arranging the Ammonian sections, Tertullian, Jerome, (Hilary and Chromatius both ways), Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose, Juvencus, perhaps Basil and Primasius.

MATTH. vi. 1. δικαιοσυνην for ελεημοσυνην, a synonymous word for which internal evidence pleads strongly, is maintained by XBD 1. 209. 217., manuscripts appealed to in scholia to 41, 238., the Peshito Syriac (1631), that of Jerusalem, the Philoxenian, but not Cureton's (14001080), though it stands with the Peshito in giving the better word in v. 2 (140?), a. 6. c. ffʻ!. g' h. l., the Vulgate, Origen and Hilary, Isidore of Pelusium, Jerome (justitiam, hoc est, eleemosynam vestram). MATTH. X. 2. Our version d has et before iacobus zebedaei with only XB, the Peshito and

. Χ2 margin of the Philoxenian, against D and all the rest.

MATTH. xxi. 31. αισχατοσ (i. e. εσχατοσ) for πρωτοσ deserves notice as one example (Matth. vi. 13 being another) out of not many that may be cited, wherein D and the Latins a. b. e. off? g?. h. l., the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am. fuld. tol. for. harl. primâ manu), though not the Clementine edition, Hilary and Jerome (in part), are opposed to Cureton's Syriac as well as to the great mass of authorities. For a fuller discussion of this passage see Plain Introduction,

[ocr errors]

pp. 426—8.

MATTH. xxvi. 39. D has mpooeddwr (for mpoelow), but d accedens here, though in Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 10 (where also apoo stands for repo) it more correctly translates by procedo. This con

προσ fusion of the two prepositions doubtless arose from their having been once indicated by the same symbol of which, though common in the Herculean papyri, was getting out of use when Cod. Sinaiticus was written. Even the later manuscripts retain some traces of this corruption, but its frequent occurrence in any copy must be regarded as a proof that it was derived from a very old exemplar. See Cod. D in Mark alone, i. 19; ii. 26; vi. 45; x. 32; xi. 9, where it seems to stand absolutely unsupported.

MATTH. xxviii. 19. Tregelles alone among the editors adopts Battiatteo in the room of BartlGovteo on the authority of BD, against all other manuscripts (including $) and the Latin versions, including d. In common consistency he ought to have read with Lachmann evdvoapevol (for ekdvoapevol) in ch. xxvii. 28, which is countenanced not only by BD, but by 157 and an early corrector of X (quod mireris), as well as by a. b. c. d. ff., by Origen in Latin, and one or two manuscripts of Chrysostom.


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

JOHN i. 4. egtu for the first nu is found only in XD, Cureton's Syriac, a. 6. c. e. f. f?, two second-rate manuscripts of the Vulgate (gat. mm), the Thebaic, Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, copies known to Origen, MSS. of Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Vigilius, the Quaestiones (see p. li): Augustine and Victorinus have both.

JOHN v. 29. For EKTOPEVÇOVTAL D alone reads eĚEREVO ovTAL. We have here a fair example of that striking tendency observable in Cod. D to substitute for one Greek word another entirely unlike in form, but nearly or quite identical in sense, so that no version shall shew the difference. Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 447), who cites quuatwv for opbaduwv Matth. ix. 29, would infer from this habit that the Greek of Cod. Bezae is a retranslation from the Latin, at least in parts. Such a supposition would quite fail to account for many of its peculiarities, and afford a disparaging estimate of its worth, but the fact should be borne in mind however it may be accounted for. Thus in Matth. xxi. 31 D has aloxatoo (i. e. eoyatoo), where others (which yet do not agree with it in sense, see p. lx) have votepoo ; in Luke v. 7 we see βοηθειν for συλλαβεσθαι ; ibid. xiv. 5 προβατον for ονοσ ; and in S. Mark D, mostly with no other Greek document to second it, has i. 10 nuvyuevovo for oxisomevovo ; ibid. v. 40 EPWTwV

; . ερωτων for: παρακαλων; iii. 5 νεκρωσει for: πωρωσει; ibid. υ. 34 ειπεν for λεγει, with several others (so 69); ; .

. v. , ( iv. 1 ο λαοσ for οχλοσ; vi. 36 έγγιστα

for κυκλω;

vii. 2

κατεγνωσαν for εμεμψαντο; οδid. ο. 6 αγαπα for τιμα (remarkable, but hardly to the point); υ. 19 εισερχεται for εισπορευεται, εξερχεται for εκ, ); v.

, πορευεται, and οχετον for apedpwva; viii. 10 opia for menn (so Wake 34, me teste); ix. 2 αναγει

for avapepel (this with 2pe); v. 43 ameldelv for Binonvai (so v. 47 even in Wake 34), with several others ; xii. 24 yelvwo KOVTEO for eidoteo :—these may suffice to shew our meaning, without adding 24 other examples from the same Gospel.

JOHN xviii. 1. For TW Kedpwv, which is well supported, many good authorities have tov κεδρων, which there can be little doubt is the true reading, κεδρων (κενδρων is the form found in K. oser, 192 and a few others) being a Hebrew Proper Name. Codd. XD, however, alone of the MSS., coincide in upholding Tov kedpov, which seems to be meant in a. b., the Thebaic, perhaps too in the Memphitic and Aethiopic. Tischendorf notices that the affinity of Codd. XD is closer in S. John's Gospel than elsewhere (Synopsis Evangel. p. liv, 2nd edition).

LUKE iii. 22. D alone among the Greek manuscripts, supported only by a. b. c. f?. (prima manu), l., instead of ov el o vlog Mov o ayan. ev gol nud. (virtually the same as in S. Matthew), reads υιοσ μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε from Psalm ii. 7. A variation thus feebly supported by extant codices cannot be genuine, yet it is a remarkable fact (very instructive as shewing the importance of D in throwing light on the history of the text) that Justin Martyr, citing tà ánouvnmoveópata tûv drogTÓWWV (so that he may mean S. Matthew), Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Hilary, Lactantius, Faustus in Augustine, Juvencus, the Ebionite Gospel in Epiphanius, have the same reading. Augustine says that nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, but not the more ancient ones.

LUKE iii. 23—30. We can but indicate in this place the utter discrepancy between D and all other authorities of every class in regard to the genealogy of our Lord in the line between his reputed father and David. The scribe seems to have tried to reconcile them by the rough process of substituting for S. Luke's list of names that which he had already given in S. Matthew, the order being inverted. We see from Fol. 3 a that such was actually done in the case of the first twelve names, and there can be little question that the five names (ιωακειμ, ελιακειμ, αμασιου, ιωασ, οχοζιου), not found (except iwakelu) in any extant copies of S. Matthew, were actually read there in Cod. D. I know no other passage in Cod. Bezae so open to the charge of wilful alteration,—the very worst

[ocr errors]





fault a manuscript can have : that it should find a place here of course diminishes the weight of D's testimony when it omits Tov kaivav in v. 36 initio, which none others are known to do. LUKE vii. 3

mpoo avtov D. 13. 69, a. b. c. e. ff^?. g1.2. li, the Armenian.
προσ αυτον , c. e.


The resemblance of the Leicester MS. 69 to D is well known, but since it supports few or none of D's longer additions, it is of course less nearly allied to it than the Old Latin and Cureton's, or the margin of the Philoxenian, Syriac versions. D and 69 however are much together : e.g. Luke vii. 1; 33; xii. 5 (with ¥66. 71 or gåer. 157 primâ manu. 254. 258. a., and the Peshito, as also the Persic of the Polyglott); Mark vi. 17; vii. 28; viii. 24; 26; ix. 10; xi. 14 (so Wake 34, me

xiv. 14; 37 :—the last four with Cod. 1, and mostly with a or others of its class. LUKE xxii. 4

Kau ToLo otpatnyolo D, Lectionary 31 (another of D’s allies), Cureton's Syriac, the Latin a. b. c. e. ff?. i. l. q., the Aethiopic. Scholz, who collated it, adds X; but Tischendorf and

l Tregelles who followed him and compared their work, do not cite X here.

LUKE xxiii. 34. The first part of this verse (down to olovo!) is omitted by BD. 38. 435., a. b., the Thebaic and a Memphitic MS. only, but X has it marked as doubtful by a later hand, while the scribe who wrote the Ammonian sections in D (see p. xxvi) is compelled to insert the clause, in order to keep the numerals correct.

LUKE xxiv. 51 kal avepepeto ELO TOV ovpavov XD, with a. 6. e. ff?. 1., Augustine (de unitate ecclesiae c. 10), against all the rest (hiat Syr. Cureton). In v. 53 all these authorities (together with the Memphitic and gat. bodl. of the Vulgate) unite with D in omitting kai évàoyovuteo, only that & (agreeing with B. C primâ manu. L) rejects alvOUVTEO kai instead.

MARK ii. 26. D. 271 stand alone here among the Greek authorities in omitting eri aßiadap TOV apxlepewo, as if thus to get rid of a difficulty; a. b. e. ff?. i. of the Latin versions, however, countenance a variation which the silence of the parallel Gospels would encourage. The affinity of e (Cod. Palatinus) with our manuscript is very close at times ; e.g. Luke xx. 20 (ow nyepovi, with Cureton's Syriac only); xxi. 38; xxii. 2; xxiv. 42; Mark i. 26 (see also p. xxxv, note 1). We have before noted the inclination of D to omit clauses, in S. Mark chiefly, but not exclusively (see p. lii). Out of about sixty-six such places to be noticed in this short Gospel, in most of which D is supported by other good witnesses, observe iii. 29 ELO TOV alova with 1. 22. 28. 209. 2pe. a. b. e. f?. g'., Cyprian and Athanasius; xiii. 37 eyw de leyw üyelv yp. simply, D. a alone, but 2Pe. f^?. i. nearly ; xiv. 30 – dio D with $C (prima manu), 238. a. c. f?. i. k., with the Armenian, Aethiopic and tol. (p. m.) prag. of the Vulgate.

MARK xi. 1. Origen expressly declares that Bethphage is named by S. Matthew [xxi. 1), Bethany by S. Mark (xi. 1], both places by S. Luke [xix. 29). Accordingly D. a. b. c. f^2. g'. (?) i. k. l., the

. Vulgate (except em.) and Jerome leave out Bno payn kau in this place, although Origen himself, probably through inadvertence, once cites the disputed words. Their omission is approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, though I know not what the latter means when he states (Cod. Sinait. Prolegom. p. xxxv, edit. min.) “omnium graecorum codicum soli XD istam scripturam fideliter tradiderunt. Cod. X certainly inserts elo before Bydavlav, but in Tischendorf's edition it also reads elo Bno payn kai before it. Scrivener’s y omits kai Bndavcav only.

MARK xiv. 72 fin. D alone among manuscripts has ηρξατο κλαιειν for επιβαλων εκλαιε, which looks more like an explanatory scholium than a various reading. It is found in the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac, in all the Latin versions, in Wheelocke's Persic, the Thebaic, (Memphitic Tischendorf.), Gothic, and Armenian : facts which are very suggestive.

MARK XV. 25. Mill (N. T. Prolegom. § 1276) has noticed the violent expedient resorted to by D in this verse,

Evangelicae veritatis studio,” in substituting epulasoov for eotavpwoav, in order to




[ocr errors][merged small]

ETHOCCumdixisserdicitill i seguerene
dme quISESTUitradiditte
dmehIC AUTEM quid dicisilluns
Usquedumuenio quidadTetumeseguere
uoloMANER E USquedUMUENIOquidadre
hicesTdUscipus quiTESTIMONIUMDAT
dehis et quiscKSITHAEC
FacilEputonundum capere

Waa ma
EUANgelium secund
iohANON Explicit

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »