lxxiv. obscure. The notation in the margin of this and the next page in red. lxxv. head line in red (Tepe omitted). Notation lxxv. verso, obscure; especially line 5. in the margin in red. lxxviii. line 7, TTZ in the margin, hardly traceable. lxxxiii. obscure. Numeral in marg. hardly traceable. lxxxiv. contents also included in the next page. lxxxv. verso, obscure. Head line in red at the top of page. lxxxvi. head line at top of page in red. lxxxviii. head line at top of page in red. xi. 27, the final A of ETTAPACA added **, smaller. BACTACA sic; CA omitted. lxxxviii. verso. Head line without any number in red, af top of lxxxix. lower half only of a folio. lxxxix. verso, obscure. page. In these Notes, I have given my own observations on places of peculiar difficulty in the MS.: many of them I should have had to mark in the printed edition as illegible, had it not been that I was allowed the use of this MS. far from the obscurity of London, so that I was able again and again to examine each point of doubtful reading. Even the letters almost buried in the binding I was able to decipher by observing at least a portion of each. I have not thought it needful to remark on the orthography of the MS. further than to say that it is carefully retained. I would only here observe, that as to interchange of vowels, and other defects, E is much more correct than many, or perhaps than most documents of the same antiquity. While the history of the MS., before it passed into the hands of Prince COMUTO, is buried in obscurity; it is at least worthy of note that this is the only Greek New Testament MS. which seems to have come to us from Greece itself; Egypt, Constantinople, and Mount Athos, having been, it seems, the ordinary localities from which our Libraries in Western Europe have been furnished with these precious documents. It may be useless to hazard conjectures, but so far as may be learned from the Catena, it may be evident that wherever this MS. was written (or else that from which it was copied), the name and teaching of CYRIL of Alexandria was held in high estimation: also the five citations of SEVERUS, and the careful mode in which he was designated a Saint, and Archbishop of Antioch, indicates an admission of his claims, and as a consequence, an adhesion to his Monophysite teaching. It need hardly be said that there is nothing in the readings of this MS. which show any doctrinal bias: rather, the locality of the Scribe may be con jectured, if perhaps, the names and their use should afford a clue to any one who possesses accurate acquaintance with these things. The erasure of the name of SEVERUS is worthy of notice; for whatever be the date of the MS., this alteration seems to have been made by some one who stood in fear of the edict of Justinian, against all who possessed or transcribed the writings of Severus. The scribe of E evidently gave him the Ecclesiastical honour that he claimed as Archbishop of Antioch;* so that whether the selection of passages proceeded from him, or whether he copied an older Catena (if indeed any such existed), the leaning towards the Severian branch of the Monophysite school is manifest. In the year 536, under the emperor Justinian, Mennas, Archbishop of Constantinople, exerted himself to root out Monophysitism wherever his influence extended: the law of Justinian, in confirmation of the decree of the local synod (σúvodos évònμoûσa), not only put forth enactments against the persons of the Monophysite party, but also against the writings of Severus: these were to be burned, and no one was to possess or copy them; the penalty against any one who dared to transcribe them was the loss of his right hand.† It might be difficult to show how long this legislation of the sixth century produced practical effects; but in whatever age this MS. was altered by the erasion of the name of Severus, then at least there seems to have been still a dread of the law of Justinian. The alteration is as significant as is the difference between the republican (or rather Cromwellian) and Royal copies of Walton's Polyglot. The MS. might have been written by some one who was ignorant of the proscription of the name of Severus, or it might have been copied in some place in which the edict was not enforced; but at least the writer himself, or some subsequent possessor, showed his caution by the erasure of the forbidden name. That this was done out of caution, and not as anathematizing Severus, seems to be clear, because it is the name that has suffered, while the extracts from his works are uninjured. It is worthy of inquiry if E may not have been really written before the synod of the year 536, and whether the erasure of the name of Severus did not take place in consequence: this might perhaps be determined if we could be sure when the law of Justinian fell into desuetude. I hope that whenever any competent scholar shall reconsider the whole subject of Greek Palæography, this MS. will receive a due share of attention. On the one hand, the confined letters of the Catena suggest the eighth century; while those of the Text are such as we have been accustomed to ascribe to the sixth, and the general absence of accents and breathings, even from the Catena, seems hardly compatible with the later date. The edict of Justinian, and the erasure of the name of Severus, if taken alone, would make the sixth Severus succeeded Flavian in the See of Antioch, A.D. 512: he was expelled seven years afterwards because of his Monophysite tenets. † A.D. 536.—Η διάταξις Ἰουστινιανοῦ βασιλέως κατὰ ̓Ανθίμου Σευήρου Πέτρου καὶ Ζωορᾶ. καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἔξεστι τὰ Νεστορίου γράφειν ἢ κεκτῆσθαι βιβλία, διότι τοῖς πρὸ ἡμῶν αὐτοκράτορσιν ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν διατάξεσιν ἔδοξε τοῖς παρὰ Πορφυρίου κατὰ Χριστιανῶν εἰρημένοις ὅμοια καθεστάναι· οὕτω μήτε τὰ Σευήρῳ ῥηθέντα τε καὶ γραφέντα μενέτω παρά τινι Χριστιανῷ· ἀλλ ̓ ἔστω βέβηλα καὶ ἀλλότρια τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας· πυρί τε φλεγέσθω παρὰ κεκτημένων εἰ μὴ βούλονται κινδυνεύειν οἱ ταῦτα ἔχοντες. γραφέσθω τε παρὰ μηδενὸς τὸ λοιπόν, μηδὲ τῶν εἰς κάλλος μηδὲ τῶν εἰς τάχος γραφόντων, μηδὲ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν πάντων, εἰδότος ὡς ἀποκοπὴ χειρὸς ἔσται τοῖς τὰ ἐκείνου γράφουσιν ἡ ποινή. (Hardouin, Concilia. ii. 1408.) century probable, and it is worthy of note that the authors cited were all of them previous; so that there is no contradiction on the ground of anachronism. But I am not anxious to vindicate a very high antiquity for E; for this is a point of hardly any importance in comparison with that of the goodness of the text. I only suggest the reasons which make it difficult for me to consider the eighth century (which I at first supposed) to be a settled point, though the more probable date. The character of the Text will speak for itself (as indeed it has already), to those who have a true knowledge of MSS., of their readings and affinities, as shown by "Comparative Criticism." Though E contains but a small portion of the inspired volume of the New Testament, its maintenance of the ancient readings in that small portion supports that class of text in all other parts; just as a column of an ancient temple may show the kind of building to which it belonged, and may be used to vindicate the true proportions of the particular order in its best examples. I do not think that there is any ancient MS., of which the text has yet been published, which exhibits more important readings, or is in proportion to its extent a more valuable contribution to Sacred letters than this CODEX ZACYNTHIUS. During the last twenty years, far more has been done for obtaining an exact knowledge of the readings of the Greek New Testament MSS., by means of complete collations and transcripts, than was the case in all preceding ages taken together. The first to be mentioned in connection with such services is Professor TISCHENDORF, who has laboured not only in the accurate collation of many of the MSS., but who has transcribed and published the texts of more than all his predecessors unitedly had done; and besides these important services, he has himself brought to light valuable MSS.; the most remarkable and important of which, the Codex Sinaiticus, ranks as one of the first, both in antiquity and value-a discovery which can hardly be over-estimated in importance, the publication of which is earnestly looked for by all who value Critical Studies. Services such as those of Professor TISCHENDORF can hardly be too highly appreciated; they are so extensive, and belong to so many departments, that it is only cause for astonishment that one man can have accomplished so much. The actual publication of the MS. which he was successful in procuring at Mount Sinai is the one great service now ardently expected from his hands. To mention my own collations immediately after those of TISCHENDORF, may seem as if I were claiming too high a place for my own services. Let me then at once say, I have discovered no MSS.; I have chemically restored none except the valuable Codex Dublinensis (Z of St. Matthew), and I have edited the text of none but that which I am now giving to the public. My labour has been that of collating, as carefully as I could, every known and accessible ancient MS. which contains any part of the Greek New Testament: there are thus few such that I have not used, while some later copies have also been collated; and in this manner my collations, and those of TISCHENDORF, mutually aid, by correcting or confirming one another, to produce absolute certainty as to the text handed down to us in the ancient copies. Besides MSS., far more of my time and attention has been devoted to the re-examination of the ancient versions, so as to collect and arrange their readings accurately, and also to the citations of the ante-Nicene Ecclesiastical writers. I have sought to demonstrate the value of authorities by Comparative Criticism. I have to say, that in the case of MSS. which we both have collated, TISCHENDORF generally preceded me; and that my collations were made without any consciousness on my part that I had been thus anticipated. The results of my collations, as several can testify, have already been freely used by Christian scholars: I desire to labour for the common benefit of all who feel the importance of such studies. My obligations to TISCHENDORF are very great : I trust that he may see that no one wishes to detract in the slightest degree from his deserts, by mentioning what he has himself done, or what at any time he intended to do. When any misunderstanding does arise, it is more likely, I think, to be removed by an explicit statement, in a Christian spirit, of facts, or impressions about facts, than by any form of discussion.* The labours of the Rev. F. H. SCRIVENER have been mostly directed to the later Greek MSS.; many of these he has collated with a care and diligence previously unapplied to documents of this class: and thus, while much of his toil might seem to produce but little striking result, he has shown the true character of several of these MSS., and he has thus drawn attention to certain documents which, though not of great antiquity in themselves, are of great importance as to the character of their text. Besides the collation of cursive MSS., and the accurate publication of their results, Mr. SCRIVENER has also rendered good service to sacred learning by his excellent edition of the CODEX AUGIENSIS (F) of St. Paul's Epistles in Greek and Latin. We may expect from his careful toil still more fruit in the field of collation; many of the MSS. thus examined may have but little value in the eyes of those who rest on ancient evidence; but amongst them there are the few whose importance would be unknown if it were not for such labour as that of Mr. SCRIVENER.† Those who know the loose condition of the collations of MSS. twenty years ago will sustain my assertion' that more has been done in this short interval than ever before: in 1840, the text of a few MSS. which had been published, was known (or at least might be known); in 1860, EVERY known and accessible ancient document has been collated independently by different scholars, so that there is hardly a point of uncertainty; many MSS. have been published, so that their text is common property; and several of the best cursive MSS. have been accurately collated, and the general character of these documents is far better known. I am thankful to have been permitted to be one of those who have laboured to this end. The results already attained are such as I dared not hope for twenty years ago. I have now to mention those to whom I have to acknowledge my obligations in connection with the CODEX ZACYNTHIUS. * It would be a mere affectation of simplicity, if I were to write as supposing that those who may read this, are unaware that TISCHENDORF has made statements respecting the publication of R of the Gospels, and D of the Epistles, which are as I believe based on misapprehension. I hope that he may himself see that he has charged me groundlessly. In the "Additions" to Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. (just added to the re-issued impression), p. 765, foot note, and p. 766, I have referred to the subject as far as I think needful. His letters are in my hands; and I wish so far to value them as the expressions of kindly feeling, and the acknowledgement that I did render some service to him by communicating my collations (as indeed he has stated in print), as to overlook the remarks which he has since put forth, and which I hope that he may wish unsaid. I have spoken of TISCHENDORF's Codex Sinaiticus, and his published "Notitia," at the end of the same additions, pp. 775–85. We may still expect much benefit to Sacred Criticism from Mr. SCRIVENER'S farther collations. [Since the above was written, I have heard that he is likely to publish the text of Codex Laudianus, E, of the Acts: this will be of much value, as that MS. requires re-examination: also that he intends to re-edit, with more care than was bestowed on Kipling's edition, the most important Codex Bezæ.] To Dr. PAUL DE LAGARDE* I am indebted for the knowledge of its existence; I am under obligation to the Rev. JOHN MEE and Mr. KNOLLEKE for information and aid in connection with my application to the COMMITTEE of the BRITISH and FOREign Bible SOCIETY, and to the COMMITTEE for their kindness in permitting me to use the MS. here at Plymouth, for some months, and in again placing it in my hands for final examination, and for the preparation of the facsimile now lithographed.. The TRUSTEES of the BRITISH MUSEUM, and especially the Rev. WILLIAM CURETON, D.D., deserve my thanks for their loan of the ALEXANDRIAN Types, which are their property, in order that the CODEX ZACYNTHIUS might appear in an ancient form. To the Rev. FENTON J. A. HORT, M.A., Vicar of St. Ippolyts, Herts (and formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge), my thanks are due, and also those of all who use this volume, for the labour which he bestowed in reading the proof sheets, independently of my doing so also, as they passed through the press. His services give me greater confidence in the accuracy of the printed edition of E than could have been the case if I had only depended on my own eyes in correcting the proof sheets: all passed besides under his examination; and this service has been of that sort which to me was most useful and satisfactory at the time, and the permanent benefits of which remain with those who read the text now edited.† * Dr. DE LAGARDE gives the following list of his published works :— Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace. 1854. Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimae Syriace. 1856. De Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo Commentatio. 1857. These works are specified at the end of "Hippolyti Romani quae feruntur omnia Graece, e recognitione Pauli Antonii de Lagarde." Leipsic and London, 1858. This is a convenient edition of the remains of Hippolytus; amongst which Dr. de Lagarde has given the spurious work, "De mundi consummatione et de Antichristo;" the Philosophumena are omitted, as well as "De Charismatibus," and the Fragments in Proverbia, published by MAI (Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, tom. vii. pars 2. 71-76). [Dr. DE LAGARDE has since published, "Titi Bostreni contra Manichaeos libri quatuor Syriace." Berlin, 1859: and "Clementis Romani Recognitiones Syriace." Leipsic and London, 1861. These Syriac translations of these works of Clement and Titus are the first and second in the Nitrian MS. (British Museum, No. 12, 150). The third work in the same MS. is Eusebius on the Theophania, published by Dr. LEE, 1842 (with a translation into English, 1843); the last is the History of the Martyrs of Palestine, just edited, with a translation, by Dr. CURETON (1861). The date of this Syriac MS. is A.D. 411; its very remarkable history is given by Dr. CURETON in the Preface to his edition of the Festal Letters of Athanasius, p. xv. (1848). "The several works contained in it are now all printed, and thereby rescued from the chance of being lost for all future time." Eusebius's History of the Martyrs of Palestine is that to which he refers in his Ecclesiastical History, book viii.: its existence, as a work separate from the Compendium inserted in different places in most copies of the Ecclesiastical History, was unknown prior to the discovery of the Syriac copy. (It will be remembered that it was in the Nitrian MS., No. 14,451*, Dr. CURETON discovered that most important ancient version, the CURETONIAN SYRIAC GOSPELS.) Dr. DE LAGARDE's edition of the Apocryphal Books in Syriac has just been announced.] Mr. HORT is engaged, in connection with the Rev. BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, M.A., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge (author of "the History of the Canon of the New |