« PoprzedniaDalej »
It is now time to enumerate the instances in which Codex Bezae has been employed by scholars for critical purposes. (1) We hesitate not to assign the first place on the list to Robert Stephens and his third edition of the Greek New Testament, 1550. The identity of Codex Bezae with ẞ in Stephens' margin ought never to have been doubted by any one who had availed himself of the means at our disposal for testing that editor's accuracy. His principal authority a' was the Complutensian Polyglott, a printed book in high repute and readily accessible. After deducting mere errata, itacisms, and such like, out of the 2300 places wherein it differs from his own printed text, Stephens cites a' correctly only 554 times, and falsely 56 times, so that more than one case in ten involves a mistake, while three variations out of four are utterly neglected. It is not likely that his representation of a document he had not seen, and only heard of from the report of another, would be more exact than that of a well-known published volume: yet after comparing both his a' and B with their respective prototypes, we are enabled to declare that the readings of Cod. D, as being very striking and peculiar, are much the more faithfully rendered of the two. Except that Stephens cites ẞ' in Matth. xxvii. 3 πapadovo (where nearly the whole leaf has perished), in manifest error for his ʼn or Codex L (Paris, 62); again in John xix. 6, where, though Cod. D is defective in the original hand, the later scribe who supplied the hiatus actually has the reading imputed to β ́ (σταυρωσον σταυρωσον αυτον); and again in Acts ix. 31, also wanting in Cod. D, where the whole reading belongs to his (Cod. Act. 5, Paris, 106) which is correctly alleged for η μεν ουν εκκλησία, although the sequel είχεν ειρηνην οικοδομούμενη... πoрevoμevη....... επλn@vvero is wrongly referred to ''-with these slight exceptions Stephens never employs his authority ẞ in those many passages wherein the leaves of Cod. D have been lost, though he perpetually quotes it up to the very place where the hiatus begins, and recurs to it immediately after the text by the first hand is resumed. After a careful analysis of all the variations imputed to ẞ, we are enabled to state that (excluding itacisms and the like, which early collators always neglected) they amount to 389 in all the parts written by the original scribe of Codex Bezae': whereof 309 are alleged by Stephens quite correctly; 47 a little loosely, after the manner of the times, especially where ẞ' is joined with others in support of a reading; 8 in which corrected readings are imputed in error to the first hand (Matth. v. 48; xiv. 34 nearly; Mark vi. 21; 31; John v. 32; vii. 39; Acts vi. 10; xx. 18); while B' quite differs from Cod. D in 25 places, or less than one in fifteen, whereas we have seen that Stephens' a' varied from its printed original once in ten times3. Most of these 25 passages have been previously examined by Wetstein (N. T. Proleg. 1. pp. 36—38), and, regard being paid to Stephens' notorious inexactness, seem very fairly accounted for. Two involve but slight inaccuracies, Matth. xi. 21 (χοροζαϊμ); 23 (μη έως του ουρανου ὑψωθηση; ἕως ᾅδου κ.τ.λ.); two others, ibid. x. 4 (kavavalos ẞ. n); Luke xxiii. 20 (πpoσedwvyoev avtois B. n), are just as trifling, and strictly true for n (Cod. L). In fact where several copies vouch for a reading, absolute resemblance to any of them seems to have satisfied the collator: sce Matth. x. 8, where veкp. eyep. is simply misplaced in Cod. D, but omitted in ʼn (Cod. L) and others. In the following cases ẞ' has crept through
1 Stephens' last citation of ß' is in Acts xx. 24, only that it re-appears Rom. iii. 10, in company with a' for the omission of or, possibly in the place of ' (Paul. 9), which contains the variation. With like heedlessness, e' stands for e' Apoc. xix. 14; ta' for is' ibid. xiii. 4. See also p. x.
Bp Marsh's numbers (on Michaelis 11. notes 110, 114) differ from ours, inasmuch as he reckons only 339 citations of B' by Stephens, 211 alone and 128 with other copies. But his whole treatment of the subject betrays a consciousness that he had not fully investigated it,
which caused such hesitation in stating his conclusions as we could not otherwise explain.
3 Add to this that B' or Cod. D alone can be referred to by Stephens, Luke x. 1, yp"" ἑβδομήκοντο δύο. On the other hand it is useless to reckon 81 places in which T. or év Tâσ is cited by him for the united readings of all his authorities, as regards Cod. D 41 times correctly, 40 loosely or falsely: nor do I notice Luke v. 35, where Beza, who had access to Stephens' collations, erroneously states that ẞ omits kai before Ŏrav.
inadvertence into a list of several copies where it has no place: Matth. x. 10; xii. 32; xix. 29; xxvii. 46; Mark i. 19; 35; iv. 31; vi. 52; Luke ii. 21; Acts iii. 1; xii. 6. Twice a reference has been misplaced, Matth. v. 3 eσrat, instead of v. 10; Mark iii. 3 §ŋpav, for v. 1. In Matth. x. 25 (ßeeλeßovß) ẞ is a manifest misprint for a': also ẞ' for y' Matth. v. 25 (Bλn0ns'); ix. 20 (exovσa ev тη aσbeveia added to erŋ); John xiii. 2 (yɩvoμevov). Three other passages still remain, Luke iii. 19 eπoɩEL, for which there is no authority except Erasmus' editions (which Stephens may have here meant by B', the Complutensian being a') and a few which followed him; Acts xiii. 1 μavana, with the Peshito Syriae enly; and the more notable addition in Luke viii. 18 και περισσευθήσεται added to δοθήσεται avrw, a gloss from Matth. xiii. 12, very much in the manner of Cod. D, but for which no other evidence has yet been cited than Hensler's Lectionary 44 (Havniens. 3), and Cureton's Syriac in part2. It is probable that a search among Stephens' manuscripts in the Imperial Library at Paris would shew for what other letter ẞ' has been substituted in this and a few other instances.
Against these rare and inconsiderable exceptions must be set the many singular readings and arbitrary additions to the sacred text, known to exist in no copy save Beza's, for which B' is vouched in Stephens' margin. Some of them are of considerable length (e. g. Luke vi. 4; John vi. 56; Acts v. 15; vi. 10; xvi. 35; 38, 39), and very faithfully represented. Yet Stephens' is as far as possible from being a complete and formal collation: the readings given in SS. Matthew and Mark are much the most numerous; for twelve whole pages of S. Luke (as Marsh observes) the letter B' does not occur at all: even such large interpolations as follow Matth. xx. 28, and the wide variations that abound in Luke iii. 24-38; John vii. 53—viii. 11 are passed over in complete silence.
Collations or copies of Codex Bezae, made subsequently to 1562, may be dismissed with much
(1) In the several editions of his Greek Testament published 1582, 1589, 1598, Beza made some occasional references to the readings of his manuscript, which he professed to value very highly; but his skill as a critic may be estimated by the wisdom of his suggestion to the University of Cambridge, that to avoid giving offence through its extensive deviations from all other documents, however old, it was more fit to be stored up than published (supra p. vi). I know not whether this shortsighted policy was acceptable to his English admirers. Before the Codex had been here a year (March 1583), Archbishop John Whitgift, who in 1677 had left the Mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge, for the see of Worcester, caused a transcript of it to be made on vellum, which with several of his other books he bequeathed to the College, into whose possession it came on his death in 16041. This volume (Trin. Coll. B. x. 3) contains the Greek Text only, very neatly written between lines ruled in red ink, but as every alternate page is left blank, it must have been intended to receive the Latin version also. It is executed in ordinary Greek characters, with breathings, accents, and modern stops: the lines and pages of the original are disregarded, the changes introduced by later hands constantly, and (so far as I observe) invariably substituted for those of the original scribe, and where the manuscript is torn, the copyist wrote on as if no hiatus had occurred. After avrov Acts xxii. 29,
1 n' (Cod. L) has precisely ẞAnoco. Kipling thinks that e was subsequently added by the first scribe to Bλnono in Cod. D, in which case Stephens would give the primitive reading: but the final et is not more faint than the letters at the end of 12 b. 1. 32, and I believe it was there from the first.
of 2004 "et addetur ei," is hardly rendered adequately by Tregelles "et abundubit."
rather than that manuscript itself is as needless as it is destitute of all external evidence. It is barely reconcileable with those instances, mentioned p. ix, wherein s gives the readings not of the first but of a second hand in D. Look too at such cases as μadeyada of B', Mark viii. 10, where the third letter A is so closely like A in Cod. Bezae, that I nearly fell into the same error as Stephens' collator.
3 The foregoing examination will serve to shew that Semler's hypothesis of B' being a transcript of Cod. D
It is get down in the Memoriale, or Lodge Book of Trinity College.
where Cod. D ends, he continues his text without notice to the end of that verse, in order to fill up the page. As all the leaves now missing were lost in his time, except the lower part of Fol. 504, which we have taken from the Whitgift Ms., it can be regardled as nothing more than a curious and rather unfavourable specimen of the scholarship and taste of the Elizabethan age.
(2) Patrick Young, the librarian of James I. and Charles I, who first collated the Codex Alexandrinus (A), and published from it the Epistles of Clement of Rome in 1633, seems to have been the next person engaged on Codex D, extracts from which he sent to the brothers Dupuy, through whom they reached Morinus and Steph. Curcellaeus. An unusually full collation of it was made for Walton's Polyglott (Tom. vi. Num. xvi. 1657) by pious Archbishop Ussher, who devoted to these studies the doleful leisure of his latter years. I am grieved that truth compels me to state that I never examined a performance more inaccurate than this. Besides numberless omissions, manifest typographical errors, a looseness and carelessness of citation which is really remarkable, and almost complete inability to distinguish the first from the later hands', its actual misstatements are so many, that I have accumulated a catalogue of 228, with which it is needless to trouble the reader. Some of these are wholly unaccountable, others arise from blindly following Stephens, not a few through confounding the readings of some other copy he had examined with those of Cod. D. Thus Cant. (as he terms it) stands for Gon. (Evan. 59) in Mark xii. 43; xiv. 8; xvi. 9; for Mont. (Evan. 61) Mark xii. 43; 44; Acts i. 20; iv. 8; viii. 12; xv. 7; xvi. 34 &c.; in the Acts sometimes for Lin. /Act. 33)
(3) Largeness of view, critical sagacity, wide and life-long research, comprehend Mill's claims on our gratitude for his great services to textual criticism : those who award to him the humbler praise of an accurate collator can have used his edition of the N. T. (Oxon, 1707) but little. His volume as at first printed, while it produces many new readings from Codex D, retains nearly all the errors of the Polyglott; and though most of these were amended in his Appendix, drawn up many years later as the result of a fresh examination of the manuscript, and though he bestowed (not always with success) some pains and skill on discriminating the changes made by later hands, yet his representation of its contents is too defective and mistaken to be used with any degree of confidence. Not a few additional blunders were made even in the secundae curae of his Appendix: e.g. Mark viii. 29; Acts x. 39; xvi. 35; xxi. 1.
Z. C. von Uffenbach, known as the owner of several manuscripts of the New Testament (Paul. M. 52; Evan. 97. 101), when on a visit to England in 1710, inspected Codex Bezae at Cambridge, and gives a brief but correct account of it in his Reisen durch Reidersachsen Holland und Engelland, T. III. p. 21; Ulm, 1754".
(4) Very superior in character to Mill's collation was the transcript of Cod. D made by J. J. Wetstein in 1716, at the age of twenty-three, when fresh in eyesight as in spirit; yet since he did not use it for the next thirty years, and never appears to have consulted the manuscript afterwards, or much cared for the collations already published (whose heavy faults he would be well aware of), too many of the readings he alleges are even marvellously untrue (e. g. Matth. xi. 30 Xonotov; xxi. 8 ordo; v. 17 + éws before els; Mark xv. 33 Çi.e. s' is clearly prima manu; Luke iii. 33 om. tov apes;
1 Thus he describes the two lines written in sloping uncials of the viiith or ixth century at the foot of Fol. 160 b. (Jobn xv. 3, 4) as “eodem ferè charactere."
. By consulting the original papers of Ussher or his assistants, afterwards used by Mill (N. T. Proleg. $ 1505), and now in the Library of Emmanuel College, containing the readings of Cod. D and three others (Evan. 59, 61, 62), which Mr Scott of Westminster School lately
John iv. 6 yŋ; xi. 33 ôtovs; xxi. 3 ovveßŋoav, k.t.A.), especially in the leaves written by a later In many places, readings washed out or otherwise changed by the original scribe, and utterly overlooked by Kipling, had already been diligently recorded by Wetstein (e.g. Matth. xxi. 1 ßŋ@paye; 22 αιτητε; xxvi. 40 αυτουσ; Jchn v. 19 ποιει for ποιηση; xx. 28 και ο θσ for μου και θσ): although his collation on this and more prominent points, copious as it is, by no means exhausts the subject, and his judgement is often wrong in assigning to later times alterations which were really made by the first penman.
(5) Richard Bentley, by special indulgence of the University, is said to have had Codex Bezae in his possession at Trinity College Lodge for seven years, while preparing his promised edition of the N. T. If all the use he made of it be represented in his papers published in 1862 by Mr. A. A. Ellis (Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 2-26), a single week might have sufficed for his purpose. The readings he gives from Cod. D are few and vague and inexact enough, but no one who has examined his collations of the Codex Augiensis and of the Arundel Lectionary 547, still preserved (Trin. Coll. B. XVII. 8), would expect much in this way from our great Aristarchus. We could have well spared some numerals, &c. set by Bentley in the margin of Cod. D, with the less excuse, inasmuch as it was not, like Cod. Augiensis, his own property.
(6) An unpublished collation made about 1732 or 1733 by John Dickinson of S. John's College, for John Jackson of Leicester, for six pounds sterling, now, with Jackson's other books, in the Library of Jesus College, Cambridge (O ◊ 2'), has enabled us, after Kipling, partially to supply the hiatus in the Latin of Fol. 504 a., and has been consulted with profit in other passages. It is based upon, and aims at supplying and correcting, Mill's very poor representation of Cod. D, and Dickinson has taken laudable care to note the original text, as distinguished from its state as at present existing.
(7) Kipling (Praef. p. xxvi) names three other transcripts: one owned by Richard Simon, the Biblical critic; another sent to Sabatier by Bentley; a third written in 1766 by Thomas Craster, B.A. of S. John's College, for Kennicott, and sent by the latter to J. S. Semler, who published from it the Latin version of S. John in 1771, at the end of his "Paraphrasis Evan. Joann. cum notis.” Griesbach also consulted the manuscript, but is said to have taken from it only one reading, and that false, επήγειραν Acts xiv. 2.
(8) In 1793 Dr Thomas Kipling (Senior Wrangler, 1768), afterwards Dean of Peterborough up to his death in 1822, published at the expense of the University of Cambridge, in two splendid folio volumes, his edition of what he was pleased to term " Codex Theodori Bezae Cantabrigiensis," the fruit of five years of toil. The moveable type used for this work in shape resembles as closely as possible the characters of the scribe, and some attempt is made to indicate the varying sizes of the letters, and the relative spaces between them. The present work was undertaken in the hope of producing an edition of Codex Bezae which should be more conveniently read than in Kipling's uncial letters, printed continuously; and be more easily accessible to students than his scarce and costly folios, of which only 250 copies were struck off. In prosecuting my interesting and not unpleasing task I have found the text of my predecessor less inaccurate than some have suspected: the typographical errors detected (83, of which 16 are in his notes &c.), I have recorded (see pp. 452-3) as a matter of duty, not of reproach :-perfect correctness is quite unattainable, yet Kipling has laboured faithfully and not wholly in vain to approach it as near as may be. His most serious fault is one of design and plan, in that he has
1 Happily lettered "MS. Sermons." Mr C. H. Cooper, senior editor of the Athenae Cantabrigienses, kindly informs me that John Dickinson of Sheffield became B.A.
1728-9, M.A. 1732, Assistant Minister of Sheffield 1752-66. This humble and forgotten man must have been a good and early scholar.
placed in the body of his work those numerous changes made by later hands (some of them indeed of very recent date'), which deform the pages of Codex Bezae itself, but which its editor should have been glad to banish into the Notes: nor has he much availed himself of the researches of those who went before him. Respecting his Preface it is enough to say that even seventy years ago it was obviously behind its age, both in respect to its general tone and spirit, and to the then existing standard of critical knowledge'.
I had also prepared full lists of the errors found as well in Ussher's, as in Mill's, Wetstein's, and Bentley's collations of Codex Bezae, but would fain be spared the ungracious office of publishing them. It will probably suffice to say that in whatever place any one or all of them may differ from this edition, I have ascertained by actual comparison with the manuscript, that my reading is the true one.
POSTSCRIPT. After this Chapter was in type Mr E. H. Hansell, Praelector of Theology in Magdalen College, Oxford, favoured me with the copy of a letter written by William Camden the great antiquarian [d. 1623] to Pierre Dupuy, and found by the Revd. J. Stevenson of the Record Office among the Dupuy MSS. (490, fol. 95) at Paris. Camden's account of Codex Bezae, though utterly mistaken, is too curious to be passed over, if only as a specimen of the untrustworthy character of so many of our most promising materials for literary history.
"Amplissimo viro Petro Puteano Guil. Camdenus S. P. Serius rescribo, V. C., quod serius tuae per Woodfordum mihi redditae, et post aliquot dies quam meae ad te per Porium [sc. John Pory? Calendar of State Papers 1611-1618] dederim. D. Thorii Epicedium ad manus pervenisse spero. Torvallius [sc. Jean l'Oiseau de Tourval? Calendar &c.] Gallicus regis nostri interpres, cui tradidit, ante mensem per Scotum nobilem se transmisisse affirmat. Gratias viro cordatissimo de honorificâ illâ mentione plurimum debeo. Patritio Junio [rid. supra p. xi] aurem vello, et subinde promissi moneo, quod facturum dicit quamprimum exemplar a Cantabrigiensibus nansisci potuit. Quodnam exemplar intelligit nescio; sin illud III Evangeliorum quod Theod. Beza in Angliam quondam misit, et ipse ante plures annos in Collegio Trinitatis Cantabrigiae vidi, frustra erit. Ibi enim jam non comparet, et quid de illo factum a sociis nullus dixerit; at dudum rem totam a reverendiss. episcopo Eliensi accepi. Transmisit Beza ad Cecilium, Angliae Thesaurarium, venerandum illud antiquitatis monumentum, ut in Angliâ asservaretur. Ille academiae Cantabrigiensis Cancellarius ad Trinitatis collegium misit, jussitque ut academici gratias agerent, quod factum. Post aliquantum temporis Beza, qui justum pretium potius quam gratias papyraceas (ut opinati sunt nostri) expectavit, nescio quo obtentu utendi in collatione repetiit; et remissum erat. Caeterum in Publica ibi Bibliotheca extat MS. exemplar Evangeliorum et Actorum Apostolorum Graecè et Latinè, sequioris aevi, charactere plane barbaro, et monast. S. Iraenei [sic] Lugduni anno MDLXII delatuin et a Matthaeo Parkero, archiepiscopo Cantuariensi academiae donatum. Hoc juvenes suspicantur esse illud Bezae, sed falluntur, et cum illis Th. Jamesius bibliothecarius Oxoniensis, in Egloga Oxonio-Cantabrigiensi ; cujus exemplar, quia forte an non vidisti, cum Eliz. Annalibus, per hunc tabellionem accipies. Cumulato rependas, si Analecta Hibernica, quae ex Cramoysii officinâ nuper prodierunt, cum commodè poteris, mihi impertias (At jam non opus est; nactus sum exemplar). Ama nos et valeas V.C. Saluta mibi quam plurimum ornatiss. Hotomannum, cujus officiosae erga D. Beecherum amicitiae ex animo gratulor. Si initium legum Saxonum et Danorum, quae extant in libro cujusdam Archidiaconi in Bibliothecâ Thuani in 4o, mihi descripseris, longè gratissimum facies. Londini vi xbris St. V."
Since Camden's Annals of Elizabeth were published in 1615, and the Analecta de rebus catholicorum in Hibernia (without the name of the place) in 1616, this strange letter, written when the latter had just appeared, must be dated in the same year: it is easy enough to see why a copy of such a work was not readily procured in England. Thorius' Epicedium on Isaac Casaubon [d. 1614] was not published till 1619, after it had been passed for five years from hand to hand, as we partly gather from Camden's expression, and as was very usual in that age. Thus the Bishop of Ely, whose testimony he alleges, was the great and good Lancelot Andrewes, who held that see from 1609 to 1619. But the story, on whatever authority it rests, involves a simple impossibility. We know from his own letter that Beza had
1 E. g. Tŵ (vel T4) Ziλea marg. 486 b. 1. He has even inserted by means of manual correction, "qui" foisted into the margin of 272 a. l. 16, I am afraid in the hand of Bentley himself.
2 Kipling's edition was sharply handled by Porson in two notices in the British Critic, Vol. II. 1794, and coarsely abused by one Thomas Edwards, LL.D., who satisfies a certain private grudge in his Remarks on Dr Kipling's Preface to Codex Bezae, Part the First, 1793, in which I notice nothing worth mention save the poor taunt that Kipling's "zealous exertions have not hitherto been
rewarded with the smallest preferment;" as if his book were the worse for that. On the other hand, I read with surprise a statement extracted by Horne (Introduction, Vol. II. Appendix, p. 21, 1834) from a later volume of the British Critic (xI. p. 619, 1819), that "Porson himself collated the printed copy with the original manuscript, and the only fault he could detect was in a single letter of the margin." If this were true (and it is stated "to be well known to many of the Professor's friends"), it would only prove Porson to be a very bad collator.