received its impulse from Athanasius, the power by which it was carried through and established was largely that of his powerful ally, the Church of Rome. The final victory was no doubt a little delayed. Asia Minor and Syria were for most of the 4th century divided between the following of Eusebius (Cyril of Jerusalem in A.D. 348, Gregory of Nazianzus, the list of Apost. Can. 85, that attached to Can. 59 of the Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 363) and the school of Antioch. The leading members of that school adopted 3 Epp. Cath. (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), Theod. Mops. omitting this group altogether, and the whole school omitting Apoc. Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 380) gives the two lists, Eusebian and Antiochene, as alternatives. The Eusebian list only wanted the complete admission of the Apocalypse to be identical with the Athanasian; and Athanasius had one stalwart supporter in Epiphanius (ob, 403). The original Syriac list, as we have seen, had neither Epp. Cath. nor Apoc. The Peshito version, in regard to which Professor Burkitt's view is now pretty generally accepted, that it was the work of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 411-433, added the 3 Epp. Cath. The remaining 4 Epp. Cath. and Apoc. were supplied in the Philoxenian version of 508, and retained in the Harklean revision of 616. But both these were Monophysite and of limited use, and the Nestorians still went on using the Peshito. Meantime, in the West, an important Synod was held by Damasus at Rome in 382 which, under the dominant influence of Jerome and the Athanasian tradition, drew up a list corresponding to the present Canon. This was ratified by Pope Gelasius (492-496), and independently confirmed for the province of Africa by a series of Synods held at Hippo Regius in 393, and at Carthage in 397 and 419, under the lead of Augustine. The formal completion of the whole process in East and West was reserved for the Quinisextine Council (Council in Trullo) of 692. But even after that date irregularities occur from time to time, especially in the East. In the fixing of the Canon, as in the fixing of doctrine, the decisive influence proceeded from the bishops and the theologians of the period 325-450. But behind these was the practice of the greater churches; and behind that again was not only the lead of a few distinguished individuals, but the instinctive judgment of the main body of the faithful. It was really this instinct that told in the end more than any process of quasi-scientific criticism. And it was well that it should be so, because the methods of criticism are apt to be, and certainly would have been when the Canon was formed, both faulty and inadequate, whereas instinct brings into play the religious sense as a whole; with spirit speaking to spirit rests the last word. Even this is not infallible; and it cannot be claimed that the Canon of the Christian Sacred Books is infallible. But experience has shown that the mistakes, so far as there have been mistakes, are unimportant; and in practice even these are rectified by the natural gravitation of the mind of man to that which it finds most nourishing and most elevating. BIBLIOGRAPHY.-The separate articles on the various books of the New Testament may be consulted for detailed bibliographies. The object of the above sketch has been to embrace in constructive outline the ground usually covered analytically and on a far larger scale by Introductions to the New Testament, and by Histories of the New Testament Canon. In English there is a standard work of the latter class in Westcott's General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (first published in 1855, important revision and additions in 4th ed. 1874, 7th ed. 1896), with valuable appendix of documents at the end. There was also a useful collection of texts by Prof. Charteris of Edinburgh, Canonicity (1880), based on Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung (1844), but with improvements. The leading documents are to be had in the handy and reliable Kleine Texte (ed. Lietzmann, from 1902). On Introduction the ablest older English work was Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Study of N.T. (1st ed. 1885, 5th ed. 1891); but, although still possessing value as argument, this has been more dis tinctly left behind by the progress of recent years. England has made many weighty contributions both to Introduction and Canon, especially Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion (collected in 1889); editions of Books of the New Testament and Apostolic Romans and Fathers; Westcott, editions; Hort, especially others. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology put out a useful Ephesians (posthumous, 1895); Swete, editions; Knowling and New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers in 1905, and Prof. Stanton of Cambridge, The Gospels as Historical Documents (part i. in 1903). Prof. Burkitt's Gospel History and its Transmission appeared in the Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Hastings, 5 vols., 1898-1904) and 1906. For introductory matter the student will do well to consult Encyclopaedia Biblica (ed. Cheyne and Black, 4 vols., 1899-1903). Dr Hastings and his contributors belong more to the right wing of criticism, and Dr Cheyne and his to the left. The systematic Introexcellent service in its day, though there are signs that the analytic duction is a characteristic production of Germany and has done method hitherto mainly practised is beginning to give place to something more synthetic or constructive. The pioneer work in this latter direction is Weizsäcker's skilful and artistic Apostoliches Zeitalter (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1901; Eng. trans. 1894-1895); somewhat similar on a smaller scale is von Soden, History of Early Christian Literature (trans., 1906). Special mention should be made of Wellhausen on the Synoptic Gospels (1903-1905), and Harnes, Beiträge z. Einleitung in d. N.T. (part i. 1906, part ii. 1997). The most important recent works on Introduction and Canon have been those of H. J. Holtzmann (1st ed. 1885, 3rd ed. 1902); B. Weis (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1897); a series of works by Th. Zahn, almost colossal in scale and exhaustive in detail, embracing Gesch. d. neul. Kanons (2 vols., 1888-1892, third to follow), Forschungen 2. Gesch. d. neut. Kan. (7 parts, 1881-1907), Einleitung (2 vols., 18971899), Grundriss d. Gesch. d. neut. Kan. (1st ed. 1901, 2nd ed. 1904); A. Jülicher, Einleitung (1st and 2nd ed. 1894, 5th and 6th ed. 1906; Eng. trans. by Miss Janet Ward, 1904). Zahn and Julicher may be said to supplement and correct each other, as they write from very different points of view, and on Jülicher's side there is no lack of criticism of his great opponent. Zahn's series is mongmental in its way, and his Grundriss is very handy and full of closely packed and (in statements of facts) trustworthy matter. Jülicher's work is also highly practical, very complete and well proportioned in scale, and up to a certain point its matter is also excellent. History of the Canon, by the Egyptologist Joh. Leipoldt (Leipzig, 1907), may also be warmly recommended; it is clear and methodical, and does not make the common mistake of assigning too much to secondary causes; the author does not forget that he is dealing with a sacred book, and that he has to show why it was held (W.SA.) sacred. 2. Texts and Versions. The The apparatus criticus of the New Testament consists, from one point of view, entirely of MSS.; but these MSS. may be divided into three groups: (A) Greek MSS., which in practice are known as "The MSS," (B) MSS. of versions in other languages representing translations from the Greek, (C) MSS. of other writing whether in Greek or other languages which contain quotations from the New Testament. (A) Greek MSS.-These may be divided into classes according to style of writing, material, or contents. The first method distinguishes between uncial or majuscule, and cursive or minuscule; the second between papyrus, vellum or parchment, and paper (for further details see MANUSCRIPT and PALAEOGRAPHY); and the third distinguishes mainly between Gospels, Acts and Epistles (with or without the Apocalypse), New Testaments (the word in this connexion being somewhat broadly interpreted), lectionaries and commentaries. Quite accurate statistics on this subject are scarcely attainable. Von Soden's analysis of numbers, contents and date may be tabulated as follows, but it must be remembered that it reckons many small fragments as separate MSS., especially in the carber centuries. It is also necessary to add that there is one smal scrap of papyrus of the 3rd century containing a few verses of the 4th Gospel. Century IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. Totali New Testaments 231 2 I 10 26 I I 4 47 : X 204 26 This table says nothing about style of writing or material, but by passing on to the thousands and using 2000-2999 for the it may be taken as a general rule that MSS. earlier than the 13th 12th century, 3000-3999 for the 13th and so on. In each case century are on vellum and later than the 14th century are one is prefixed whenever there is any chance of ambiguity. It is paper, and that MSS. earlier than the 9th century are uncial and claimed that this system gives the maximum of information later than the 10th are minuscule. There are said to be 129 about a MS., and that it leaves room for the addition of any uncial MSS. of the New Testament (Kenyon, Textual Criticism number of MSS. which are likely to be discovered. At present of the New Testament, p. 45), but it is not easy to be quite it has not seriously threatened the hold of Gregory's notation on accurate on the point. the critical world, but it will probably have to be adopted, at least to a large extent, when von Soden's text is published. [The full details of this subject can be found in E. Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (George Bell, 1894); C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's C. R. Gregory's Textkritik (Leipzig, 1900); H. von Soden's Die. Novum Testamentum Graece, Ed. VIII. critica major (Leipzig, 1894); Schriften des neuen Testaments (Berlin, Band i., 1902-1907); F. G. Kenyon's Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1901), especially valuable for a clear account of the Papyri fragments.] Besides the MSS. mentioned in the table above, there are 281 MSS. containing commentaries on the Gospels, 169 on Acts and Epistles, 66 on the Apocalypse, 1072 lectionaries of the Gospels and 287 of Acts and Epistles, making a grand total of 3698 MSS. It must be remembered that the dating of the MSS., especially of minuscules, is by no means certain: Greek Palaeography is a difficult subject, and not all the MSS. have been investigated by competent palaeographers. The notation of this mass of MSS. is very complicated. There are at present two main systems: (1) Since the time of Wetstein it has been customary to employ capital letters, at first of the Latin and latterly also of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, to designate the uncials, and Arabic figures to designate the minuscules. Of this system there are two chief representatives, Gregory and Scrivener. These agree in the main, but differ for the more recently discovered minuscules. Gregory's notation is more generally used, and Scrivener's, though still followed by a few English scholars, is likely to become obsolete. This method of notation has various disadvantages. There are not enough letters to cover the uncials, the same letter has to serve for various fragments which are quite unconnected except by the accident of simultaneous discovery, and no information is given about the MS. referred to. (2) To remedy these drawbacks an entirely new system was introduced in 1902 by von Soden in his Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, Bd. 1, Abt. 1, pp. 33-40. He abandons the practice of making a distinction between uncial and minuscule, on the ground that for textual criticism the style of writing is less important than the date and contents of a MS. To indicate these he divided MSS. into three classes. (1) New Testaments (the Apocalypse being not regarded as a necessary part), (2) Gospels, and (3) Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse (the latter again being loosely regarded). These three classes he distinguished as ô(=dia@ýkŋ), € (=evayyéλiov) and a (=áróσTodos). To these letters he attaches numbers arranged on a principle showing the century to which the MS. belongs and defining its contents more precisely. The number is determined thus:MSS. of the & and a classes from the earliest period to the 9th century inclusive are numbered 1 to 49; those of the roth century 50 to 99; for the later centuries numbers of three figures are used, and the choice is made so that the figure in the hundreds' place indicates the century, 1 meaning 11th century, 2 meaning 12th century, and so on; to all these numbers the appropriate letter, if it be 8 or a, must be always prefixed, but if it be e, only when there is any chance of ambiguity. In & MSS. a distinction is made for those of the 11th and subsequent centuries by reserving to 49 in each hundred for MSS. containing the Apocalypse, 50 to 99 for those which omit it. Similarly, in a MSS. a distinction is made according to their contents; the three-figure numbers are reserved for MSS. which contain Acts, Catholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles with or without the Apocalypse, the presence or absence of which is indicated as in the 8 MSS.; but when a MS. consists of only one part a "1" is prefixed, thus making a four-figure number, and the precise part is indicated by the two last of the four figures; 00-19 means Acts and Catholic Epistles, 20-69 means Pauline Epistles and 70-99 means Apocalypse. In the case of e MSS. 1-99 is used for the earliest MSS. up to the 9th century, and as this is insufficient, the available numbers are increased by prefixing a o, and reckoning a second hundred from or to 099; 1000 to 1099 are MSS. of the 10th century; 100 to 199 are MSS. of the 11th century, 200-299 of the 12th century, and so on; as this is insufficient, the range of numbers is increased by prefixing a 1, and so obtaining another hundred, e.g. 1100 to 1199, and in the 12th and subsequent centuries, where even this is not enough, I It is neither possible nor desirable to give any description of most of these MSS., but the following are, critically, the most important. UNCIALS.-Codex Vaticanus (Vat. Gr. 1209), Greg. B, v. Soden 81; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It is written in three columns and has forty-two lines to the column. It originally Codex contained the whole Bible, but in the New Testament Vaticanus. Heb. ix. 14, xiii. 25, 1 and 2 Tim., Tit., Philemon, Apoc., of the New Testament was identified by Tischendorf as the scribe are now missing. It was written by three scribes of whom the writer D of (cod. Sinaiticus). The text has been corrected by two scribes, one (the coprns) contemporary with the original writer, the other belonging to the 10th or 11th century. The latter probably also text, though some critics think that this was done by a monk of re-inked the whole of the MS. and introduced a few changes in the the 15th century who supplied the text of the lacuna in Heb. and of the Apocalypse from a MS. belonging to Bessarion. The text is the best example of the so-called Neutral Text, except in the Pauline epistles, where it has a strong "Western element. How this MS. came to be in the Vatican is not known. It first appears in the catalogue of 1481 (Bibl. Vat. MS. Lat. 3952 f. 50), and is not in the catalogue of 1475, as is often erroneously stated on the authority of Vercellone. It was, therefore, probably acquired between the years 1475 and 1481. The problem of its earlier history is so entangled with the similar questions raised by that the two cannot well be discussed separately. [Phototypic editions have been issued in Rome in 1889-1890 and in 1905.] CUS. Codex Sinaiticus (St Petersburg, Imperial library), Greg. *. in 1844 by C. Tischendorf (q.v.) in the monastery of von Soden 82; an uncial MS. of the 4th century. It was found St Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and finally acquired by the Sinaiti tsar in 1869. It is written on thin vellum in four columns of forty-eight lines each. to a page. It contained originally the whole Bible, and the New Testament is still complete. At the end unfortunately incomplete, and there was probably originally some it also contains the Ep. of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, other document between these two. The text was written, according to Tischendorf, by four scribes, of whom he identified one as also the scribe of cod. Vaticanus. It was corrected many times, especially in the 6th century, by a scribe known as and in the 7th It has, in the main, a Neutral text, less mixed in the Epistles than that of B, but not so pure in the Gospels. The corrections of we are important, as they are based (according to a note Deen corrected by Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen, friend of by that scribe, at the end of Esther) on an early copy which had Eusebius and founder of a library at Caesarca. .°א by [The text of was published, in Tischendorf's Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (vol. iv.,1862), and separately in his Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum (1863); in 1909 it was published in collotype by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The relations of Pamphilus are studied by Bousset in "Textkritische Studien zum N.T." (in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xi. 4).]. to If Tischendorf was right in identifying the scribe of B with that of part of x, it is obvious that these MSS. probably come from the same place. He was probably wrong, but there are some indications of relationship to justify the same view. The two most probable places seem to be Caesarea and Alexandria. The case for Caesarea is that the colophon written by at the end of Esther, and also of Ezra, shows that was then in the library of Caesarea, and that a chapter division in Acts found both in and B can also be traced to the same library. This is a fairly strong case, but it falls short of demonstration because it cannot be shown that the MS. corrected by Pamphilus was still at Caesarea when it was used by, and because it is not certain either that the chapter divisions in Acts were added by the original scribes, or that and B were at that time in their original home, or that the chapter divisions were necessarily only to be found at Caesarea. The case for Alexandria depends partly on the orthography of B, which resembles Gracco-Coptic papyri, partly on the order of the Pauline epistles. At | present, both in & and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in B there is also a continuous numeration of sections throughout the epistles, according to which 1 to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, but Ephesians, the next epistle, begins with 70 instead of 59, and the omitted section numbers are found in Hebrews. Obviously, the archetype placed Hebrews between Galatians and Ephesians, but the scribe altered the order and put it between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., though without changing the section numbers. This older order of the epistles is only found elsewhere in the Sahidic version of the New Testament, and it was probably therefore the old Egyptian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know from the Festal letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac texts, but not the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order of the epistles which is now given in B. This is strong evidence for the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or the neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but it scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of epistles which it gives is also that adopted by the council of Laodicea in A.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps in Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and sometimes in turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of " B represents that of Hesychius; but this is extremely doubtful (see the section Textual Criticism below). [The question of the provenance of & and B may best be studied in J. Rendel Harris, Stichometry (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 71-89; J. Armitage Robinson, Euthaliana," Texts and Studies, iii. 3 (Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43 (these more especially for the connexion with Caesarea; A. Rahfls, Alter und Heimat der vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Göttingen (1899), vol. i. pp. 72-79; and O. von Gebhardt in a review of the last named in the Theologische Literaturzeitung (1899), col. 556.1 Codex Bezae (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2, 41), Greg. D, von Soden 85; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and probably considerably earlier. The text is written in one Bezae. column to a page, the Greek on the left hand page and the Latin on the right. It was given to the university of Cambridge in 1581, but its early history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came from Lyons and had been always preserved in the monastery of St Irenaeus there. There is no reason to question Beza's bona fides, or that the MS. was obtained by him after the sack of Lyons in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is room for doubt as to the accuracy of his belief that it had been for a long time in the same monastery. His information on this point would necessarily be derived from Protestant sources, which would not be of the highest value, and there are two pieces of evidence which show that just previously the MS. was in Italy. In the first place it is certainly identical with the MS. called which is quoted in the margin of the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this MS. according to Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in Italy. In the second place it was probably used at the council of Trent in 1546 by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in the last edition of the Annotationes Beza quotes his MS. as Claromontanus, and not as Lugdunensis. These points suggest that the MS. had only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The still earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H. Quentin has produced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that the MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris at one time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, but the latter's more recent researches go to show that the corrections and annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th centuries point to a district which was at first predominantly Greek and afterwards became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but not Lyons. The text of this MS. is important as the oldest and best witness in a Greek MS. to the so-called " Western text. (See the section Textual Criticism below.) [The following books and articles are important for the history, as apart from the text of the MS. Codex Bezae... phototypice repraesentatus (Cambridge, 1899); Scrivener, Codex Bezae (Cambridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, "A Study of Cod. Bezae," Texts and Studies, i. 1 (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, The Annotators of Cod. Bezae (London, 1901); F. E. Brightmen and K. Lake, "The Italian Origin of Codex Bezae," in Journal of Theol. Studies, April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, "The Date of Codex Bezae," in the Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D. H. Quentin, "Le Codex Bezae à Lyon, &c,," Revue Bénédictine, xxxiii. 1, 1906.J Alexan " Codex Alexandrinus (G. M. reg. ID v.-viii.), Greg. A, von Soden 84; an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It appears probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with driaus. him from Alexandria, of which he had formerly been patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states that it was written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is probably merely his interpretation of an Arabic note of the 14th century which states that the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr, an obviously absurd legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius (probably Athanasius III., patriarch c. 1308) states that it was given to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period dates the presenta tion in 1098. So far back as it can be traced it is, therefore, an Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in the same direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old and New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former and I and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutilation in a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by some scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension, but this view seems latterly to have lost favour with students of the Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hort's Syrian" type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked ** Alex andrian " element. [Cod. A was published in photographic facsimile in 1879-1880.] " Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, von Soden & 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the pro- Ephraeml perty of Catherine de' Medici, and was probably brought Syri from the east to Italy in the 16th century. Hort (Inireduction, p. 268) has shown from a consideration of displacements in the text of the Apocalypse that it was copied from a very small MS, but this, of course, only holds good of the Apocalypse. It is usually said that this MS., like A, came originally from Egypt, but this is merely a palaeographical guess, for which there is no real evidence. Originally, it contained the whole Bible, but only sixty-four leaves of the Old Testament remain, and 145 (giving about two-thirds of the whole) of the New Testament. The character of the text is mixed with a strong "Alexandrian element. [Published in facsimile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in his Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 94.1 Codex Claromontanus (Paris Nat. Gr. 107), Greg. Dal, voo Soden a 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This MS. also belonged to Beza, who "acquired " it from the Claremon monastery of Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death it passed through various private hands and was finally bought for the French royal library before 1656. It contains the whole of the Pauline epistles with a few lacunae, and has a famous stichometric list of books prefixed in another hand to Hebrews. It is probably the best extant witness to the type of Greek text which was in use in Italy at an early time. It is closely connected with cod. Sangermanensis (a direct copy) at St Petersburg, Greg. Emul von Soden a 1027; cod. Augiensis (Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B xvii. 11, Greg. Faul, von Soden a 1029; and cod. Boernerianus (Dresden K Bibl.), Greg. Gaul, von Soden a 1028. [The text is published in Tischendorf's Codex Claromontanus (1852). Its relations to EFG are best discussed in Westcott and Hort's Introduction, $8 335-337-] There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The next most valuable are probably cod. Regius of the 8th century at Paris, Greg, L, von Soden e 56, containing the Gospels; cod. Laudianus of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden a 1001, a Latino-Greek MS. containing the Acts; cod. Ceislinianus of the 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Athos, Greg. Haul, von Soden a 1022, containing fragments of the Pauline epistles; and cod. Augiensis of the 9th century in Trinity College, Cambridge, Greg. Faul, von Soden a 1029, á Graeco-Latin MS. closely related to cod. Claromontanus. [Further details as to these MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's N.T. ed. maj. viii.] MINUSCULES.-Very few of these are of real importance. The most valuable are the following: 1. The Ferrar Group; a group of eight MSS. known in Gregory's notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, or in von Soden's as e 368, 8 505, 1211, e 226, 257, 1033, 218, 219, all which except 69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's notation were probably written in the 12th century in Calabria. They have a most peculiar text of a mainly "Western" type, with some special affinities to the Old Syriac and perhaps to the Diatessaron. They are known as the Ferrar group in memory of the scholar who first published their text, and are sometimes quoted as (which, however, properly is the symbol for Codex Beralinus of the Gospels), and sometimes as fam.13. 2. Cod. 1 and its Allies; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's notation as 1, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as & 50, e 346, 8 467 and 8 457. The dating implied by the latter notation is wrong, as 1 certainly belongs to the 12th, not to the 10th century, and 118 is probably later than 209. It is sometimes quoted as fam 1 Fam and fam.1 probably have a common archetype in Mark which is also represented by codd. 28 (e 168), 565 (e 93, quoted by Tischendorf and others as 2p) and 700 (133. quoted by Scrivener and others as 604). It seems to have had many points of agreement with the Old Syriac, but it is impossible to identify the locality to which it belonged. Other minuscules of importance are cod. 33 (3 48) at Paris, which often agrees with BL and is the best minuscule repre sentative of the "Neutral" and "Alexandrian types of text in the gospels; cod. 137 (a 364) at Milan, a valuable. Western text of the Acts; a 78 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt. Athos, a MS. of the Acts and epistles, with an early (mixed) type of text and textual comments and notes from Origen. [The text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's death Fig. 7.-13th Century Latin Bible. (From copy belonging to Robert de Bello, abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury. British Museum.) í lînguis hoim logr + āgelorű: caritatī aut nō habeã:fad sum velut es fonas aut ambalū tînniens. Etli habuero pteriā-1 nouerī mißteria oia et omne fantā z habuero omnē fidë ita ut mōres trāfferā-raritatē aūt nō habuero : nîchil sum. El dîßribuero î cibos pauperü ommes facultates mras · 1 fi tradidero corp? meū îta ut ardeā:carîtatē aūt nō habuero: nichil michi pdelt. Laritas patiés elt: bemi Fig. 9.-The 42-Line Bible. (Printed at Mainz, 1452-6. British Museum.) Though viophecienges fayle, oz tunges ceaffe, or Enowlege per she, yet lone falleth neuer awaye. For oure knowlege is onparfecte,and oure prophecienge is unparfecte. But n hithat which is perfecte, commeth, then shalthe vnparfecte be done awaye. Whan I was a childe, I spake as a childe, Jvnderstede as a childe, ymagined as a childe. But as soone as I was a man, I pur awaye childishnes. Tow we fe thorow a glasse in a darte speatynge, but the shal we je face to face.Flow Jenowe vnperfectly: but the shal knowe cue as Jamknowne. low abydeth faith, hope, loue,these thie: but the greatest of these is lone. The XIIII. Chapter. Fig. 11. First printed English Bible, 1535. (British Museum.) Charite fally not wu Bhey whe aes lehulu be void cy langagis Cchulu cele cylacute lehjal ve Diltruped forlope of party we hau kuolben: of ptye we phe aeu ffozlove wheue p*lchal ai to par is pat pat puig pris of ptve tchal be auoÿdid. Whenue was almal childe (pake as a utilchuld.vadloce as altul could. youjte as a lital chuld. fforlope Who inae maid aula... «d a nai. Fig. 8. Early Wycliffite Version. (From copy belonging to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, written towards the end of 14th century. British Museum.) The fyfth Chapter. ilɔen he sawe the people, he went op into a mountaine/andwen he was set brs disciples cam vnto him/and be opened his mouth and taughtthem sayinge: Elessed are the povie in sprete: for thers is the kyngdom of heren. Blessed are they that mourne:fo:they shalbe comforted. Blessed are the mcke:fo: they shall inheret the erthe. Blessed arether which huger and thurst fo:rightewesnes: forber shalbe fils led. Blessed are the mercyfull:fortbey ball obrerne merer. Blessed are the pure in bert:for they shall se god. Bles fed are the maynteyners of peace: for they shalbe called the dyldren of god. Blessed arethey which suffre persecuoen forrightewefnes fake:fo:thersisthe kyngdom of Seven. Blessed are ye whe men shall revyle you and perfecute yon/ and shal falfly saye all manner of evle sayings agarnfi yen for my fake.Rcioyce ad be gladde/fo:greate is youre remar Fig. 10.-Tyndale's Quarto Edition of New Testament. (Printed by P. Quentel, Cologne, 1525, from the only remaining fragment, in British Museum.) CHAP. XIII. Allgiftes, 2. 3 how excellent foeuer, are no Hough I speake with the tongues of men of An gels,and haue not charity, Jam become as founding bzalle oz a tinkling cymbal 2 And though I haue the gift of prophefie,and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though J haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, J Fig. 12.-First Edition of the Authorized Version, 1611. (British Museum.) |