« PreviousContinue »
canonical Gospels were composed, and in their early history, which both heads. The list recognized four Gospels, Acts, thirteen
and (as the text stands) of Peter; there is no mention of 3. Influences at work.—The whole process of the formation Hebrews or (apparently) of 3 John or Epistles of Peter, where it of the New Testament was steady and gradual. The critical is possible-we cannot say more-that the silence as to i Peter period, during which the conception grew up of the New Covenant is accidental; the Shepherd of Hermas on account of its date with its sacred book by the side of the Old Covenant, which in
is admitted to private, but not public, reading; various writits written embodiment we call the Old Testament, extends ings associated with Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides and Monroughly over the 2nd century. By the last decades of that tanus are condemned. century a preliminary list of these new Sacred Books had been There are many interesting points about this list, which still shows formed and placed by the side of the Old with substantially the discussions about the Gospels, both in disparagement of the Synoptics
considerable freshness of judgment. (i.) There are traces of earlier same attributes. We must. briefly sketch the process by which
as compared with St John, and in criticism of the latter as differing this came about, tracing the causes which led to the result and from the former. (ii.) There is a healthy tendency to lay stress on indicating the manner in which they operated.
the historical value of narratives which proceed from eye-witnesses. We have seen that the ultimate cause was the consciousness Spirit." (iv.) The writer is concerned to point out that letters ad
(ii.) An over-ruling and uniting influence is ascribed to the Holy on the part of the Church that the first age of its own history dressed to a single church and even to an individual may yet have was characterized by spiritual workings more intense than other a wider use for the Church as a whole. (v.) The sense is not yet lost times. This feeling had been instinctive, and it found expression that the appeal of the Old Testament is as coming from men of proin several ways, each one of them partial, when taken alone, (vi) Ti is in accordance with this that a time limit is placed upon but obtaining their full effect in combination. It should be the books included in the New Testament. (vii.) Christians are to understood that the goal towards which events were moving be on their guard against writings put forth in the interest of heretical all the time was the equalizing of the New Testament with the sects. Old Testament.
When the data of Fragm. Murat, are compared with those (c) Public Reading.–From the first the way in which the Epistles supplied by the writers of the last quarter of the 2nd and first of Paul were brought to the knowledge of the churches to which of the 3rd centuries (Tatian, Theoph. Ant., Iren., Clem. Alex., they were addressed was by reading in the public assemblies for Tert., Hippol.), it is seen that there is a fixed nucleus of writings worship. This was done by the direction of the apostle himself (1 Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16). . At first any writing that was felt to
that is acknowledged, with one exception, over all parts of the be useful for cdification was read in this way, especially if it had Christian world. The exception is the Syriac-speaking Church local associations (cf. Dionysius of Corinth, ap. Eus. H.E. iv. 23. of Edessa and Mesopotamia. This Church at first acknowledged 11). But, as worship became more thoroughly organized, it was only the Gospel (in the form of Tatian's Diatessaron), Acts and gradually restricted; and inasmuch as lections were regularly taken the Epistles of Paul. These seem to have been the only books from the Old Testament, it was only natural that other lections translated immediately upon the foundation of the Edessan read alongside of them should gradually be placed upon the same Church, though an edition of the separate Gospels must have footing: (6) Authority of Christ and the Apostles: - As the words of prophets churches the four Gospels, Acts and Epistles of Paul are fixed,
followed either before or very soon afterwards. In all other and lawgivers had from the first carried their own authority with them under the Old Covenant, so from the first the words of Christ with the addition in nearly all of 1 Peter, 1 John. The Apocalypse needed no commendation from without under the New. And what was generally accepted in the West. Hebrews and James were applied to words of Christ soon came also to apply in their degree largely accepted in the East. to words of the apostles. The only difference was that an authority at first instinctively assumed caine to be consciously recognized
In the 3rd century the conspicuous figure is Origen (ob. 253), and formally defined. There was also
a natural tendency towards whose principal service was, through the vast range of his know. levelling up the different parts of books and groups of books. . In ledge, his travels and his respect for tradition wherever he found other words, the somewhat vague sense of spiritual power and im: it, to keep open the wider limits of the Canon. There is not one pressiveness hardened into the conception of sacred books united in a sacred volume.
of our present books that he does not show himself inclined to (c) Controversy:—The process was accelerated by the demand for accept, though he notes the doubts in regard to 2 Peter and a standard or rule of faith and practice. At an carly date in the 2 and 3 John. Later in the century Dionysius of Alexandria 2nd century this demand was met by the composition of the oldest applies some acute criticism to justify the Alexandrian dislike form of what we call the Apostles' Creed. But the Creed was but the condensed essence of the New Testament scriptures, and behind
of the Apocalypse. it there lay an appeal to these scriptures, which was especially necessary, where (as in the case of the Valentinian Gnostics) the
(0) The Final Canon (4th century).-Early in the 4th dissident bodies professed to accept the common belief of Christians. century Eusebius, as a historian reviews the situation (H. E. iii. In its conflict with Gnostics, Marcionites and Montanists the Church 25. 1). He makes three classes; the first, including the Gospels, was led to insist more and more upon its Bible, its own Bible, just Acts, Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, is acknowledged; to as in its older controversy with the Jews it had to insist on the Bible which it inherited from them. This was a yet further cause of the
these, if one likes, one may add the Apocalypse. The second equating of the two parts of the sacred volume, which went on with class is questioned, but accepted by the majority; viz. James, an imperceptible crescendo through the first three quarters of the Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. The third class, of works 2nd century, and by the last quarter was fairly complete.
to be decidedly rejected, contains the Acts of Paul, Hermas, (V) Provisional Canon of New Testament (end of 2nd century). Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Didache; to these some would -By the last quarter of the 2nd century the conception of a add Apoc. of John, and others Ev. sec. Hebr. About the same Christian Bible in two parts, Old Testament and New Testament, time another line of tradition is represented by Lucian and the may be said to be definitely established. Already at the beginning school of Antioch. The vernacular Church of Syria represented of this period Melito had drawn up a list of the twenty-two yet a third. In Egypt the uncertainty and laxity of usage was Books of the Old Covenant, i.e. of the documents to which the still greater. This state of things the great Athanasius set Old Covenant made its appeal. It was a very short step to the himself to correct, and he did so by laying down a list identical compiling of a similar list for the New Covenant, which by another with our New Testament as we have it now. It was very largely very short step becomes the New Testament, by the side of the the influence of Athanasius that finally turned the scale. He Old Testament. It is therefore not surprising, though a piece of was peculiarly qualified for exercising this influence, as his long great good fortune, that there should be still extant a list of the exile in the West made him familiar with Western usage, while New Testament books that may be roughly dated from the end he was also able to bring to the West the usage that he was of the century. This list published by Muratori in 1740, and trying to establish in the East. His efforts would be helped by called after him "the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon," is Westerns, like Hilary and Lucifer, who were exiled to the East. commonly believed to be of Roman origin and to be a trans- The triumph of the Athanasian Canon, indeed, went along with lation from the Greek, though there are a few dissentients on the triumph of Nicene Christianity. And while the movement
received its impulse from Athanasius, the power by which it , although still possessing value as argument, this has been more was carried through and established was largely that of his tinctly left behind by the progress of recent years. England has
made many weighty contributions both to Introduction and Capca powerful ally, the Church of Rome.
especially Lightioot, Essays on Supernatural Religion (collected in The final victory was no doubt a little delayed. Asia Minor 1889); editions of Books of the New Testament and Apostolis and Syria were for most of the 4th century divided between Fathers: Westcott, editions; Hort, especially Romans the following of Eusebius (Cyril of Jerusalem in A.D. 348, Gregory i hers. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology put out a useful
Ephesians (posthumous, 1895): Swete, editions; Koosling and of Nazianzus, the list of Apost. Can. 85, that attached to Can. 59
New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers in 1905, and Prof. Stantoad of the Council of Laodicea, C. A.D. 363) and the school of Antioch. Cambridge, The Gospels as Hislorical Documents (part i. in 1903). The leading members of that school adopted 3 Epp. Cath. Prof. Burkitt's Gospel History and its Trensmission appeared ia (James, i Peter, 1 John), Theod. Mops. omitting this group
1906. For introductory matter the student will do well to consult altogether, and the whole school omitting Apoc. Amphilochius Encyclopaedia Biblica (ed. Cheyne and Black, 4 vols., 1899-1903),
the Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Hastings, 5 vols., 1898-1904) of Iconium (c. 380) gives the two lists, Eusebian and Antiochene, Dr Hastings and his contributors belong more to the right wing of as alternatives. The Eusebian list only wanted the complete criticism, and Dr Cheyne and his to the left. The systematic Intro admission of the Apocalypse to be identical with the Athanasian; duction is a characteristic production of Germany and has done and Athanasius had one stalwart supporter in Epiphanius method hitherto mainly practised is begianing to give place to
excellent service in its day, though there are signs that the analytic (ob, 403).
something more synthetic or constructive. The pioneer work in The original Syriac list, as we have seen, had neither Epp. this latter direction is Weizsäcker's skilsul and artistic Apostolisches Cath. nor Apoc. The Peshito version, in regard to which Professor | Zeitalter (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1901; Eng. trans. 1891-1895);
somewhat similar on a smaller scale is von Soden, History of Escy Burkitt's view is now pretty generally accepted, that it was the
Christian Literature (trans., 1906). Secial mention should be made work of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 411-433, added the 3 Epp. of Wellhausen on the Synoptic Gospels (1903-1905), and Hartzea Cath. The remaining 4 Epp. Cath. and Apoc. were sup- Beilräge 2. Einleitung in d. N.T. (part i. 1900, part ii. 1997). The plied in the Philoxenian version of 508, and retained in the most important recent works on Introduction and Canon have been Harklean revision of 616. But both these were Monophysite | (1st ed. 1886, 3rd ed. 1897); a series of works by Th. Zahn,
those of H. J. Holtzmann (1st ed. 1885. 3rd ed. 1902): B. Weiss and of limited use, and the Nestorians still went on using the almost colossal in scale and exhaustive in detail, embracing Gesck Peshito.
d. neul. Kanons (2 vols., 1888-1892, third to follow), Ferziubes Meantime, in the West, an important Synod was held by 2. Gesch. d. neut. Kan. (7 parts, 1881-1907), Einleitung (2 vols., 1997Damasus at Rome in 382 which, under the dominant influence 1899), Grundriss d. Gesch. d. neut. Kan. (1st ed. 1901. 2nd ed. 1901):
A. Jülicher, Einleitung (1st and 2nd ed. 1894, 5th and 6th ed. of Jerome and the Athanasian tradition,drew up a list correspond 1906; Eng. trans. by Miss Janet Ward, 1904). "Zaha and Julicher ing to the present Canon. This was ratified by Pope Gelasius may be said to supplement and correct each other, as they site (492-496), and independently confirmed for the province of from very different points of view, and on Jülicher's side there is Africa by a series of Synods held at Hippo Regius in 393, and at
no lack of criticism of his great opponent. Zahn's series is moon Carthage in 397 and 419, under the lead of Augustine. The packed and (in statements of facts) trustworthy matter. Jülicher's
mental in its way, and his Grundriss is very handy and full of closely formal completion of the whole process in East and West was work is also highly practical, very complete and well proportioned reserved for the Quinisextine Council (Council in Trullo) of 692. in scale, and up to a certain point its matter is also excellent. Tbe But even after that date irregularities occur from time to time, History of the Canon, by the Egyptologist Joh. Leipoldt Leipzig
1907), may also be warmly recommended; it is clear and methodkal especially in the East.
and does not make the common mistake of assigning too much to In the fixing of the Canon, as in the fixing of doctrine, the secondary causes; the author does not forget that he is dieling decisive influence proceeded from the bishops and the theologians with a sacred book, and that he has to show why it was bed
(W. SA) of the period 325-450. But behind these was the practice of the sacred. greater churches; and behind that again was not only the lead
2. Texts and Versions. of a few distinguished individuals, but the instinctive judgment The apparolus criticus of the New Testament consists, from of the main body of the faithful. It was really this instinct that one point of view, entirely of MSS.; but these MSS. may be divided told in the end more than any process of quasi-scientific criticism. into three groups: (A) Greek MSS., which in practice are knosa And it was well that it should be so, because the methods of as “ The MSS," (B) MSS. of versions in other languages reprecriticism are apt to be, and certainly would have been when the senting translations from the Greek, (C) MSS. of other writis Canon was formed, both faulty and inadequate, whereas instinct whether in Greek or other languages which contain quotations brings into play the religious sense as a whole; with spirit from the New Testament. speaking to spirit rests the last word. Even this is not infallible;
(A) Greek MSS.—These may be divided into classes accordand it cannot be claimed that the Canon of the Christian Sacred ing to style of writing, material, or contents. The first meibod Books is infallible. But experience has shown that the mis- distinguishes between uncial or majuscule, and cursive of takes, so far as there have been mistakes, are unimportant; minuscule; the second between papyrus, vellum or parchmedi, and in practice even these are rectificd by the natural gravita- and paper (for further details see MANUSCRIPT and PALEO tion of the mind of man to that which it finds most nourishing GRAPHY); and the third distinguishes mainly between Gospe's and most elevating.
Acts and Epistles (with or without the Apocalypse), New BIBLIOGRAPHY.—The separate articles on the various books of Testaments (the word in this connexion being somewhat the New Testament may be consulted for detailed bibliographies. broadly interpreted), lectionaries and commentaries. The object of the above sketch has been to embrace in constructive
Quite accurate statistics on this subject are scarcely attainable. outline the ground usually covered analytically and on a far larger scale by Introductions to the New Testament, and by Histories of Von Soden's analysis of numbers, contents and date may be the New Testament Canon. In English there is a standard work tabulated as follows, but it must be remembered that it rechers of the latter class in Westcott's General Survey of the History of the many small fragments as separate MSS., especially in the carrer Canon of the New Testament (first published in 1855, important revision centuries. It is also necessary to add that there is one sa and additions in 4th ed. 1874, 7th ed. 1896), with valuable appendix of documents at the end. There was also a useful collection scrap of papyrus of the 3rd century containing a few verses o of texts by Prof. Charteris of Edinburgh, Canonicily (1880), based I the 4th Gospel. on Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung (1844), but with im.
Century IV. V. VI. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVII. Tosa! provements.
The leading documents are to be had in New Testaments
44 47 19
167 the handy and reliable Kleine Gospels 19
107 46 Texte (ed. Lietzmann, from Acts and Epistles
56 1902). On Introduction the
Acts and Catho. ablest older English work was Salmon, Historical Introduce
Pauline Epp. tion to the Study of N.T. (ist Apocalypse
3 ed. 1885, 5th ed. 1891); but,
2 3 I
2 10 1
2 26 4
2 16 82 | 188 19
2 3 21
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 on € is prefixed whenever there is any chance of ambiguity. It is paper, and that MSS. earlier than the oth century are uncial and claimed that this system gives the maximum of information later than the roth 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 Besides the MSS. mentioned in the table above, there are least to a large extent, when von Soden's text is published. 281 MSS. containing commentaries on the Gospels, 169 on Acts (The full details of this subject can be found in E. Miller's edition and Epistles, 66 on the Apocalypse, 1072 lectionaries of the of Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Gospels and 287 of Acts and Episties, making a grand total of (George Bell, 1894); C. R. Gregory's, Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 3698 MSS. It must be remembered that the dating of the MSS., C. R. Gregory's Textkritik (Leipzig, 1900); H. von Soden's Die.
Novum Testamentum Graece, Ed. VIII. critica major (Leipzig, 1894); especially of minuscules, is by no means certain: Greek Palaco- Schriften des neuen Testamenis (Berlin, Band i., 1902-1907); F. G. graphy is a difficult subject, and not all the MSS. have been Kenyon's Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament investigated by competent palaeographers.
(London, 1901), especially valuable for a clear account of the Papyri
fragments.) The notation of this mass of MSS. is very complicated. There are at present two main systems:(1) Since the time of Wetstein
It is neither possible nor desirable to give any description of it has been customary to employ capital letters, at first of the
most of these MSS., but the following are, critically, the most
important. Latin and latterly also of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, to designate the uncials, and Arabic figures to designate the minus- 01; an uncial MS. of the 4th century: It is written in three columns
UNCIALS.-Codex Vaticanus (Vat. Gr. 1209), Greg. B, v. Soden cules. Of this system there are two chief representatives, and has forty-two lines to the column. It originally
Codex Gregory and Scrivener. These agree in the main, but differ for contained the whole Bible, but in the New Testament the more recently discovered minuscules. Gregory's notation
Heb. ix. 14, xiii. 25, I and 2 Tim., Tit., Philemon, Apoc.,
Vaticanus. is more generally used, and Scrivener's, though still followed by 1 of the New Testament was identified by Tischendorf as the scribe
are now missing. It was written by three scribes of whom the writer a few English scholars, is likely to become obsolete. This D of * (cod. Sinaiticus). The text has been corrected by two scribes, method of notation has various disadvantages. There are not one (the olopoutns) contemporary with the original writer, the other enough letters to cover the uncials, the same letter has to serve belonging to the 10th or with century. The latter probably also for various fragments which are quite unconnected except by re-inked the whole of the MS. and introduced a few changes in the the accident of simultancous discovery, and no information is the 15th century who supplied the text of the lacuna in Heb. and
text, though some critics think that this was done by a monk of given about the MS. referred to: (2) To remedy these drawbacks of the Apocalypse from a Ms. belonging to Bessarion. The text is an entirely new system was introduced in 1902 by von Soden in the best example of the so-called Neutral Text, except in the Pauline his Die Schriften des neuen Testaments, Bd. 1, Abt. 1, pp. 33-40; Ms. came to be in the Vatican is not known.
element. How this He abandons the practice of making a distinction between uncial catalogue of 1481 (Bibl. Vat. MS. Lat. 3952 f. 50), and is not in the
It first appears in the and minuscule, on the ground that for textual criticism the style catalogue of 1475, as is often erroneously stated on the authority of writing is less important than the date and contents of a Ms. of Vercellone. It was, therefore, probably acquired between the To indicate these he divided MSS. into three classes. (1) New years 1475 and 1481: The problem of its earlier history is so en
tangled with the similar questions raised by * that the two cannot Testaments (the Apocalypse being not regarded as a necessary well be discussed separately. (Phototypic editions have been part), (2) Gospels, and (3) Acts, Epistles and Apocalypse (the issued in Rome in 1889-1890 and in 1905.1 latter again being loosely regarded). These three classes he dis- Codex Sinaiticus (St Petersburg, Imperial library!, Greg. tinguished as ô( = diaonan), e (=evayré dcov) and a (= årótodos). von Soden 82; an uncial MS, of the 4th century. To these letters he attaches numbers arranged on a principle St Catherine on Mt. Sinai, and finally acquired by the
in 1844 by C. Tischendorf (9.9.) in the monastery of
Sloaitishowing the century to which the MS. belongs and defining its tsar
in 1869. It is written on thin vellum in four columns contents more precisely. The number is determined thus:- of forty-eight lines each. to a page.. It contained originally the MSS. of the 8 and a classes from the earliest period to the oth whole Bible, and the New Testament is still complete. At the end
it also contains the Ep. of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, century inclusive are numbered 1 to 49; those of the roth unfortunately incomplete, and there was probably originally some century 50 to 99; for the later centuries numbers of three figures other document between these two. The text was written, accordare used, and the choice is made so that the figure in the hundreds' ing to Tischendorf, by four scribes, of whom he identified one as also place indicates the century, i meaning uith century, 2 meaning the scribe of.cod. Vaticanus. It was corrected many times, especi12th century, and so on; to all these numbers the appropriate ally in the oth century, by a scribe known as d and in the 7th
It has, in the main, a Neutral text, less mixed in the letter, if it be o or a, must be always prcfixed, but if it be e, only Epistles than that of B, but not so pure in the Gospels. The corwhen there is any chance of ambiguity. In 8 MSS. a distinction rections of me are important, as they are based (according to a note is made for those of the ith and subsequent centuries by by that scribe, at the end of Esther) on an early copy which had reserving 1 to 49 in each hundred for MSS. containing the Eusebius and founder of a library at Caesarca.
been corrected by Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen, friend of Apocalypse, 50 to 99 for those which omit it. Similarly, in a [The text of x was published in Tischendorf's Bibliorum codex MSS. a distinction is made according to their contents; the Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (vol. iv., 1862), and separately in his Novum three-figure numbers are reserved for MSS. which contain Acts, Testamentum Sinailicum (1863): in 1909 it was published in colloCatholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles with or without the Pamphilus are studied by Bousset in " Textkritische Studien zum
type by the Clarendon Press, Oxford. The relations of so to Apocalypse, the presence or absence of which is indicated as in N.T." (in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xi. 4).) the 8 MSS.; but when a MS. consists of only one part a “1” Il Tischendorf was right in identifying the scribe of B with that is prefixed, thus making a four-figure number, and the precise of part of *, it is obvious that these MSS. probably come from the
same place. He was probably wrong, but there are some indications part is indicated by the two last of the four figures; 00-19 means
of relationship to justify the same view. The two most probable Acts and Catholic Epistles, 20-69 means Pauline Epistles and places seem to be Caesarea and Alexandria. The case for Caesarea 70-99 means Apocalypse. In the case of € MSS. 1-99 is used for is that the colophon written by.me at the end of Esther, and also the earliest MSS. up to the gth century, and as this is insufficient, of Ezra, shows that was then in the library of Caesarea, and that
a chapter division in Acts found both in n and B can also be traced the available numbers are increased by prefixing a o, and
to the same library. This is a fairly strong case, but it falls short reckoning a second hundred from or to 099; 1000 to 1099 are of demonstration because it cannot be shown that the MS. corrected MSS. of the roth century; 100 to 199 are MSS. of the rith by Pamphilus was still at Caesarea when it was used by.“, and century, 200-299 of the 12th century, and so on; as this is 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 insufficient, the range of numbers is increased by prefixing a 1,
time in their original home, or that the chapter divisions were and so obtaining another hundred, e.g. 1100 to 1199, and in the necessarily only to be found at Caesarea. The case for Alexandria 12th and subsequent centuries, where even this is not enough, I depends partly on the orthography of B, which resembles
Graeco-Coptic papyri, partly on the order of the Pauline epistles. At | tion in 1098.-So far back as it can be traced it is, therefore, 22 present, both in * and B, Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess., but in Alexandrian MS., and palaeographical arguments point in the same B there is also a continuous numeration of sections throughout direction. Originally, the MS. contained the whole of the Old and the epistles, according to which I to 58 cover Romans to Galatians, New Testaments, including the Psalms of Solomon in the former but Ephesians, the next epistle, begins with 70, instead of 59, and and I and 2 Clement in the latter. It has, however, suffered mutiathe omitted section numbers are found in Hebrews. Obviously, tion in a few places. Its text in the Old Testament is thought by the archetype placed Hebrews between Galatians and Ephesians, some scholars to show signs of representing the Hesychian recension but the scribe altered the order and put it between 2 Thess. and but this view seems latterly to have lost favour with studeats i Tim., though without changing the section numbers. This older the Septuagint. If it be true, it falls in with the palaeographic order of the episties is only found elsewhere in the Sahidic version indications and suggests an Alexandrian provenance. In the New of the New Testament, and it was probably therefore the old Egyp: Testament it has in the gospels a late text of Westcott and Hert's tian or Alexandrian order. Moreover, we know from the Festal “Syrian," type, but in the epistles there is a strongly marked " Aler letter of A.D. 367 (according to the Greek and Syriac texts, but not andrian element. (Cod. A was published in photographic íac. the Sahidic), that Athanasius then introduced the order of the simile in 1879-1880.) epistles which is now given in * B. This is strong evidence for Codex Ephraemi Syri Resor: plus (Paris Nat. Gr. 9), Greg. C, voa the view that the archetype of B came from Alexandria or the Soden & 3; an uncial palimpsest (the top writing being that of neighbourhood, and was older than the time of Athanasius, but
it Ephraem) of the 5th century. It was formerly the proEphrzemi scarcely proves that B itself is Alexandrian, for the order of epistles perty of Catherine de' Medici, and was probably brought which it gives is also that adopted by the council of Laodicea in from the east to Italy in the 16th century, Hort (IntroA.D. 363, and may have been introduced elsewhere, perhaps in duction, p. 268) has shown from a consideration of displacements in the Caesarea. A further argument, sometimes based upon and some- text of the Apocalypse that it was copied from a very small MS. times in turn used to support the foregoing, is that the text of x B but this, of course, only holds good of the Apocalypse. It is usually represents that of Hesychius: but this is extremely doubtful (see said that this MS., like A, came originally from Egypt, but this is the section Textual Crilicism below).
merely a palaeographical guess, for which there is no real evidence. [The question of the provenance of * and B may best be studied Originally, it contained the whole Bible, but only sixty-four leaves in J. Rendel Harris, Stichometry. (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 71-89; of the Old Testament remain, and 145 (giving about two-thirds J. Armitage Robinson, “ Euthaliana," Texts and Studies, iii. 3 of the whole) of the New Testament. The character of the test is (Cambridge, 1895), esp. pp. 34-43. (these more especially for the mixed with a strong
“ Alexandrian element. (Published in facconnexion with Cacsarea); A Rahfis, * Alter und Heimat der simile by Tischendorf (1843). Discussed by Lagarde in his Ges. vatikanischer Bibelhandschrift," in the Nachrichten der Gesell. der Abhandlungen, p. 94.] Wiss. zu Göllingen (1899), vol. I, pp. 72-79; and O. von rdt in
Claromontanus (Paris Nat. Gr. 197), Greg. Dx, voa a review of the last named in the Theologische Literaturseitung (1899), Soden a 1026; an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. of the 6th century. This col. 556.)
MS. also belonged to Beza, who " acquired " it from the Codex Bezae (Cambridge Univ. Nu. 2,41), Greg. D, von Soden 8 5; monastery of Clermont, near Beauvais. After his death an uncial Graeco-Latin MS. not later than the 6th century and prob. it passed through various private hands and was finally
ably considerably earlier. The text is written in one bought for the French royal library, before 1656. It contains the
column to a page, the Greek on the left hand page and whole of the Pauline epistles with a few lacunde, and has a famous the Latin on the right. It was given to the university of Cambridge stichometric list of books prefixed in another hand to Hebrews. It in 1581, but its early history is doubtful. Beza stated that it came is probably the best extant witness to the type of Greek text which from Lyons and had been always preserved in the monastery of was in use in Italy at an early time. It is closely connected with St Irenaeus there. There is no reason to question Beza's bona cod. Sangermanensis (a direct copy) at St Petersburg, Greg. Ez fides, or that the MS. was obtained by him after the sack of Lyons von Soden a 1027; cod. Augiensis (Cambridge, Trin. Coll. B ni.al in 1562 by des Adrets, but there is room for doubt as to the accuracy Greg: Freur, von Soden a 1029; and cod. Boernerianus (Dresden of his belief that it had been for a long time in the same monastery. K Bibl.), Greg Gaul von Soden a 1028. (The text is published His information on this point would necessarily be derived from in Tischendori's Codex Claromonlonus (1852), Its relations tz Protestant sources, which would not be of the highest value, and EFG are best discussed in Westcott and Hort's Infraductis there are two pieces of evidence which show that just previously $$ 335-337.) the MS. was in Italy: In the first place it is certainly identical with There are no other uncials equal in importance to the above. The the MS. called a which is quoted in the margin of the 1550 edition next most valuable are probably cod. Regius of the 8th century of Robert Stephanus' Greek Testament; this MS. according to at Paris, Greg: L, von Soden e 56, containing the Gospels; sd Stephanus' preface was collated for him by friends in Italy. In the Laudianus of the 7th century at Oxford, Greg. E, von Soden 1001, second place it was probably used at the council of Trent in 1546 a Latino-Greek Ms. containing the Acts; cod. Ceisliniasus of the by Gul. a Prato, bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and in the last 6th century in Paris, Turin, Kiev, Moscow and Mt. Athos, Greg edition of the Annotationes Beza quotes his MS. as Claromontanus, Hous, von Soden a 1022, containing fragments of the Paulice and not as Lugdunensis. These points suggest that the MS. had epistles: and cod. Augiensis of the 9th century in Trinity College. only been a short time at Lyons when Beza obtained it. The still Cambridge, Greg. Fpoule von Soden a 1029, á Graeco-Latio NIS. earlier history of the MS. is equally doubtful. H: Quentin has pro- closely related to cod. Claromonlonus. Further details as to these duced some interesting but not convincing evidence to show that MSS. with bibliographies can be found in Gregory's Prelegerets the MS. was used in Lyons in the 12th century, and Rendel Harris to Tischendorf's N.T. ed. maj. vii.) at one time thought that there were traces of Gallicism in the Latin, MINUSCULES.- Very few of these are of real importance. The but the latter's more recent researches go to show that the correc- most valuable are the following: tions and annotations varying in date between the 7th and 12th 1. The Ferrer Group; a group of eight MSS. known in Gregory's centuries point to a district which was at first predominantly Greek notation as 13, 69, 124, 346, 543. 788, 826, 828, or in von S dea's and afterwards became Latin. This would suit South Italy, but as e 368, 8 505, o 1211, € 226, 257, e 1033, € 218, 219, all skich not Lyons. The text of this MS. is important as the oldest and except 69, in spite of the dating implied by von Soden's
cotatica best witness in a Greek MS. to the so-called " Western text. (See were probably written in the 12th century in Calabria. They have the section Textual Criticism below.)
a most peculiar text of a mainly“ Western" type, with some special (The following books and articles are important for the history, affinities to the Old Syriac and perhaps to the Diatesseron. They as a part from the text of the MS. Codex Bezae .. pholotypice are known as the Ferrar group in memory of the scholar sbots repraescnlalus (Cambridge, 1899); Scrivener, Coder Bezac (Cam. published their text, and are sometimes quoted as $(which, boveser, bridge, 1864); J. Rendel Harris, A Study of Cod. Bezae," Tezls properly is the symbol for Codex Beralinus of the Gospels), sed and Studies, i. 1 (Cambridge, 1891); J. Rendel Harris, The Anno- sometimes as fam.". talors of Cod. Bezae (London, 1901); F. E. Brightmen and K. Lake, 2. Cod. 1 and its Alies; a group of four MSS. known in Gregory's “ The Italian Origin
of Codex Bezde,” in Journal of Theol. Studies, notation as 1, 118, 131, 209, and in von Soden's as o 50, € 345, 367 April 1900, pp. 441 ff.; F. C. Burkitt, The Date of Codex Bezde,
and 8 457
The dating implied by the latter notation is wrong as in the Journal of Theol. Studies, July 1902, pp. 501 ff.; D. H. 1 certainly belongs to the 12th, not to the toth century, and 115 Quentin, "Le Codex Bezae à Lyon, &c," Revue Bénédicline, xxxiii. is probably later than 209. It is sometimes quoted as fast al 1, 1906.)
and fam.'s probably have a common archetype in Mark which is also Codex Alexandrinus (G. M. reg. ID v..viii.), Greg. A, von Soden represented by codd. 28 ( 168), 565 (6 93, quoted by Tischendor and 84; an uncial MS. of the 5th century. It was given by Cyril Lucar, others as 2de) and 700 ( 133. quoted by Scrivener and others as
patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. in 1621. It 604). It seems to have had many points of agreement with the appears probable that Cyril Lucar had brought it with Old Syriac, but it is.impossible to identify the locality to which is
him from Alexandria, of which he had formerly been belonged. Other minuscules of importance are cod. 33 (48) at patriarch. A note by Cyril Lucar states that it was written by Paris, which often agrees with « BL and is the best minuscule repre Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt, but this is probably merely his inter sentative of the
"Neutral Alexandrian types of text pretation of an Arabic note of the 14th century which states that in the gospels; cod. 137 (a 364) at Milan, a valuable Western the MS. was written by Thecla, the martyr, an obviously absurd text of the Acts; 278 (not in Gregory) in the Laura on Mt. Athos, a legend; another Arabic note by Athanasius (probably Athanasius MS. of the Acts and epistles, with an early (mixed) type of tex and 111.,, patriarch c. 1303) states that it was given to the patriarchate textual comments and notes from Origen, of Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period dates the presenta- (Thc text of the Ferrar group was published after Ferrar's death