Chapter VI: Part II: of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment (1)

of John’s Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a papyrus codex written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a papyrus _book_ (not a _roll_). It exhibits already the abbreviations usually found in theological manuscripts, such as Θ̅Σ̅, Ι̅Η̅Σ̅, Χ̅Σ̅, Π̅Ν̅Α̅. The Codex agrees with א in several readings not found elsewhere. (T^x Greg.) See _Addenda_, p. xv.

[Sidenote: Acts and Catholic Epistles.]

The second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts and Catholic Epistles which are distinguished from those in the first by affixing the exponent _{2} at the bottom of the symbol.

א A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete:

E_{2} D have the Acts all but entire:

K L have the Catholic Epistles complete:

C P have the greater part of them.

For א A B C D F^a (a few verses of the Acts), see above.

E_{2}. LAUDIANUS 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the sixth century: bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying the place of honour on the left: breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29: the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of D. The manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was probably brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was employed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his _Expositio_ of the Acts and afterwards in his _Expositio Retractata_. Archbishop Laud presented the manuscript with many others to the University of Oxford. Fell and Mill made use of it. Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.

G_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg containing Acts ii. 45-iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriac manuscript.

G^b. Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome containing portions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat. Gr. 2302.)

H_{2}. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some lacunæ.

I_{2}. Fragments in St. Petersburg of the fifth and seventh centuries: four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.

K_{2}. Of the ninth century: brought to Moscow from Athos: contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles.

L_{2}. Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica Library at Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.

P_{2}. Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg: published by Tischendorf: contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse, with several lacunæ.

S_{2}. Of the eighth or ninth century: at Athos: contains Acts, Catholic Epistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians.

ב_{2}. A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome: rediscovered by Batiffol: consists of fragments of Acts, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews.

[Sidenote: Pauline Epistles.]

The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles. Of these there is a comparatively large number, which may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to Paul even in early times. א, however, is the only Codex that contains his Epistles complete; in D L they are almost complete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part of them.

For א A B C, see above.

A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6 inclusive.

B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are wanting.

D_{2}. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Clermont near Beauvais. The manuscript was written in the sixth century, and is bilingual in Greek and Latin, having the Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is wanting in Rom. i. 1-7, 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal. v. 9 D_{2} reads δολοῖ, and in verse 14 ἐν ὑμῖν, in both places agreeing with Marcion. At least nine hands are distinguishable in the manuscript, one of whom corrected the text in over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth century. Two leaves are palimpsest, their text being written over part of a play of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the Codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before it is a list of “versus scribtuarum sanctarum,” one of the oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the Old and New Testaments, which is derived from an early Greek original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in Westcott’s _History of the Canon_, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his _Bible in the Church_, App. B, p. 309. See also Zahn, _Geschichte des N. T. Kanons_, II. 157-172, 1012; Jülicher, _Einleitung_, § 40. Thirty-five leaves of Codex D_{2} were stolen by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards restored by their purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in 1729. (_See Plates II. and III._)

E_{3}. SANGERMANENSIS, of the ninth century: also Greek-Latin: brought from St. Germain de Près to St. Petersburg during the Revolution: in the Greek merely an incorrect transcript of D_{2}, and may therefore be dismissed. See p. 179 n. 1.

F_{2}. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-Latin manuscript: defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philemon 21-25: Hebrews from the first only in the Latin. The manuscript was formerly at Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It was purchased by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at Cambridge. An edition of it was published by Scrivener in 1859. For F^a, see above, p. 66.

Scrivener, _An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis ... to which
is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various
portions of the Greek N. T._, 1859. F. Zimmer, _Der Codex Augiensis
eine Abschrift des Boernerianus_ (_ZfwTh._, 1887, i. 76-91).

G_{3}. BOERNERIANUS, of the ninth century, so called from Professor C. F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705: now in Dresden. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin being interlinear. It is manifestly the second part of Δ, and has a close affinity with F_{2}, though the Greek of F was not copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is rather that both are derived from one and the same original, in which _e.g._ ως γαγγρα ινα νομην εξει, sicut cancer ut serpat, was found in 2 Tim. ii. 17, and ημεθα δε δουλωμενοι, eramus autem servientes, in Gal. iv. 3. This manuscript contains some interesting Irish verses.[70] At the end of Philemon there stands the title προς Λαουδακησας, ad laudicenses, but the Epistle that should have followed has been lost.

P. Corssen, _Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine
scriptos Augiensem, Boernerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se
comparavit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum_, 1887.
_Alterum_, 1889.

[Sidenote: Euthalian Recension.]

H_{3}. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were used in 975 and 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount Athos. Forty-one of these have been rescued, of which 22 are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in St. Petersburg, 3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The value of the manuscript is indicated in the subscription, which runs, “I, Euthalius,[71] wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy in the library at Cæsarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus the saint.”[72] The subscription may of course have stood in the original of H, and simply been copied into it along with the text, as in the case of the minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of the Acts. But no matter, it serves to locate the text of this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses for the so-called =Euthalian Recension= of the Acts and Catholic Epistles.

In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce,[73] published an edition of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the length of which depended on the sense (_sense-clauses_), and divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also provided a system of Church lections, added a summary of contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separate Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became a sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made use of for the Armenian version among the rest. The comparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus, as well as other additions, would seem then to have been made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however, thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead of Euthalius in the place where the name has been erased. This view is combated by Dobschütz, and in part rightly. Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius. But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription, Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σούλκης ὁμολογία περὶ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in the second half of the seventh century and that Sulce was in Sardinia. See G. Krüger in the _Lit. Cent. Blatt_ 1899, No. 14.

Omont, _Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des
épîtres de S. Paul_, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_,
Texts and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 96,
8.) Th. Zahn, _Euthaliana_, _Theol. Lit. Blatt._, 1895, 593, 601.
Ehrhard, _Der codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus,
Eine palaeographisch-patrologische Untersuchung_ in the
_Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v.
Dobschütz, _Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage_, in the same magazine,
1893, pp. 49-70; _Euthaliusstudien_ in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154
(1898): also, _Euthalius_, in the PRE^3, v. pp. 631-633 (1898).
Islinger, _Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen
Bibeltext_, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, _On the Codex Pamphili and
date of Euthalius_, in the _Cambridge Journal of Philology_, xxiii.
241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, _The Harklean Version etc._, pp. 9, 27
(1889). See also J. A. Robinson, _Texts and Studies_, vi. 1; C.
Butler, _The Lausiac History of Palladius_, p. 104 ff., and note 2,
p. 188 below.

I_{2}, K_{2}, L_{2}, P_{2}: See above, p. 75.

M_{2}. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of them in London and the other two in Hamburg.

N_{2}. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with portions of Galatians and Hebrews: in St. Petersburg.

O_{2}. Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library containing portions of 2 Corinthians.

O^b. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians: in Moscow.

Q_{2}. Of the fifth century, five _papyrus_ leaves with fragments of 1 Corinthians: in St. Petersburg.

R_{2}. Of the seventh century, a single leaf with part of 2 Corinthians: in Grotteferrata.

S_{2}. See above, p. 75.

T^g. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See _TiGr._, p. 441.

T^s. Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i. 22-29, written in the ninth or tenth century, and published simultaneously with T^{i-r}. Gregory now designates T^g as T^{a Paul}, and T^s as T^{b Paul}.

ב_{2}. See above, p. 75.

ד^{14}. A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians, cc. i., ii., iii., written in the fifth century.

The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been published in _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, Part II. (pp. 8 f., Plate II.). The fragment is probably a schoolboy’s exercise. It is written in a large rude uncial hand, and dates from the first half of the fourth century. In verse 7 it reads Κ̅Υ̅ Χ̅Ρ̅Υ̅ Ι̅Η̅Υ̅.

[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]

There are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is found entire only in א A B, while C and P exhibit portions of it. In the Apocalypse, however, it is to be observed that Codex B is not the famous Codex Vaticanus 1209 but a much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of the eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with some editors, to call it Q or B_{2}.

Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as follows[74]:—

UNCIALS:
Gospels, 73
Acts and Catholic Epistles, 19
Pauline Epistles, 28
Apocalypse, 7
—-
Total, 127
CURSIVES, 3702

[Sidenote: Book-hand and hand of common life.]

In closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne in mind that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest of them as presenting the very form of the New Testament autographs. The books of the New Testament, at all events the majority of them, were not originally intended for publication at all, while the others were meant for only a limited circle of readers. Now these recent papyrus discoveries have shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even in those days between the =book-hand= and what we may call the =hand of common life= and business. A glance at Kenyon’s _Palæography of Greek Papyri_ will show how fundamental is the distinction between literary and non-literary papyri. That writer states that in many cases the difference is just as marked as between handwriting and print at the present day, and he instances also the distinction between the book-hand and the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of course documents of this or the other class may occasionally be found written in the hand that is not the usual one, a prescription, _e.g._, in book-hand, or conversely a literary text in the hand of common life. The greater part of Aristotle’s work on the _Polity of the Athenians_, for instance, has been preserved in the common hand. This papyrus, which is attributed to the first century of the Christian era, is the work of four scribes. But only one of these writes in a style approximating to the book-hand; the other parts are written in a very cursive style on the back of an old account, probably by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends or slaves. Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illustration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the New Testament books, and suggests that this mode of propagation has to be considered in connection with times of persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices, editions de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age when the Church had attained a position of affluence and power. The distinction referred to above is one that has had but little attention paid to it hitherto, as is shown by the illustration given in Harris’s excellent work on the New Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that this consideration is of great importance in trying to understand the origin and dissemination of the various readings that occur in our manuscripts. It is just a pity that Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of Aristotle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in 1891 by the Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate published in the second volume of the work of the Palæographical Society.

[Sidenote: Uncial and minuscule script.]

A further consideration is emphasised by means of these papyrus discoveries—viz. that =no distinction of time= can be drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the manuscripts. Even in the very earliest documents the hand of common life displays a very cursive character, and a fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat different in the case of writing on parchment: here the old distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly maintained, only we must guard against supposing that the minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing; nor must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial and the later minuscule scripts were in use together.[75] The sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has hitherto been drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament between these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact. The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey of the position of things up to the present, and the following description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation.

(_b._) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.

[Sidenote: Minuscules.]

When the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the editors had necessarily to be content with indifferent and late minuscules, and even those who followed them, like Bentley and Lachmann, thought they were at liberty to disregard these altogether and to found their text exclusively on the oldest uncials. They forgot that the text of a late manuscript may be derived from a very early and good source through comparatively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses. Accordingly, in more recent times, English editors like Tregelles, Burgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered great service in the way of collating manuscripts, and the last-mentioned as well as Gregory in Germany has also catalogued them. At the present moment a systematic investigation in this department is being carried on in Berlin. Most of the minuscules are still written on parchment which began to be mixed with paper in the ninth century, and was ultimately superseded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and other additional matter, such as the List of the Seventy Apostles, short Biographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of St. Paul, or notes as to the date and place of the composition of the different books. When dates are given in the manuscripts, they are still as a rule computed in the Byzantine manner, reckoning from the Creation of the world (5508 B.C.). In only a few cursives is the date reckoned from the Birth of Christ.

Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts have been indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each of the four groups beginning with 1, so that one and the same manuscript may have three or four numbers—18^{evv.} _e.g._ being 113^{Acts,} 132^{Paul,} and 51^{Apoc.,} while 209^{evv} is the same as 95^{Acts,} 108^{Paul,} and 46^{Apoc.} It is still more awkward that in the two principal works on the minuscules, that of Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently discovered manuscripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will follow that of Scrivener.

MINUSCULES OF THE GOSPELS.

1 (Acts 1, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to others of the twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful miniatures which were stolen prior to 1860. The manuscript was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Erasmus for his second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 23.)

2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose the fifteenth: also in Basel: formerly purchased for two Rhenish florins: printed by Erasmus.

3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his second edition.

[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]

4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38 were used by Stephen. The most notable among them is 13, together with 69, 124, 211, 346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and 626, which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of text and their additions.[76] Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found after Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53—viii. 11 after Luke xxi. 38. The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in Hebrew eight years after our Lord’s Ascension, and contained 2522 ρηματα and 2560 stichoi, Mark ρωμαιστι ten years after the Ascension with 1675 ρηματα and 1604 stichoi, Luke ελληνιστι fifteen years after with 3803 (_lege_ 3083) ρηματα and 2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after with 1938 ρηματα. These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype by the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated the Ferrar Group, and indicated by the letter Φ before that symbol was appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. Most of them came from Calabria, and another has lately been added to the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel Harris shows, are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I ventured to suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that he knew of codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus ... nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita (cod. E _edita_) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the event of the so-called Syrian recension being the work of Lucian, which Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules have preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text.

16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours according to the contents. The continuous narrative is written in green, the words of Jesus and the Angels are in red and occasionally in gold, the words of His followers are in blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude, and of the devil, are written in black.

28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some resemblance to D.

33. Written about the tenth century: the “queen of the cursives”: its text bears a greater resemblance to that of B, D, L than does that of any other cursive. The manuscript is much damaged, but 34, which is equally old, is still in splendid condition, as though it were fresh from the hand of the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.)

38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Palæologus to St. Louis (d. 1270).

51. At Oxford: text resembles that of the Complutensian.

59. At Cambridge: has many points of connection with D.

61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the notorious Codex Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives its name from one of its later possessors. It was this manuscript, “codex apud Anglos repertus,” that decided Erasmus to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. It was probably written by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its twin brother, the parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly numbered 110, and now in Berlin, which also contains the passage, proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be observed, continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing. Melanchthon, _e.g._, wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three times in Greek; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library hitherto cited as 56^{Paul} is nothing else than a copy of Erasmus’s printed edition of 1516 made by Zwingli in the following year.

69. _Cf._ 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, _Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament_, 1887. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 40.)

77 and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary (d. 1490).

90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John, Luke, Matthew, Mark.

106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since the time of Wettstein.

140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of Cyprus. This manuscript reads διηρθρώθη in Luke i. 64, therein agreeing with the Complutensian.

146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.

154-156. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.

157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable resemblance to the quotations found in the early Christian writer Marcion. See below, p. 211.

164. The subscription of this manuscript states that it was compared with certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem.

205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation of Cardinal Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New Testament, and was the Cardinal’s own copy which he had with him at the Council of Florence in 1439.

218-225 are in Vienna.

226-233 are in the Escorial.

237-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at Dresden.

263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which was removed thence to the British Museum.

274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark’s Gospel in the lower margin. (See Plate X.)

405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to the Nani family.

422-430. In Munich.

431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished at Strassburg, in the war of 1870, like 180^{Acts.} This, however, is incorrect.

452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.

473. Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript with gold lettering, said to have been written by the Empress Theodora. See under N. above, and note, p. 151.

481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the Greek New Testament bearing an exact date.

531. Written in a microscopic hand.

604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British Museum, exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus, and has besides 270 readings peculiar to itself. It is the only witness we know that supports that peculiar form of the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer found in Marcion in the second century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς (Luke xi. 2).[77]

743 has the double conclusion in Mark.

1071. See under D, p. 66.

In his _Gospel according to St. Mark_, Swete cites frequently, in addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar Group, 1, 28, 33, 66, 109, 118, 131, 157, 209, 238, 242, 299, 435, 473, 475, 556, 570, 736.

ACTS.

2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.

7-10. Used by Stephen.

15, 83, 173. These, like א in the Old Testament and H_{3}, were compared with the Codex of Pamphilus—_i.e._ were faithfully copied from such an exemplar.

33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above, p. 86.

42. Closely related to the Complutensian.

52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the Complutensian. It has now disappeared.

61 has been designated the most important minuscule of the Acts. This, however, is an exaggeration.

137 supplements D E where these are defective.

158. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B in the Pauline Epistles.

162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome: a bilingual in Latin and Greek: contains the passage 1 John v. 7.

182. Numbered 110 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of the cursives.

220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the New Testament.

232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called Andreas bestowed three years’ labour.

246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus (d. 1487).

419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being divorced by Constantine VI.

PAULINE EPISTLES.

7. Used by Erasmus.

56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of Erasmus’s printed text. (See above under 61^{evv}).

67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having evidently made use of an exemplar with a text very closely akin to that of B M.

80 bears a close resemblance to 69^{evv}.

APOCALYPSE.

1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus’s command for this part of the New Testament. It is defective in the last chapter from verse 16 to the end. For the rest it exhibits a fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.)

36. A text akin to א.

38 has a text resembling that of A C.

68. Resembles A.

95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being one of the best minuscules of the Apocalypse.

The number of minuscules under each class is, according to Scrivener (Miller), as follows:—

Gospels, 1326

Acts and Catholic 422
Epistles,

Pauline Epistles, 497

Apocalypse, 184

——

2429

A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England. Some are in the possession of private individuals, like those at Parham Park in Sussex belonging to Lord de la Zouche. In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts brought with her from Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of which sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the Ferrar Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are 136 manuscripts of the New Testament in the British Museum.

The number in Great 438
Britain is

In the National 298
Library of Paris,

In Germany, 140

In Italy, 644

For the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged according to countries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff.

What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be examined is shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz. Accompanied by Dr. G. Wobbermin, he made a journey to Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and there in that ancient Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found, among about 1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some 250 codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have been noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of the very utmost importance, as witness the further statement of the same explorer. He was looking through the manuscripts of the Apostolos, to which he and his companion had to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on one written in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following note before the Pauline Epistles: γεγράφθαι ἀπὸ ἀντιγράφου παλαιοτάτου, οὗ πεῖραν ἐλάβομεν ὡς ἐπιτετευγμένου ἐκ τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντων Ὠριγένους τόμων ἢ ὁμιλιῶν εἰς τὸν ἀπόστολον ... ἐν οἷς οὖν παραλλάττει ῥητοῖς πρὸς τὰ νῦν ἀποστολικά, διπλῆν τὴν λεγομένην παρεθήκαμεν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ νομισθῇ κατὰ προσθήκην ἢ λεῖψιν ἡμαρτῆσθαι τουτὶ τὸ ἀποστολικόν. And from the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn that the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar from which it was copied, was written by a monk called Ephraim. See further in von der Goltz, _Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts herausgegeben nach einem Kodex des Athosklosters Lawra. Mit einer Doppeltafel in Lichtdruck._ Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.

LITERATURE.—On 2^{evv}, see Hoskier, above, p. 5.

On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, _Collation of four important Manuscripts of
the Gospels_, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J. P. P. Martin,
_Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on peut ajouter un cinquième_,
Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, _On the Origin of the Ferrar Group_,
London, 1894. K. Lake, “Some new members of the Ferrar Group of MSS.
of the Gospels,” in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. pp.
117-120. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran German Bible,
the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. 2, “in the
morning he came again into the temple,” after Luke xxi. 38, an
arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar
Group, in which John vii. 53-viii. 11 is found after Luke xxi. 38.
See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 1894, p. 390. See _Addenda_, p. xv.

On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in the _Journal
of the Exegetical Society_, 1886, 79-96.

On 892^{evv}, see Harris, “An Important Manuscript of the N. T.” in
the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, ix., 1890, 31 ff.

On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, _Textkritische
Studien_ in _T. und U._, xi. 4.

C. R. Gregory, “Die Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments”
(_Theologische Studien für B. Weiss._, Göttingen, 1897, 274-283).

E. J. Goodspeed, “A Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript” (_Biblical
World_, x. 4).

(_c._) LECTIONARIES.

[Sidenote: Lectionaries.]

Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Pericopae, were even more neglected than the minuscules. And yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the Bible in the provinces to which they belong, on account of their official character and because their locality can be readily distinguished. The slight alterations of the text occurring at the beginning of the pericopae, and consisting usually in the insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory clause, are easily recognisable as such, and deceive no one. It is not always easy to determine the date of such books, because the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuscript much longer than in the others. Among the oldest, perhaps, is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a considerable number among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to the seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to the sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year 1890. When these Lectionaries originated has not yet been clearly made out.[78] Up till the present 980 Evangeliaria—_i.e._ Lessons from the Gospels—have been catalogued, and 268 Apostoli or Praxapostoli—_i.e._ Lessons from the Acts and Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed; some, alas, have been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very beautiful codex; and 162, in Siena, is perhaps “one of the most splendid Service-books in the world.” 235 may have been written in part by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai, dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a personage than the Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorf’s 352-360 are now in the National Library at Paris. 355 is printed in Omont’s _Catalogue_ (see above, p. 71). 45^{evl} is a fragment of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at Vienna.[79] 40 is kept in the Escorial along with the reliques of St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.[80] Bilingual Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example. The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time and region in which they were composed. Several fragments which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the Gospels should perhaps be classed among the Evangeliaria—_e.g._ the solitary leaf of a Bible manuscript Württemberg is known to possess, and the Tübingen Fragment, formerly classed among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now enumerated as 481^{evl}. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be considered under the head of the Versions.

For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener, to _TiGr._, and now especially to Gregory, _Textkritik_, i. pp. 327-478.

2. VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the text of the New Testament is the early Versions. The value of their testimony depends on their age and fidelity. When did the first versions originate? This question reminds us of the Inscription on the Cross, a portion of which is still exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the time of Christ was a country where the most diverse languages and dialects came into contact with each other. In the last century B.C. a transformation had occurred, which might be regarded as a counterpart to the supplanting of Norman French by English, or of Low by High German. Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, and after the time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, and later still of Latin. Some of the disciples of Jesus bore old Hebrew names, like James (Ἰάκωβος) and John (Ἰωάννης); others had names wholly or partly Aramaic, as Cephas (= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while others, again, had Greek names, as Philip (Φίλιππος) and Andrew (Ἀνδρέας). To the question what language Jesus Himself spoke, the most probable answer is that it was Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. “Thou art a Galilean, thy speech bewrayeth thee,” said the Jerusalem girl to Peter. The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so sharply as the pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus certainly understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament. But those words of His that have been preserved are Aramaic—_talitha_, _abba_, and so is _sabaqtani_ in Matthew xxvii. 46, and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, and not _asabthani_, as a number of manuscripts show.

In what language, however, the first record of the preaching of the Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the Aramaic of the time, is still subject of dispute.[81] But as this question is of moment only for the original sources, and even then for only a certain part of the New Testament—viz. the Gospels—it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and again with those of them only that are important for the criticism of the text, which are the oldest.

The versions which are of consequence here may be placed under three or four heads.

[Sidenote: East.]

In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian population, very early became the centre of the new faith, which, indeed, obtained its name there, and must very soon have established itself in Damascus and Mesopotamia. In that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as Syriac was spoken.

[Sidenote: West, South.]

In the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood, even in Rome. Paul consequently, and others as well as he, wrote to Rome in Greek. At the same time, the need must have existed, even in the second century, of having the Gospel in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north of Italy, and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps, the new faith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a kind of centre of religious culture, and so we find in Egypt not one but several versions in various dialects.

The Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention as being the oldest monument of Christianity among the Germanic people, and valuable too in the criticism of the text.

L. J. M. Bebb, _Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic
Quotations_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde,
_De Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo_. Berlin
(1857); with slight alterations in his _Ges. Abhandlungen_, 1886,
pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. _Urtext_ (see p. 7). Copinger (see p.
6). An earlier bibliographical work is the _Bibliotheca Sacra post
... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine
disposita, emendata, suppleta, continuata ab A. G. Masch_. Halle,
1778-90, 4to. _Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II.,
De versionibus librorum sacrorum_ (3 Vols.). R. Simon, _Histoire
critique des versions du N. T._, 1690. _Nouvelles observations sur
le texte et les versions du N. T._, 1695.

(_a._) SYRIAC VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Peshitto.]

The Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly borne the honourable appellation of “the Queen of the Versions.” It was first published in 1555 at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I. by J. Albert Widmanstadt with the assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called Moses, who came from Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for this edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen. All the branches into which the Syrian church was divided in the fifth century have used the same translation of the Scriptures. To this day the Syriac New Testament wants the five so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse—a sufficient proof that it goes back to a time and a region in which these books were not yet reckoned in the Canon of the New Testament. In place of these it contained in early times an alleged Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, and an Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul (_cf._ below, p. 142). To distinguish it from other Syriac translations, this Version has been called by Syriac scholars, since the tenth century, the Peshiṭto—_i.e._ the “Simple” or perhaps the “Common,” which is sometimes pronounced Peshiṭtå (פְשִׁיטתָא) and spelt simply =Peshitto=.

When and where was this translation made? An ancient Syrian tradition asserts that it was done by the Apostle Thaddaeus, who came on a mission to Abgar Uchama—_i.e._ Abgar the Black—King of Edessa, after the death of Jesus, which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that Abgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition ascribes it to Aggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and it is even attributed to Mark the Evangelist. It is also said that Luke was by birth a Syrian of Antioch, a tradition which may preserve an element of truth.

The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius’s _Ecclesiastical History_, iv. 22. That historian mentions that Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the Gospel of the Hebrews—_i.e._ of the Palestinian (?) Jewish Christians, and from the Syriac (_sc._ Gospel), and particularly from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he himself was a convert from the Hebrews (ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ’ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν, ἐμφαίνων ἐξ Ἑβραίων ἑαυτὸν πεπιστευκέναι). This can hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a Syriac version was already in existence. Whether it contained all the four Gospels or only one of them, or Tatian’s Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as Zahn has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether it contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be established with certainty.

From the middle of the present century manuscripts of this version have found their way into European libraries in great numbers. Some of these are inestimable. At least ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the sixth century. This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small a remnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved. G. H. Gwilliam is at present engaged on an edition of the Syriac Tetraevangelium for the University of Oxford on the basis of forty manuscripts. The task might seem to be an easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts display a far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any written in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another direction.

[Sidenote: Curetonian.]

In the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing considerable portions of the Gospels was brought from Egypt and deposited in the British Museum. It was afterwards published by Dr. Cureton in 1858 with the title “Remains of a very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac hitherto unknown in Europe.” Cureton himself thought he had discovered the original of St. Matthew’s Gospel in this version. While this was easily shown to be a mistake, the question as to the relationship between the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, whether the two texts are independent of each other, or if not, which is the earlier and which the recension, is not yet decided.

[Sidenote: Lewis.]

It seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight when fragments of a Syriac palimpsest were discovered on Mount Sinai in February 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and her sister, Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be part of a very old manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of Cambridge recognised that their text was closely related to that of the Curetonian. (_See Plate V._) A second expedition was made to Sinai in the spring of 1893, when the fragments were transcribed by Professor Bensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris. As Bensly died three days after their return, the manuscript was published by the others in 1894, with an introduction by Mrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady completed the work of the triumvirate, and also published an English translation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or Lewis-Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to the Peshitto? The problem becomes more complicated still by the introduction of a fourth factor, the most important of them all.

[Sidenote: Tatian.]

From early sources it was known that Tatian,[82] a Syrian and a pupil of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels called the =Diatessaron=—_i.e._ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον, an expression which may be taken either as referring to the four Gospels or as a musical term equivalent to _harmony_ or _chord_. This Harmony was in use among the Syrians till the fifth century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us that he destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek diocese.[83] About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa (407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that all the churches possessed and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel—_i.e._ not mixed or harmonised. The Lewis-Syriac bears this very title, _Gospel of the Distinct_ or _Divided_, which is found also as the title of Matthew’s Gospel in the Curetonian version. Tatian’s Harmony has not yet been discovered in Syriac, but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it has long been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arabic was published by Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the Syriac made by Ibn et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it. Again, in 1836 the Armenian version of a Syriac Commentary by Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373) was printed, and translated into Latin in 1876. [_Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a S. Ephraemo doctore Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Aucher, ed. G. Moesinger._ Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered in the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between 337 and 345, quotations which must be derived from this Harmony of Tatian; and isolated quotations from Tatian are also found in later Syriac authors. And so the materials are provided for deciding the question whether or not Tatian made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation of his Harmony, and how T^{(atian)}, Syr^{cu(reton)}, Syr^{sin} and Syr^{sch(aaf)}[84] are related to each other. The most probable view perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came to Syria, that in Syr^{cu} and Syr^{sin} we have two attempts to exhibit T in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which were not generally accepted, while Syr^{sch} actually succeeded and passed into general use.

The interest attaching to this question may be learned from the form in which the text of Matthew i. 16 is given in these witnesses. Syr^{sch} agrees exactly with our present Greek text, but Syr^{cu} presents a form which, when translated into Latin, reads, _Joseph cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that present a form corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624 and 626, which differ in this respect even from the other members of the Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four manuscripts the verse reads, Ἰωσὴφ ᾧ μνηστευθῆσα (_sic_) παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. In the Latin, however, this text is represented by a number of the oldest manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the word _virgo_, while two have _peperit_ instead of _genuit_, and τὸν λεγόμενον is omitted. But in Syr^{sin} we find: _Joseph: Joseph autem cui desponsata (erat) virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum_. The passage is similarly cited in the recently published _Dialogue of Timotheus and Aquila_,[85] along with two other forms, thus:—Ἰακὼβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστὸς, καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν.

The exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined, but it is evident that of these three forms in which the verse is found, only one or none can be the original. If we had no more than our oldest uncials or the great body of our minuscules to go by, no one could have the slightest suspicion that in our Greek text all is not in perfect order. But here, in an old Syriac fragment from the far East, there suddenly appears a reading which is also found in Latin witnesses from the far West, and which is confirmed by four solitary Greek manuscripts, written probably in Calabria at the close of the Middle Ages. How are these facts connected, and how do they stand to the other two readings, that of the common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac? The history of the text of the New Testament presents many such problems.

[Sidenote: Philoxenus-Polycarp.]

But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of the New Testament already mentioned. In the year of Alexander 819 (A.D. 508),[86] a new and much more literal version was made from the Greek at the desire of Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug[87] (488-518), by his rural Bishop Polycarp. Part of this version was published in England by Pococke in 1630—viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena not included in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat inaccurate manuscript, which is now in the Bodleian Library. The later European editions of the Syriac New Testament took the text of these Epistles from Pococke’s edition, which was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text. In 1886 Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of another manuscript of this version (the Williams MS.), the property of a private gentleman in America, and corrected from it the text of the Syriac New Testament issued by the American Bible Society. The other parts of this version have not yet been found, but the same American scholar thought he discovered the Gospels in a ninth century manuscript belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the Union Theological Seminary in New York.[88] Bernstein thought he made the same discovery in 1853 in a manuscript belonging to the Angelica Library in Florence.

[Sidenote: Thomas of Heraclea.]

On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in 1736 to Dr. Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published, between 1778 and 1803,[89] a version which he designated by the name of _Versio Philoxenia_, and which still passes under this title. But this so-called Philoxenian version is not the identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp, but a revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in the year 616-7. This revision was made at Alexandria with the object of making the Syriac text represent the Greek as closely as possible, even to the order of the words and the insertion of the article. The critical symbols used by Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, as well as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicate the various readings found in the manuscripts. And it is very remarkable to observe that there were manuscripts in Alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century which were regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly well authenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree from the bulk of our present manuscripts, and which, especially in the Acts, agree almost entirely with Codex D, which occupies so singular a position among Greek manuscripts. A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary before any further use can be made of it in the criticism of the New Testament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task, going on the basis of sixteen manuscripts in England alone, but unfortunately he was unable to bring it to a conclusion.

[Sidenote: Apocalypse.]

The Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Leyden, from a manuscript that had been in the possession of Scaliger. It is found in a few other manuscripts, in one, _e.g._, that was transcribed about this same time for Archbishop Ussher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on Mount Lebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testament, but the later editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc. viii. 13, instead of “an eagle in the midst of heaven” (ἐν μεσουρανήματι), the Syriac translator took it as “in the midst with a bloody tail” (μεσος, ουρα, αιμα). Another Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered in 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford, and published by him as the first book printed in Syriac at the Dublin University Press. Still more interesting is it to know that in a manuscript, once the property of Julius Mohl, and now in Cambridge, both the so-called Epistles of Clement are found after the Catholic Epistles. This manuscript, part of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p. 79), contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived, so far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy of Pamphilus.[90]

About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Tella translated one of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament into Syriac almost as literally as Thomas of Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the construction of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the textual criticism of the Old Testament.

[Sidenote: Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum.]