Chapter VII: Part II: of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899, pp. 1-8) contains a fragment (2)

Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of the New Testament, the so-called _Jerusalem_ or _Palestinian Syriac_ (Syr^{hr} or Syr^{hier}). This version, hitherto known almost solely from an Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the year 1030, was edited by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was published in 1892 in _Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae quae ad philologiam sacram pertinent_. And now not only have two fresh manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on Mount Sinai by J. R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but fragments of the Acts and Pauline Epistles have also been found and published, as well as portions of the Old Testament and other Church literature.[91] The dialect in which these fragments are written is quite different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples. At what time and in what region this entire literature took its rise is not yet determined with certainty. The Greek text on which the Evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities. In Matthew xxvii. 17, _e.g._, the robber is called Jesus Barabbas, or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to Origen, but now recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or second hand.

What used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or Montana is not really a version, but merely the Massoretic work of a monastery school intended to preserve the proper spelling and pronunciation of the text of the Bible.

No other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the Syrian, faithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel. From the mountains of Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the plains of Mesopotamia and the coast of Malabar, and even from distant China there have come into the libraries of Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the textual criticism of the New Testament.

LITERATURE on the Syriac Versions:—

J. G. Christian Adler, _Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae, Simplex,
Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinatae et ad fidem
codicum manu scriptorum ... novis observationibus atque tabulis aere
incisis illustratae._ Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. _With eight Plates._
1789, 4to. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see my
_Litteratura Syriaca_ (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix
thereto in _Urt._, 227 ff.; R. Duval, _La Littérature Syriaque_.
Paris, 1899, pp. 42-67; _TiGr._, 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition,
ii. 6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane; _The Printed Editions
of the Syriac New Testament_, in the _Church Quarterly Review_,
1888, July, 257-297; G. H. Gwilliam, in the _Studia Biblica et
Ecclesiastica_ (Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 1891; F. C. Conybeare, _The
growth of the Peshitta Version of the New Testament_, in the
_American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the
_Journal of Theological Studies_, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring
to his forthcoming edition of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says
that he has had to go over the Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and
closes by saying, “I confess that I am unconvinced that what we call
the New Testament Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem’s day,
and I believe that we owe both its production and victorious
reception to the organizing energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop of
Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D.”

1. Till Gwilliam’s edition of the Gospels appears, which has been
promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of
Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, _Novum Domini
nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum cum versione latina cura et
studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones diligenter
recensitum et variis lectionibus magno labore collectis adornatum._
Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. _Acc. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum
concordantiale._ The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805; the
editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better
still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American Mission in
Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New York, 1868,
1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation). An edition
is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, _Nouveau Testament
Syriaque en petits caractères, d’après plusieurs manuscrits anciens,
éd. par le P. L. Cheikho_.

The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much neglected
in the present century. On the O.T., investigations, chiefly in the
form of dissertations on most of the books, have been published,
establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic text, the
Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this sort has been
done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time of Michaelis
and Löhlein. The question has never once been taken up how many
translators’ hands can be distinguished in the N.T.

J. D. Michaelis, _Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum
consectariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu versionis
Syriacae tabularum Novi Foederis_. Göttingen, 1755. C. L. E.
Löhlein, _Syrus Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica
denuo examinatus_, Erlangen, 1835.

2. Cureton’s _Remains_ (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt’s
new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen’s
Retranslation into Greek (_Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text
des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt_, Leipzig, 1885); and more
especially by Albert Bonus’s _Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti
evangeliorum Syriacorum cum codice Curetoniano_, Oxford, 1896; and
by Carl Holzhey’s _Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit
einem vollständigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaiticus
und Codex Curetonianus_, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, _The Sinaitic
Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac_, in the _Expository Times_,
May 1895, p. 380 ff. The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, _Fragmenta
Evangelica, Pars I., II._, 1870, 1872, and _Observations on the
Collations in Greek of Cureton’s Syriac Fragments_, 1872, contain
useful material, but there are a good many mistakes.

3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of
Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, _The Four Gospels in Syriac,
transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest ..._ Cambridge, 1894. To
this must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, _Some Pages of the
Four Gospels retranscribed_ (with or without an English
translation), London, 1896; further, _Last Gleanings from the Sinai
Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Aug. 1897, pp. 111-119; also, _An Omission
from the Text of the Sinai Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, Dec. 1897, p.
472. On the discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, _How the
Codex was found, ..._ Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, _In the
shadow of Sinai, ..._ Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, _Our
Journey to Sinai, ... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest_.
London, 1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, _The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic
Palimpsest_, _Expositor_, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has been
translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a brief but
valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The second
part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See also
Gwilliam’s notice of the editio princeps in the _Expository Times_,
Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.

4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, _Evangelienharmonie_,
PRE^3, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his _Forschungen_, i. (1881),
_Tatian’s Diatessaron_, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); _Gesch.
des Kanons_, i. 387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, _The earliest Life
of Christ ever compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron
of Tatian_ (c. A.D. 160), _literally translated from the Arabic
Version_. Edinburgh, 1893. J. R. Harris, _The Diatessaron of Tatian,
a Preliminary Study_. Cambridge, 1890. _The Diatessaron, a Reply_,
in the _Contemporary Review_, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels,
in the _Nineteenth Century_, April 1895; also by the same writer,
_Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron_.
London, 1895.... J. H. Hill, _A Dissertation on the Gospel
Commentary of S. Ephrem the Syrian ..._ Edinburgh, 1896. J. A.
Robinson, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony_, in the
_Academy_, 24th March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, _The Diatessaron of
Tatian, with introduction and translation_, in the _Ante-Nicene
Library. Additional Volume ..._ edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh,
1897, pp. 33-138. W. Elliott, _Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern
Critics_. Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, _A Pair of Citations from the
Diatessaron_, in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_, x. 2 (1891),
153-155. J. Goussen, _Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana_,
appended to the _Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica_, 1895. See
also Bäumer in the _Literarischer Handweiser_, 1890, 153-169; the
article _Tatian_ in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, and Hastings’
_Bible Dictionary_, vol. ii. p. 697 f.

5. On the later Syriac versions, see _Urt._, 228, 236 f.; Gwynn,
_The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles_,
_Hermathena_, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, _Die in der
Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Testamentes in arabischer der
Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung ..._ _Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie_, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, _The
Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ..._ Cambridge,
1889. In this edition will be found the subscription mentioned
above, connecting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See
_Addenda_, p. xv.

6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see _Urt._, 228, 237. Zahn,
_Forschungen_, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, _Mitteilungen_, i. 111, iv. 328,
340. A. de Lagarde, _Erinnerungen an P. de Lagarde_, p. 112 ff.
Lewis and Gibson, _The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels
re-edited from two Sinai MSS. and from P. de Lagarde’s edition of
the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum_, London, 1899. The Lectionary
published in the _Studia Sinaitica_, vi., contains, in the N.T.,
passages from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip.,
Col., 1 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the
_Expository Times_, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. _The Liturgy of the Nile_,
published by G. Margoliouth, 1896 (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society_, Oct. 1896, 677-731, and also published separately),
contains Acts xvi. 16-34. See also Woods, _The New Syriac Fragments_
in the _Expository Times_, Nov. 1893.

(_b._) LATIN VERSIONS.

[Sidenote: Jerome.]

The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions of the New Testament is that of =Jerome= (Hieronymus). This scholar was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,[92] about the year 345, and educated at Rome. After leading for some time a hermit life in Palestine, Jerome returned to Rome, and it was during his residence there, in the year 382, that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a revision of the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. This he did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following year, the first instalment of the work, the Four Gospels, accompanied with a letter beginning thus:—“Thou compellest me to make a new work out of an old; after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were, and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords with the truth of the Greek; a pious task, verily, yet a perilous presumption, to pass judgment on others and oneself to be judged by all.” He anticipates that everyone, no matter who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and finds a discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to or alter or correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts himself with the reflection that it is the High Pontiff himself that has laid this task upon him, and that the testimony of his jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepancies are an indication of error (verum non esse quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur); for if they tell us we are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first say which, because there are almost as many versions as manuscripts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices); if it is to be the majority of these, why not rather go back to the Greek original which has been badly rendered by incompetent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male edita), made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful correctors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius), and added to or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata). In a letter to his learned friend Marcella, written in the year 384, he gives instances of what he complains of, citing, _e.g._, Romans xii. 11, where _tempori servientes_ had hitherto been read instead of _domino servientes_ (καιρῷ instead of κυρίῳ), and 1 Tim. v. 19, “against an elder receive not an accusation,” where the qualifying clause, “except before two or three witnesses,” was dropped, and also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where _humanus sermo_ was given in place of _fidelis_. In all three instances, our most recent critical editions decide in favour of Jerome, against the Old Latin Version. In the last instance cited, we know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has ἀνθρώπινος instead of πιστός, and that only in c. iii. 1, viz. D*. Jerome accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testament, beginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum Graecorum emendata conlatione sed veterum). In his version he was also careful only to make an alteration when a real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in all other cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the order which has been the prevailing one since his day—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

[Sidenote: Augustine.]

We learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who lived in Africa about the same time (354-430), that there was an endless variety and multitude of translators (latinorum interpretum infinita varietas, interpretum numerositas). He tells us that while it was possible to count the number of those who had translated the Bible—_i.e._ the Old Testament—from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were innumerable; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei temporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek Codex, and believe himself to have any knowledge of both languages, than he made bold to translate it (ausus est interpretari). [Sidenote: Itala.] The advice he himself gives is to prefer the _Italic_ version to the others, as being the most faithful and intelligible (in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae. _De Doctrina Christiana_, ii. 14, 15). [Sidenote: Vulgate.] On the ground of this passage, the pre-Jeromic versions have been comprehended under the title of the =Itala=, as distinguished from Jerome’s own work, which is called the =Vulgate=, seeing that it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle Ages. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have referred to a particular version, and, according to the usage of that time, the word cannot mean anything else than a version originating in or prevalent in Italy—_i.e._ the North of Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not difficult to understand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a version in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the opinion that by Itala Augustine means neither more nor less than Jerome’s Revision of the Gospels. He demonstrates that Augustine’s _De Consensu_, written about the year 400, is based on Jerome’s revised text. In this, Zahn[93] agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far as this point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White[94] will not admit the inference that Augustine must have meant this Revision when he spoke of Itala in the year 397, seeing that in his letter to Jerome,[95] written in 403, he thanks God for the interpretation of the Gospel, “quasi de opere recenter cognito,” while in his earlier letters to Jerome[96] he makes no mention of it: “quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex annos publici iuris facto eam collaudasset.”[97]

(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME.

[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]

Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at least were parts of it, first translated into Latin? From the passage in Augustine quoted above, we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the Christian faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place where the Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek was very commonly employed as the written language at Rome, especially among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome have pure Greek names, and even the first representative of the Roman Church with a Latin name, the Clement that wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95, even he wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their language, both in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed with that found in African writers of that age, and in some things agreed with these alone. [Sidenote: African Latin.] It is, of course, a fact that the majority of the writers of that age known to us are African. Till quite recently, therefore, it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the Latin Bible is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome and Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which the Old Latin Bible now exists, these all proceed from a common origin, or at most from two sources, so that it was not quite correct to speak of a “multitude of translators” in the very earliest times. The settlement of this question is rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the extant copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, they are few in number, and for the most part mutilated. The reason of this is not far to seek. For, as time went on and Jerome’s new version came to be more and more exclusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version lost their value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and book covers. One has also to take into account how liable the text of both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of an Old Latin Bible inserting in the margin, or even interpolating in the text, various passages from Jerome’s translation that seemed to him to be a decided improvement, or conversely, by the scribe who should have written the new rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in from the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts of Jerome’s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by Gregory. Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in this field, examined 800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on the other hand, only 38 manuscripts of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament are known to exist. The credit of collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions of the Old and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that time, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio).

In critical editions of the New Testament the manuscripts of the pre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters of the Roman alphabet. They are the following:—

1. GOSPELS.

a. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a document of the eighth century this manuscript was written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, who died in the year 370 or 371. Recent scholars, however, date it somewhat later. It is written on purple with silver letters. The order of the Gospels is that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.—viz. Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in several places.

The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in 1749
along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex. This
latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne’s
_Patrologia Latina_, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by
Belsheim; _Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum
latine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut
videtur quarto scripti, et ex Editione Iriciana principe denuo
ededit_ (sic) _Jo. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1894.

b. Veronensis: of the fourth or fifth century, also written with silver on purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. The manuscript is defective.

Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, _L’Evangeliario
Purpureo Veronese_. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell’
Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).

c. Colbertinus: in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but still containing the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though exhibiting Jerome’s version in other parts.

Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim; _Codex Colbertinus
Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post
editionem Petri Sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo.
Belsheim._ Christiania, 1888.

d. The Latin part of Codex D; see p. 64 ff.

e. Palatinus: of the fourth or fifth century, written like a b f i j on purple with gold and silver letters: now in Vienna, with one leaf in Dublin.

Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from a
transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was edited
by Belsheim, Christiania, 1896. See von Dobschütz in the _LCbl._,
1896, 28.

f. Brixianus, of the sixth century, in Brescia. In their new edition of the Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the text of this manuscript underneath that of Jerome for comparison’s sake as probably containing the text most nearly resembling that on which Jerome based his recension. But see Burkitt’s Note in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, I. i. (Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in _Addenda_.

ff_{1}. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew alone. The manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery of Corbey, near Amiens, and with others was transferred to St. Petersburg during the French Revolution.

ff_{2}. Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in Paris: contains the Gospels with several lacunæ.

On Belsheim’s editions of ff_{1} and ff_{2} (1881 and 1887), see E.
Ranke in the _ThLz._, 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._,
1891, 302 f.

g_{1}. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris, exhibits a mixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen for his Latin Bible of 1538.

g_{2}. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the tenth century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).

h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in the Vatican: has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The manuscript is defective at the beginning down to Matt. iii. 15 and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii. 12.

Edited by Mai in his _Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio_, iii.
257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892.

i. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragments of Luke and Mark written on purple with silver and gold.

Edited by Belsheim, _Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus ...
antiquissimae evangeliorum Lucae et Marci translationis Latinae
fragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim_. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).

j (z in _TiGr._). Saretianus or Sarzannensis, of the fifth century, contains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manuscript was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, near Tortona, and is not yet completely edited.

Compare G. Amelli, _Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureo
conservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona_. Milan, 1872.

k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most important of the Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately contains only fragments of Matthew and Mark. It is said to have belonged to St. Columban, the founder of the monastery of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now preserved at Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f.

l. Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas von Rehdiger in 1569. Matthew i. 1-ii. 15 and a good deal of John wanting.

Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: _Evangeliorum quattuor
vetus latina interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum edita_.

m. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should properly be omitted here. It indicates the _Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum_, a work mistakenly ascribed to Augustine, consisting of a collection of proof-passages (testimonia) from the Old and New Testaments. All the books of the latter are made use of except Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodicæans is cited among the number.

_Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana
ex libro qui vocatur Speculum eruit et ordine librorum Novi
Testamenti exposuit J. Belsheim._ Christiania, 1899.

n o p. Are fragments at St. Gall: published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts, see below, p. 131 f.

n. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been in the Library at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains portions of Matthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42.

o. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place of the last leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20.

p. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or eighth century.

a_{2}. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a leaf containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found in the Episcopal archives at Chur, and is preserved in the Rhætisches Museum there.

q. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came originally from Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

r or r_{1} and r_{2}. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and has several lacunæ. r_{2} belongs to the ninth or tenth century and has an Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r_{1}. It shows affinity with Jerome’s text in Mark, Luke, and John, of which, however, only five leaves remain.

Edited by T. K. Abbott, _Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana ex
codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani
alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata...._ Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts.

s. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth century. The fragments came originally from Bobbio, and are now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

t. A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions of the first three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century, and now at Berne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

v. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, _Pactus Legis Ripuariæ_: exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in the Old Latin Biblical Texts.

aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth century, exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of Luke xxi. 8-30. An inscription in old English states that the manuscript was purchased from the heathen (the Danes?) by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church, Canterbury, when Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (871-889). It was afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really a Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings. Published by Belsheim in 1878.

δ. Is the interlinear Latin version of Δ (see p. 72), and is interesting on account of its alternative readings given in almost every verse—e.g. _uxorem vel conjugem_ for γυναῖκα, Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, _The Codex Sangallensis_, Cambridge, 1891.

On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts
of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe zu den
vier Evangelien_. Leipzig, 1896 (_TU._, xv. 1). This has been
supplemented by von Dobschütz’s _Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte_. See
also Jülicher in the _GGA._, 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the _Revue
Critique_, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the _Th. Lz._, 1897,
xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, _Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den
Evangelien_ in the _ZfwTh._, 1897, iii. 432-444.

2. ACTS.

d m As for the Gospels.

e. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75.

g. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire Latin Bible preserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin only in the Acts and Apocalypse, the rest of the New Testament exhibiting Jerome’s version. The manuscript was brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in 1648, along with the Codex Argenteus.

The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1879.
On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the _ThLz._, 1880, col. 185. A new
collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson in
1891.

g_{2}. In Milan, is part of a Lectionary written in the tenth or eleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen’s day, Acts vi. 8-vii. 2, vii. 51-viii. 4.

Published by Ceriani in his _Monumenta Sacra et Profana_, i. 2, pp.
127, 128. Milan, 1866.

h. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the Abbey of Fleury on the Loire, and now in Paris, written probably in the seventh century. It contains fragments of the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, in this order. (Tischendorf’s reg.: Blass’s f.)

The latest and best edition is that of S. Berger: _Le Palimpseste de
Fleury_. Paris, 1889.

p_{2}, written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with an admixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. The manuscript came originally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris, No. 321. It was used by Blass.

Published by Berger: _Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apôtres_,
etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschütz in the _ThLz._, 1896, 4;
Haussleiter in the _Th. Lbl._, no. 9; Schmiedel in the _L. Cbl._,
no. 33; E. Beurlier, _Bull. Crit._, 1896, 32, p. 623.

s_{2}. Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at Vienna, containing fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., and of James and 1 Peter.

x_{1}. Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the Acts with the exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscript is preserved at Oxford and is not completely published.

w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of the New Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the fifteenth century, and now at Wernigerode. In the main it exhibits Jerome’s text even to a greater extent than p, but preserves elements of the Old Latin, particularly in the latter half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to that observed in the Provençal New Testament,[98] which is derived from a Latin manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran German Bible. (See _Urt._, p. 127 f.)

On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, _Der Cyprianische Text der Acta
Apostolorum_. Berlin, 1892.

3. CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

h m s. As above.

ff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century, contains the Epistle of James.

Edited by Belsheim in the _Theologisk Tidsskrift for den
evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i Norge_ (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by
J. Wordsworth, _The Corbey St. James_, etc., in _Studia Biblica_, i.
pp. 113-150. Oxford, 1885.

q. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich, contains fragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. The text exhibits the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse 8.

Published by Ziegler in 1877, _Bruchstücke einer
vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung der Petrusbriefe_.

4. PAULINE EPISTLES.

m. As for the Gospels.

d e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.

gue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains fragments of Romans cc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel. See p. 69.

Published by Tischendorf in his _Anecdota Sacra et Profana_, 1855,
pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in the _Journal of Theological Studies_,
i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the
_Addenda_, p. xv.

r. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally from Freising, and is now at Munich: contains portions of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews.

Ziegler, _Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe_. Marburg, 1876.
Wölfflin, _Neue Bruchstücke der Freisinger Itala_ (Münchener
Sitzungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).

r_{2}. Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and of 1 Thess. i.

r_{3}. In the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweih on the Danube: fragments of Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v., written on leaves used as a book cover.

Published by Rönsch in the _ZfwTh._, xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238.

x_{2}. At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline Epistles: defective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.

See also Fr. Zimmer, _Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als
Grundlage für einen textkritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina_ in the
_Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen_. Königsberg, i.
(1887), pp. 1-81.

5. APOCALYPSE.

The only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g and h as for the Acts, h exhibits only fragments of cc. i. and ii., viii. and ix., xi. and xii., and xiv.-xvi.

For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth and White, see
below, p. 131.

[Sidenote: Latin Fathers.]

On account of the small number of these manuscripts the quotations of the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially those of _Cyprian_ of Carthage,[99] and after them the recently discovered citations in _Priscillian_, who was the first to suffer death as a heretic in the year 385. In the Apocalypse we have the quotations of _Primasius_, Bishop of Hadrumet (ca. 550), who used in his commentary on the Apocalypse not only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version the same as that used by the African Donatist _Tyconius_. In attempting to classify these witnesses it was found that the text of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the Bible used by Cyprian—viz., in the Gospels k especially, in Acts h, and in the Apocalypse Primasius and h. This family has accordingly been designated the =African=.

_Tertullian_, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers to the existence of a Latin Version in his time, but the quotations found in his Latin works cannot be taken into account, for this reason, that in citing the New Testament he seems to have made an independent translation from the Greek for his immediate purpose.[100]

As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to resemble the text of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the former, and that of q, r, and r_{3} in the Epistles. To this group, therefore, the name =Italian= has been given. It has, however, been deemed necessary to regard this Italian family as being itself a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled the =European=, which is thought to be represented by g, g_{2}, and s in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and by g in the Apocalypse.

[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]

As illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate from each other, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, 11, and 13 as exhibited by a b c d e f and the Vulgate (vg).

v. 4.—All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum est dum; but after that there follows:—

(1) stuperent a c, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente consternatae sunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f.

(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e, vg.

(3) ecce a c d f, vg; et ecce b e.

(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e, vg.

(5) adstiterunt a f, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt b e, vg.

(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg; eis d.

(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu scoruscanti d.

(8) v. 5: timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad terram a; cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram b e f, vg; conterritae autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c; in timore autem factae inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d.

(9) v. 11: et visa sunt a b c (visae) e f, vg; et paruerunt d.

(10) illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos c e, in conspectu eorum d, coram illos f.

(11) tanquam a, sicut b e, vg; quasi c d f.

(12) delira a, deliramentum b e f, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f -ler-), deliramenta c, derissus d.

(13) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.

(14) stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat stadia sexaginta ab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis stadia sexag. c, iter habentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod est ab hierosolymis stadia septem e, quod aberat spatio stadiorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexaginta ab hierusalem vg.

(15) cui nomen a, nomine b c d e f, vg.

(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus c f, vg; alammaus d, ammaus et cleopas e.

Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said: tot exemplaria, quot codices? And when we take into account that all this variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a difference in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the Greek,[101] we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which D stands to all the others; while the last example also affords an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise. The reading ᾗ ὄνομα in verse 13 would preclude any possibility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the reading was ὀνόματι. What happened, we shall suppose, was this. The phrase, “Emmaus by name,” was taken as referring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence; the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was just as Jerome said: a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.

(2.) THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME.

[Sidenote: Codex Epternacensis.]

It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of Jerome; first of all because all our present manuscripts are derived from one and only one source, secondly because the number of existing manuscripts is very great, and lastly because some of them at least go back to the sixth century. There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the Church of St. Willibrord at Echternach, written by an Irish hand of the eighth or ninth century, and containing a subscription copied from its original to the following effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi, indictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo decimo. That must have been in the year 558. [Sidenote: Codex Amiatinus.] Codex Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong to the same time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because it has been proved that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth, who died at Langres on the 25th September 716, on his way to Rome, where he intended to present this Codex to the Pope. [Sidenote: Codex Fuldensis.] One of the oldest and most valuable manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda, where it has been preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This Codex Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It contains the whole of the New Testament according to Jerome’s version, only in place of the four separate Gospels it has a Harmony composed by Victor, who followed Tatian’s plan, using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor’s Harmony in turn became the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian.

[Sidenote: Wordsworth and White.]

The task of restoring the original text of Jerome’s version has been undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, who has been at work on all the available material for more than fifteen years. The edition bears the title, _Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Johannes Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano White_. Five parts of the first volume have already appeared, containing the four Gospels with an _Epilogus ad Evangelia_.[102] In France, J. Delisle, the Director of the Paris National Library, has rendered great service by his work upon the manuscripts under his care; while Samuel Berger has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle Ages and the remotest provinces of the Church to bear upon the history of the Vulgate and its text as well as on the origin and dissemination of the different forms. In his compendious _Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge_ (Paris, 1893), he has, _e.g._, indicated no fewer than 212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament were arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and thirty-eight varieties in the order of the New Testament books. In Germany Bengel applied himself to the reconstruction of the Latin text of the Bible in the last century, and in this he was followed by Lachmann in the present century, while Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge of the history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has followed up the labours of Ziegler and Rönsch in the particular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and its text with a methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E. v. Dobschütz has begun to publish _Studies in the Textual Criticism of the Vulgate_. The valuable researches of Carlo Vercellone (1860-64) were concerned almost exclusively with the Old Testament, and do not seem to have been followed up in Italy. “Utinam Papa Leo XIII.,” says Gregory, “tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi; cura, opus ecclesia et Papa dignum.” Meanwhile Wordsworth and White appear to have accomplished as much as is possible at present in the field of the Gospels.[103]

[Sidenote: MSS. used by Jerome.]

The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of the text have been already referred to, but what the early Greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly made out. The relics of the material he used are as scanty as those of his own work. He must, however, have been able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius, seeing that he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New Testament. But there are certain readings in Jerome which we have not yet been able to discover in any Greek manuscript that we know. For instance, he gives _docebit vos omnem veritatem_ in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions read ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, so that he would seem to have read διηγήσεται ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν. As a matter of fact, this reading does occur in two passages of Eusebius and in Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic version of Tatian, but it has not been discovered in any Greek manuscript.[104] In the other parts of the New Testament, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the year 386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from the Greek, but contented himself with improving the grammar and diction of the Latin. His work on the Old Testament was much more comprehensive, but does not fall to be discussed here.

[Sidenote: History of the Vulgate.]

It was only by degrees that Jerome’s recension gained ground. In Rome, Gregory the Great (d. 604) for one preferred it to the old, though at the same time he says expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utraque utitur. [Sidenote: Alcuin.] Owing to the use of both forms the diversity of copies grew to such an extent that in 797 Charles the Great ordered =Alcuin= to make a uniformly revised text from the best Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches of his Empire. For this purpose Alcuin sent to his native Northumbria for manuscripts, by which he corrected the text of the Bible, and he was able to present the first copy to the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of the superb _Carolingian_ manuscripts, as they are called, which are found in our libraries, contain Alcuin’s Revision, as for instance the Bible of Grandval near Basel, which was probably written for Charles the Bald, and which is now in the British Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible presented to the same monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours, which was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathedral treasury there to Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris (B. N., Lat. 1); another written in the same monastery of St. Martin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the Vallicellian Library of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is perhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible.

[Sidenote: Theodulf.]

Another revision was introduced into France by Alcuin’s contemporary =Theodulf=, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He was a Visigoth, born in the neighbourhood of Narbonne, and the type of text he introduced was taken essentially from Spanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the so-called Theodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the Cathedral Church of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380); in its companion volume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, and now in the British Museum (24142); and in the Bible of St. Hubert, which came from the monastery of that name in the Ardennes.

[Sidenote: Harding.]

A further revision was made by Stephen =Harding=, third Abbot of Citeaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a standard Bible for his congregation, in which the Latin text of the New Testament was corrected by the Greek. At the same time the Old Testament was revised from the Hebrew with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding’s copy of the standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the Public Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his monastery by William, Abbot of Hirsau.

[Sidenote: Correctoria.]

Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of the so-called =Correctoria Bibliorum=, in which those readings which were supposed to be correct were carefully collected and arranged. The University of Paris in particular did a great deal in this way, and such was its influence, that by the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text was the one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the invention of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the others.

[Sidenote: Printed text.]

The first fruits of the printing press are understood to be the undated “forty-two line Bible,” usually called the _Mazarin_ Bible, seeing that it was the copy in the library of Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted the attention of bibliographers. The first dated Bible is of the year 1462. Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before the close of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during the sixteenth. The first edition in octavo, “for the poor man,” was issued at Basel in 1491 from the Press of Froben, the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare the first Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with various readings was printed in 1504. In the following year Erasmus published the _Annotationes_ which Laurentius Valla had prepared for the Latin Bible as early as 1444. The year 1528 saw the first really critical edition. It was brought out by Stephen, who used in its preparation three good Paris manuscripts—the Bible of Charles the Bald already referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth century, the New Testament portion of which has now disappeared. He afterwards published in 1538-40 another edition, for which he employed seventeen manuscripts, and which became the foundation of the present authorised Vulgate. [Sidenote: Henten.] About the same time John =Henten= published a very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one manuscripts, in the preparation of which he was assisted by the theologians of Louvain. This was followed in 1573 and 1580 by two further editions containing important annotations by Lucas of Brügge. [Sidenote: Authorised Vulgate.] In the year previous to that in which Henten’s edition appeared, the Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546, decided “ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur,” and at the same time ordained “posthac sacra scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur.”

[Sidenote: Sixtine.]

The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in the papacy of Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the work of revising the text of the Bible, and a “Congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum” gave twenty-six sittings to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have allowed the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new commission for the purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal Caraffa. The Pope himself revised the result of their labours, which was printed at the Vatican Press that he had founded. This edition, which takes its name from him, was issued under the Bull “Aeternus ille” of the 1st March 1589, and published in the following year. It is the first official edition of the Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th August 1590, and was succeeded by four Popes in the space of two years. [Sidenote: Clementine.] His fourth successor in the Chair of Peter, Clement VIII., issued a new edition under the name of the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull “Cum sacrorum” of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a preface written by Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for the former, and has continued from that day without any alteration as the authorised Bible of the entire Roman Church. The text of this second edition approximated more closely to that of Henten, for which the Commission of Pope Sixtus had also expressed their preference, though their printed edition went rather by that of Stephen. The number of the variations between these two editions has been estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are superseded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may be added that the first edition to contain the names of both the Popes upon the title page is that of 1604. The title runs: “Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita.” Those printed at Rome at the present day are entitled: “Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt. Maxx. iussu recognita atque edita.” See below, p. 132.

An enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate mentioned by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, or even of the earliest and most important of them, cannot be attempted. Those, however, mentioned by Gebhardt in his _Adnotatio Critica_ are given here, with the notation adopted by Wordsworth and White.

The best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English editors, are Codex Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the one in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (C 39 inf.), written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W.; not cited by Tischendorf.)

am. Amiatinus (_vide supra_, p. 122), written ca. 700, is an excellent manuscript, and particularly interesting as containing in the introduction a double catalogue of the Books of the Bible resembling that of the Senator Cassiodorus. See Westcott, _Bible in the Church_, Appendix B; _Canon_, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.)

bodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belonging to the Library of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in W.-W.)

demid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century, but copied from an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons; present locality unknown; not cited in W.-W.

em. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with splendid miniatures: at Munich, Cimelie 55: not cited in W.-W.

erl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer’s Catalogue, 467): used only indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited in W.-W.

for. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, and now at Cividale, Friuli: fragments of it at Venice and Prague. (J in W.-W.)

fos. Of the ninth century: from St. Maur des Fossés, now in Paris. (Lat. 11959.)

fu. Fuldensis (_vide supra_, p. 122), written between 540 and 546: contains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after Colossians: edited with facsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in W.-W.)

gat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien’s in Tours: written in the eighth or ninth century: stolen from Libri: purchased by Lord Ashburnham and now in Paris: not cited in W.-W.

harl. Harleianus 1775, of the sixth or seventh century: in the British Museum, formerly in Paris 4582: stolen from there by John Aymont in 1707. (Z in W.-W.)

ing. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the University Library at Munich: defective. (I in W.-W.) See von Dobschütz, _Vulgatastudien_ (with two facsimiles).

mm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers, near Tours: in the British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in W.-W.)

mt. Of the eighth or ninth century, from St. Martin’s, and still at Tours: written in gold letters. (M̅, in W.-W.)

pe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at Perugia, containing Luke i. 1-xii. 7. (P in W.-W.)

prag. The fragments cited under _for._ (see above).

reg. Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purple manuscript inscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark, with lacunæ: at Paris 11955: not cited in W.-W.

rus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish scribe who died in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version. (R in W.-W.)

san. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21-John xvii. 18, written by a scribe who says that he used two Latin and one Greek manuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a palimpsest at St. Gall containing Ephes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5, the Biblical text being the uppermost.

taur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels beginning at Matthew xiii. 34: not cited in W.-W.