ON BS 23 ol yaa CORNELL “NOL VY £ RS tT ¥ a SD eh LIBRARY The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz Book Endowment for the Humanities Class of 1924 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY wii The Canon, Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament WUMIPABOLWI NTO CER THIER Ace STE ane! ETHNOA ONEY EXOFIA CEOS ED: TNTREVE). ; 3s BoylaAy Toy ACR PAPAL STA PasOnrOe: TAL GRAS gpl d POL FCILE OP VION TA, Ruane, | cevagniica Dee ORC a REE 2 PEIAN KAINT PIAXFIMFIETIEAION Spb fe / aol Tiley PPT ARRADKEAY, Te Fi — YCOY OCKATA EX EYASERIIAR eostrayy,, Reo Bor CB IKAIEWIATIBONC Us ave. ; |, BACACAPEXOP TOC KAVITA, FAHAOZAMN INE : YS picasseocXoproy Ez MPALLOPIOX OP TOCKAS a FORNGBCEZELIELEDS TOM EPH KY MP AEL: REI CFONAI OIA * Kayer tye Teh ta n BAVIT IZ COMERITHEP HIS 7 ren x ae ie IP TIVEMAMETANOIALEICA PE CI PIZDAAS, é ek SKAYGRFRIOPEYET OI Pacay 7 ossriy a BYADAIAX po pA. KASOILEPOCOX eet “yeas JERR ATLL ankEOMIANITELED Twyapas ~ ; NWA YIIAY FOY CE OMORITOY MELICS ENE one ; RN! PIMA EL WANA CEMA EAP NRIOL CLA MEINE 1A ee ae Are AMIE PATAANIOLSPY KIA YT OY OT IAI PIA PIAA LICAI MEAS ATP IBES Nx gas ELENMKES WIN ERX ETAIOBEXY FP : we BfOCaLAYOITICUINAOY- eee as PPC AEN EM TINE SANTA THF: i. Codex W. The Washington MS. THE CANON, TEXT MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED WITH TABLES, FACSIMILE PLATES AND SURVEY OF THE Earviest MSS. BY CHARLES FREMONT SITTERLY, Pu.D., S.T.D. Proressor OF BipLicaL LITERATURE AND THE EXkG8SIS OF 1HH ENGLISH BIBLE In Dagw THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, MADISUN, NEW JEKSHY ‘THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN NEW YORK CINCINNATI Praxis in Manuscairts or THE Gagsk TesTAMENT Copyaicnt, 1898, BY Cuaares F. Sitteacy CopyricuT, 1914, BY Cuaaces F. Srrvgary TO THE MASTER Rev. HENRY ANSON BUTTZ, D.D., LL.D. AQPEAN EAABETE ADPEAN AOTE Epevvdte tac ypaddc, ... «ai éxeivai elaty al paprvpovoat ' tepl guo0d, —John v, 39. —bépe wai Ta GiBAia pddAtora dé Tag penPpavac. —2 Tim. iv, 13. CONTENTS PAGD DBrstoOF PRATES 55 25.65 65 eay hs ew cies cod Ses tia ieee ehtes ME ee 9 PRE RACH oj niitschary Rk ay eine ew Boe Bee [Bi ails at alton: pale oMaee Malco Siesta 11 PART I Tue Canon or THE NEw TESTAMENT BIB LI OGRA PEE Y 5050205555 sasiar sheeted S alaaeaned ya iua oosiahy eu kDa eentoaddl nae 14 INTRODUCTION i358 23 pe Bch ons Dees aa ip dt a rg ligtle Res 15 CHAPTER I Tue Canon OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT.................- 19 CHAPTER II Tue Canon OF THE LatTIN NEw TESTAMENT.................... 21 CHAPTER III THe CANON OF THE GREEK NEw TESTAMENT................... 23 PART II Tue TExT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBliOGRAPHY 3. cc.0.cctant.arn nanarra nna red savennne Dee Wee GA earn 34 INTRODUCTION: A ceed aces Ss adimon ailnanmeeeem ea uae die ane Saeed: 35 CHAPTER I Tue Sources oF EVIDENCE FOR THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 CHAPTER II Tue NEcEssiTy oF SIFTING AND Criticizina THE EVIDENCE...... 43 =e CHAPTER III Tue METHODS OF CRITICAL PROCEDURB...............-0----000% 48 CHAPTER IV Tue, History anp Resuts oF THE Process.................... 53 \. t 8 : ‘CONTENTS PART III PAGB Tax Mayuscrirrs or THE Garex New Testament BIBLIOGRAPHY........ 0. ccc cece eee ee ene 60 : CHAPTER I Tae Materials ON Wuich THE Manuscripts weee Waitren.... 61 Bection: J Papyrus, io issie score ciacinr aa tioned aatvine giouredee nies 61 Section II. Parchment. .... ayaa saiitece ia ioe eicleiaa ee 64 Section: IU. Paper i. csi0icsscceccsssvsnnedve se cevedewsans 67 CHAPTER II Tap INSTRUMENTS WITH WHICH THE MANUSCRIPTS WERE WRITTEN. 70 Section T;. Penais:s ia. aa cea veovaseenevwewecaws PAGO MOTE wets 70 Bection IIs Inks s esiccsis.0 cases iaweisewsesaaeedeeeasa ces 70 Section II]. Other Instrumentg.......... sabe a eves areeeeareia 71 CHAPTER III Tax Forms IN WHICH THR MaNUSCRIPTS ARB PRESERVED........ 73 Section I. The: Roll. icccisccias tase disse cactine eddie wees 73 Bection.1T; “Whe: Cod exe soc is:ccicpess ceeacace enacece Smsceealiesdraahone sears 74 Section JII. Palimpsests....... sos cotta eaGuwartaleg cueaie ts 75 CHAPTER IV Tan Meruops or MarkIna aND Measunine Tus Manuscripts... 76 Section I. Punctuation. .......... 0... c cece eee c eee eee enoes 76 Section II. Accents and Breathings..............0.seee eee. V7 Section III. Abbreviations and Contractions....... math wievevana's 78 Section IV. Stichometry............cceceeeecteececececes 79 CHAPTER V Tux OriGIn anD Forms oF THR GREEK ALPHABRT............+-- 81 Section I. Origin. ... 00... . cc cece eect cece ee eee eeeeneens 81 Section II. Capitals............. ccc ccc ec ee reer eeeeee renee 82 Section IIT. Uncials.......... cee cece e cere nent eneeneenes 84 Section IV. Minuscules..............seeecceveseeeeceeees 86 TaBLx or GRewk ALPHABDTS..............ccceereceeereererees 88 Norns ON THE TABLE oF GREEK ALPHABETS..... arate aldceeieiesie’s 89 ADDITIONAL PLATES... 0000s cece eee eccenoes £5 VT RTN wide eles 01 NOTES ON THE PLATES........eseceeeees Leiaislei aloiniecsroeuee maine 121 SURVEY OF CODICES... . 1.0... cece cece cece tere enneeees Facing 126 LIST OF PLATES PAGE Plate I. Facsimile from the Washington Manuscript. . Frontispiece sd II. " “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus.............. 31 _ III. Portrait of St. Luke, from Drew MS, IX............ 57 . IV. Facsimile from Papyrus Oxyrbynchus............., 93 es V. “(Codex Sinaiticus.;................. 95 # VI. i ee “ "Vaticanus.............c0000, 97 " VIL. “A ss “ Alexandrinug................ 99 “VII. “ a “ Epbraemi................... 101 fe ‘IX. e as SPV Besos biased ater sic Netalonces 103 a X. “Drew Minuscule I................ 105 “ XI. " “e a Dvctsnruitioneuenes 107 a XII. 7 os DY sscccic cicceiseg 108 “Xi. uu “ “ DV. ooo bag aGuse teases Ml “XIV. aS os sf We aieerrtaas weve: 113 i XV. f “ s “ VE sare ee 115 “XVI. “ ao as i Mls sensiiascietas 117 “ XVII. “ Ms . AK Se slowness 119 Table of Greek Alphabets. ..........0.00.0 00 cccccceeeeeceeecce. 88 Survey of Chief Codices of the Greek Testament for the First Ten CBS each cel ads ctlawie ries ce app dna Si iota anaiegdal nes ons Facing 126 Centuri PREFACE THE science of literary criticism attains its climax in the latest text of the Greek New Testament. In this field specu- lation is now reduced well-nigh to the vanishing point. It is the design of these lectures, which are the irreducible residuum of courses delivered in the Seminary for several years, to traverse rapidly across the centuries the course of the canon of the New Testament. The labored’ apologetic of a former day as to either the exclusiveness or inclusiveness of the canon itself is relatively of lesser importance, hence the brevity of Part One. As a fourth edition of the author’s Praxis in Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament is called for, the same has been incorporated, with but slight change since the last revision, as Part Three of the present work. It is no doubt true that interest in such studies is at the present time somewhat declining, even in our schools of theology, but it is equally clear that the means and method / of such discipline must be kept available against the day of inevitable revival, for no biblical theology nor biblical preach- ing can long survive that does not rest securely on first-hand knowledge of what is written. The wealth of documentary evidence, which the last half century has brought, to the New Testament itself and to the period when it was being written and settled into a canon, is added reason why a group of students should always be in training, to rightly appre- ciate and appropriate such treasures. The recent discovery in Egypt and purchase by Mr. Charles L. Freer, of Detroit, 11 12 PREFACE of one of the foremost uncial MSS. yet found, and now on deposit in the National Capital and known as the Washing- ton MS. of the Gospels, is but an earnest, we trust, of like valuable finds yet in store. CHARLES FREMONT SITTERLY. Drew Theological Seminary, Easter, 1914. PART | THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Traced from the latest Version of the English Bible through the Latin and Greek to the original writers BIBLIOGRAPHY Gregory, C. R., The Canon and Text of the New Testament. Edin- burgh, 1908. Harnack, Adolph, Chronologie der Altchristlischen Literatur. Leipzig, 1897. Leitpoldt, J., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Leipzig, 1907-08. Lightfoot, J. B., Essays on Supernatural Religion. London, 1889. Salmon, George, Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Eighth edition. London, 1897. Sanday, William, Inspiration, Bampton Lectures. London, 1893. Souter, Alexander, The Text and Canon of the New Testament. New York, 1913. Westcott, B: F., A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. Seventh edition. London, 1896. ; Zahn, Theo., Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. ' Leipzig, 1888-92. , Zahn, Theo., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Leipzig, 1904. 14 INTRODUCTION Tue New Testament, as we now have it, and as it has existed from the beginning of its separate and corporate life, comprises, doubtless, the best of early Christian literature. Although there is many an Apocalypse, Epistle, Book of Apostolic Acts, and even Gospel (see list below), belonging to the early Christian centuries which is profitable for com- parative study, yet it is safe to predict that none of these will ever rank with those which we do receive and account as canonical. PartiaL List oF New TESTAMENT LITERATURE OUTSIDE THE CANON . The Gospel according to the Hebrews. . The Gospel of the Ebionites, or of the Twelve. . The Gospel according to the Egyptians. . The Gospel according to Peter. The Acts of James. The Acts of Paul and Thecla. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. . The Epistle of Paul to the Alexandrines. . The Epistle of Barnabas. . The Letter of Clement. . The Shepherd of Hermas. . The Abgarus Letters. . The Apocalypse of Peter. 14, The Prophecy of Hystaspes. Of this list, which might be more than duplicated in the single field of Apocryphal Lives of Christ, only 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 ever approximated even local or temporary canonicity. 1K CONAN WDE ttt On —- © 16 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS It is to be observed that, taken as a whole, the New Testament Apocrypha does not rise, either in doctrinal or literary value, to the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. _ “The first work of biblical criticism is to investigate the canon of the Bible, and to determine, so far as possible, the entire extent and the exact limit of Holy Scripture.’ The New Testament canon neither is nor ever has been so vital a problem in biblical literature as the canon of the Old Testament. Doubtless, not the least of the reasons for this is the fact that the entire group of New Testament writings sprang into existence within the century and almost within the lifetime of “those who were from the beginning eyewit- nesses and ministers of the word.” It is, however, a pleasing thing and profitable to trace back the finished product as far as possible to its original sources. According to the articles of the faith of Christendom, ‘all the books of the New Testa- ment as they are commonly received we do receive and ac- count canonical.” Our first inquiry, then, in taking up the study of the New Testament is as to why the twenty-seven books, comprising the second part of the Bible, are commonly received and accounted canonical. The word “canon” in Greek, which is one of the most interesting terms in either Greek, Latin, or English, will here be used in a sense which ~ is almost last and least in significance, namely, to denote the list or catalogue of New Testament books. Bishop Westcott rightly remarks that the sixteenth century was the first occasion:on which the general subject of the canon was debated as a question of doctrine in the Catholic Church. For consideration of the three views which found dogmatic expression from that time, namely, that of the Romanists, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists, and “‘the truth which each embodies and exaggerates,” the master 'C. 8. Briggs, The Study of Holy Scripture, p. 116. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 17 work of Westcott must be read.!| Doubtless, the days of active controversy are now past, and the questions of how, where, and when this classic library of Christian writings came into being can be clearly traversed with fewer words ‘than ever before. Like many of its constituent books, the library itself is found to be the result of a long process of growth, but the outstanding facts are easily discerned. 1B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 466. CHAPTER | The Canon of the English New Testament TAKING up the New Testament as it is handed down to us in the most recent vernacular version, we find that despite all of the advances made in other respects, at least in the matter of the scope of the canon there has been no disposition either to restrict or extend the list of New Testament books as contained in what has been known for the past three cen- turies as the Authorized Version of the English Bible. Turn- ing to the Rheims New Testament, which is the well-known English rendering authorized by the Roman Catholic Church, and which precedes that of 1611 by thirty years, we find precisely the same order and number of books. The same is true of the Bishops’ Bible, published in 1568, and which was the model of the Authorized Version; of the Great Bible of 1539, which was the model of the Bishops’ and of Tyndale’s New Testament, first published at Worms in 1525. This takes us back to the land and the time of the beginning of printed books. Besides the quaint forms of spelling in Tyn- dale’s titles to New Testament books, as Marke, Jhon, Romaynes, Hebrues, etc., it is interesting to note that he called only the first four of the Pauline oe epistles, the remaining books being styled ‘‘Pistles.”’ Now for nearly a century and a half prior to Tyndale the New Testament in English had been circulated in manuscript form. By the year 1380 Wycliffe had completed his transla- tion, into middle English, of the New Testament, and although it was not put forth in printed form until 1848, yet it was so highly appreciated and widely multiplied that even to-day 19 20 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS more than one hundred and fifty manuscripts of Wycliffe’s version are extant. Although neither John Wycliffe nor John Purvey, his able successor, admitted any more or any other than the usual twenty-seven books, yet it is important to note that another book was included in some later copies of their New Testament. This is the Epistle to the Laodicenes, a Latin compilation dating from the sixth century and not to be confused with the celebrated Greek Epistle of the same name current in the post-apostolic age. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . 21 CHAPTER II The Canon of the Latin New Testament Wyc.iFFe leads us directly back to an even greater transla- tion by an equally great Christian scholar, the Latin version of St. Jerome. What the Greek Septuagint is to the Hebrew Old Testament the Latin Vulgate is to the Greek New Testament. In each case a companion rendering is made into the suc- ceeding tongue at once ancient, accurate, and deeply reverent. Protestants sometimes think of the Latin Vulgate as the peculiar possession of the Roman Church, but it is the com- mon inheritance of undivided Western Christendom, which had no other Bible during the thousand years of its sole and supreme dominance. Now, although Jerome’s Old Testa- ment contains many Apocryphal books, his New Testament comprises precisely the twenty-seven books which we do receive as canonical. This millennium carries us back to about the year 380, to the age of the ecumenical councils, both Latin and Greek, and to a long lifetime of acquaintance with the Church Fathers of his age and of residence and re- search in all the great church libraries from Rome even unto Jerusalem. During this long era only one brief book ever appears to have claimed fellowship with Jerome’s New Testa- ment, and this only in certain sporadic and limited editions and centuries after the Master’s death. It is the spurious epistle to the Laodicenes, which, as we have seen, came into vogue at the end of the sixth century. Pope Gregory the Great is responsible for the doctrine that Paul was the author of this epistle, and, although he himself never accounted it as canonical, his opinion as to its authorship, together with the 22 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS fact of reference to an epistle of the Laodicenes, at the end of Colossians gave this letter frequent favor, yet even its special partisans, as John of Saulisbury, in the twelfth century do not fail to acknowledge its uncanonicity. The Latin text of this famous letter may be seen in Bishop Westcott’s book on the | canon, where is also given one of the quaint early English renderings of it taken from the printed version of Wycliffe, published by Forshall and Madden.’ Thus we see that for 1,500 years, or from our own day to that of St. Jerome, the volume called the New Testament has meant exactly the same thing. 1 On the Canon of the New Testament, Appendix E, also p. 457f. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 23 CHAPTER III The Canon of the Greek New Testament Tue convictions and testimony, as well as the epoch- making version of Jerome, are explicitly confirmed by the witness both of the fathers and the councils of his age. The great and learned names of Augustine and Rufinus stand as representative among the former, and the Councils of Car- thage and Hippo among the latter. The deliverance of the former Council (A. D. 397) on this subject is in these terms. After ordering that nothing shall be read in the church under the name of Divine Scriptures—‘“praeter Scripturas canonicas”’ —they proceed to specify those of the New Testament in the most deliberate and formal manner—‘“‘Sunt autem canonice Scripture’’: Of the Gospels..........-...0 02ers Four Books. Of the Acts)..2.0.s04 se. ten te Geeks One Book. Of Paul’s Epistles................-.00--5 Thirteen Books. To the Hebrews................00 0000 0ee One Book. Of Peter’s Epistles. ...............05-005. Two Books. Of John’s Epistles............... 0.0.0 e eee Three Books. Of James’ Epistle.........6........2.506- One Book. Of Jude’s Epistle.............. die Ses One Book. Of the Apocalypse of John................ One Book. Total ica sass en GOR ee eS Twenty-seven Books. Now, it is conceded on all sides by modern historians, and notably by Professor Harnack, that the basis of the opinions of Jerome, Rufinus, and Augustine on the canon of the New Testament, as well as the declaration of the Councils cited, was the writings of that prince of Greek fathers, St. Athana- sius, who reflected the well-nigh universal opinion of the orthodox Greek fathers by at least as early as the middle of 24 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS the fourth century. This is as far back as the completed canon of the New Testament can be traced. But it is also as far back as we can clearly trace the opinion or declaration of the undivided Church upon this subject. Prior to this cen- tury of distinct ecumenical consciousness, opinion had been provincial and individual, namely, Eastern, Western, Assyr- ian, African, Antiochian, Alexandrian, Roman, dominated by such men as Eusebius, Origen, and Irenseus, not to overlook the direct and constructive influence of such names as Mar- cion and Tatian. Now, it must be conceded that in order to estimate accu- rately the varying opinions and prejudices of the various parties and leaders of the two long centuries lying between the formal recognition and the original. writings of the New Testament books, great patience and perseverance of judg- ment must be exercised; but the path once so obscure is be- coming ever more plain, and it can be traced to-day with a confidence not hitherto known. Taking into account the fact that, of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, twenty-one, or seven ninths, are letters and fifteen, or five ninths, are addressed either to individuals or local church societies; taking into account the fact that until the first half of the fourth century there cannot be said to have been any such thing as a great ecumenical church, and hence neither occasion nor opportunity for the definite or final settlement of a canon at all; taking into ac- count the fact that the scattered, nonresisting, and utterly defenseless societies of Christians were subjected throughout the second and third centuries to a series of searching and re- lentless persecutions, several of which were especially directed toward the complete annihilation of the few precious scrolls and copies of brief letters which they possessed, and that their enemies had at their command all of the machinery— social, civil, and religious—of the Roman empire; I say, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 25 taking all of these things into consideration, the wonder is, not that any of the sacred writings of the Christians perished, but, on the other hand, that any of those writings were pre- served, and that immediately upon the cessation of the age of persecution they were circulated and recognized so widely throughout the Church both east and west, that within the compass of a single generation the canon was settled for all time. Threading, then, our way back through the mazes of Chris- tian literary history from the great ecumenical councils to the apostolic age, we find that twenty of the twenty-seven books, or approximately nine tenths of the bulk of the New ‘Testament, have been undisputed as to canonicity from the very days of their publication or writing. These twenty books are the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, the First Epistle of St. Peter, and the First Epistle of St. John. Not to go into any lengthy review of the evidence for this ‘statement, I will simply name the chief patristic witnesses, as well as the chief catalogues or lists which contain these books: Of the Fathers all are witnessed to by Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius; all but Philemon by Irenzus, Clement of Alexan- dria, and Cyprian; all but First John by Hippolytus; the Syriac Version (about 150 A. D.) witnesses to all twenty, and the Muratorian fragment (about 170 A. D.) to all save First Peter. The remaining seven books are Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. These are known as the third section of the New Testament canon, the Gospels and Pauline epistles with Acts, comprising the First and Second, and are often compared with the third ‘section of the Old Testament canon, called the Hagiographa, ‘as contrasted with the Pentatuech and Prophets respectively. ‘Of these seven books, four are exceedingly brief, namely, 26 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS Second Peter, Second and Third John, and Jude, comprising a fraction equal to one fifty-fifth of the entire New Testament; moreover, two of these four, namely, Second and Third John, are not only very brief, but besides being addressed to un- known individuals, are, comparatively speaking, of but slight intrinsic value to the Church at large. Let us, however, re- view the evidence for the canonicity of these seven books separately and somewhat in detail, condensing freely from Westcott, Gregory, and Harnack. 1. For that of the Hebrews we have the Council of Carthage (397), of Laodicea (366), the Peshitto Version, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanjus, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory Na- zianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent, and Isidore of Seville—indeed, so full is the testimony that Dr. Harnack places the Hebrews with the twenty undisputed books. It appears, moreover, upon careful examination that the doubts relative to this book had no real relation to canon- icity, but only to its authorship, which is not an essential circumstance, since many books of Scripture are anonymous and the authorship of some others entirely uncertain. 2. For the Epistle of James we have the favorable testimony of the Canon Muratori, as well as the Peshitto Version, of the Councils of Carthage and Laodicea and of Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Nicephorus, Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent, and Isi- dore, among the Fathers. Why, then, was this epistle ever considered as at all doubtful respecting its canonicity? For two reasons: (1) Because of a certain doubt as to which of three Jameses it might be traceable, and (2) because of a cer- tain impression in a very narrow circle of a doctrinal diversity between it and Paul’s writings as to justification by faith. It is safe to say, however, that no reputable critic would con- sider either of these grounds tenable as against the canonicity of this epistle. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 27 3. The testimony in favor of Second Peter and of Jude is exactly the same in both as that in favor of the Epistle of James with the exception of the fact that neither stands in the Peshitto Version, and Jude alone, not Second Peter, in Canon Muratori. This, however, probably arises from the fact that in the Syrian churches, as well as in some other districts, suspicion arose because of a remarkable resemblance between these two letters, not in sentiment or substance merely, but in minute forms of expression, so that the one might seem to have been copied from the other; hence arose the false assumption that but one could be canonical, and, as division naturally resulted on the question as to which of the two that might be, the upshot was that both fell into the cate- gory of the doubtful, although the opinion finally arrived at, in the fourth century, was, as we have seen, that each should hold its place in the canon; and, despite the ill-conceived conception of Luther, such has remained the Church’s de- cision until to-day. 4. Second and Third John, although so little quoted in the early post-apostolic age because of their very brevity, private reference, and lack of general interest, nevertheless were but little disputed and are abundantly supported in respect of their canonicity by those to whom appeal can alone be made. In their favor stands the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage, possibly the Canon Muratori, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem (for Second John), Epiphanius, Athanasius, Greg- ory Nazianzen, Leontius, Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, Inno- cent, and Isidore. Lastly, Harnack concedes, and proves,’ indeed, that they were written by the same author as First John and the Gospel of John, although he calls him the presbyter only. 5. Finally, we have the Apocalypse. Now, the very fact that this book is an apocalypse puts it in a category sui generis. It cannot be disputed that at the middle of the 28 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS fourth century it was received as of undoubted canonicity. Again, it cannot be denied that during the very earliest post- apostolic age, that is, during the second century, it held the . same position; indeed, of all the seven books just passed in review, that of Revelation may be said to stand, as far as canonicity goes, upon superior ground. It is found in the Canon Muratori, in the list of the Council of Carthage, in Epiphanius, Origen, Athanasius, Leontius, Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, Innocent, Cassiodorus, and Isidore of Seville, and Professor Harnack says it should stand with the other Johan- nine writings as canonical. It is now widely held that the chief reason for any apparent doubt as to the canonicity of Revelation, during the third century, arose from the fact that during that time Chiliastic doctrines of the grossest forms prevailed, especially in the Eastern Church, and as the Apoca- lypse was utilized to support these doctrines, and many of the Fathers were unequal in ability of interpretation to the leaders of the heretical school, they fell to discrediting and in some instances denying outright its canonicity. In the fol- lowing century, however, the Chiliastic errors were overcome, and “the Apocalypse has shone forth with all its ancient but mysterious splendor.” Let us now review, in a few words, the present state of the subject in hand. We observe first, that from the middle of the fourth century the canon of the New Testament has comprised but twenty- seven well-known books. Second, that neither before nor since that date were any other writings accepted as canonical by the Church universal. Third, that because of either (1) the very nature of the documents themselves, being strictly private and so not widely circulated, or (2) because of disputed authorship, and so, in some regions, being temporarily rejected because of violent partisan prejudice, or (3) because of their falling for OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 29 a time into disrepute on account of the abuses to which they were subjected by an unscrupulous dogmatism, certain of the books, never more than seven, all told, and really hardly more than four, or at most five, and those the very briefest and most nearly ephemeral, were temporarily disputed, only to be finally accepted as undoubtedly canonical, upon an abso- lute equality with the other twenty. Fourth, that said final acceptance on the part both of the majority of the Fathers, who seriously examined into the question while the data were abundant, and of the great ecumenical councils, is a real guarantee that their decisions were based on good and sufficient evidence, and that hence- forth the onus probendi rests upon the shoulders of him who chooses to reject these decisions. Plate I]. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus. 31 PART II THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Its sources, its errors, and the methods, history, and results of its criticism BIBLIOGRAPHY Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1900-1909. Gregory, C, l., Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig, 1909. Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1908. : Kenyon, IF. G., Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- ment. Second edition. London, 1912 . Lake, K., The Text of the New Testament. Second edition. London, 1905. Milligan, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge, 1910. Nestle, E., Kinfihrung in das Griechischen Neue Testament. Géttingen, 1899. ‘ Scrivener, F. H., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Fourth edition. London, 1894. Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greck and Latin Palxography. Second edition, London, 1894. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, with Introduction. Cambridge, 1896. Von Soden, H., Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1910. Zahn, Theo., Introduction to the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1910. INTRODUCTION Tue literary evidence to the text of the New Testament is vastly more abundant than that to any other series of writ- ings of like compass in the entire range of ancient letters. Of the sacred books of the Hebrew Bible there is no known copy antedating the tenth century of the Christian era. Of Homer . there is no complete copy earlier than the thirteenth century. . Of Herodotus there is no manuscript earlier than the tenth century. Of Virgil but one copy is earlier than the fourth century, and but a fragment of all Cicero’s writings is even as old as this. Of the New Testament, however, we have two splendid manuscripts of the fourth century, ten of the fifth, twenty- five of the sixth, and in all a total of more than three thousand copies in whole or in part of the Greek New Testament. To these copies of the text itself may be added the very important and even more ancient evidence of the versions of the New Testament in the Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian tongues and the quotations and clear references to the New Testament readings found in the works of the early Church Fathers, as well as the inscriptions and monumental data in Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, Italy, and Greece, dating from the very age of the apostles and their immediate successors. It thus appears that the documents of the Christian faith are both so many and so widely scattered that these very facts more than any others have embarrassed the final de- termination of the text. Now, however, the science of textual 35. —t«; 36 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS criticism has so far advanced, and the textual problems of the Greek Testament have been so largely traversed, that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approxi- mating certainty. Professor Eberhard Nestle speaks of the Greek text of the New Testament issued by Westcott and Hort as the “nearest in its approach to the goal.’”’ Professor Alexander Souter’s edition with a select’ apparatus criticus of the revisers’ Greek New Testament (Oxford, 1910) no doubt attains even a higher water mark. Let us trace as far as it can be done, in a clear and untechnical manner, the process of connection between the original writings and this, one of the latest editions of the Greek New Testament. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 CHAPTER | The Sources of Evidence for the Text of the New Testament A piscussion of the sources of evidence for the text of the New Testament involves: 1. The Autographs of the New Testament Writers. Until very recent times it has not been customary to take up with any degree of confidence, if at all, the subject of New Testament autographs, but since the researches in particular of Dalman and Deissmann, Moulton (W. F.) and Milligan (George), it is not only appropriate but incumbent upon the careful student. The whole tendency of recent investigation is to give less place to the oral tradition of Christ’s life and teaching and to press back the date of the writing of the synoptic Gospels into the period falling between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem. Sir William M. Ramsay goes so far as to claim that “antecedent probability founded on the general character of personal and contemporary Greek or Graeco- Asiatic society,” would indicate “that the first Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus died.” (Letters to the Seven Churches, p. 7.) W. M. Flinders Petrie argues to the same end and says, “Some generally accepted Gospels must have been in circula- tion before 60 A. D. The mass of briefer records and logia which the habits and culture of that age would naturally produce must have been welded together within ten or twenty years by the external necessities.” (The Growth of the Gospels, p. 7.) 38 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS The autographs of the New Testament writers have long been lost, but the discovery during the last few years of con- temporary documents enable us to form fairly clear notions as to their general literary character and conditions. In the first place, papyrus was probably the material em- ployed by all the New Testament writers, even the original Gospel of Matthew, and the general Epistle of James, the only books written in Palestine not being excepted, for the reason they were not originally written with a view to their liturgical use, in which case vellum might possibly have been employed. Again, the evidence of the writings themselves witnesses to the various processes followed during the first century. Dic- tation was largely used by St. Paul, the names of four at least of his secretaries—Tertius, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus —hbeing given while the master himself, as in many of the Egyptian papyri, appended his own signature, sometimes with a sentence or two at the end. The method of personal research was pursued, and compilation of data, including folk- lore and genealogies, together with groups of cognate matters in artistic forms, and abundant quotation from writings held in high esteem by the readers, as in the first and third Gospels and the book of Acts. The presentation copy of one’s works must have been written with unusual pains in case of their dedication to a patrician patron, as Luke “To the most noble Theophilus.” For speculation as to the probable dimensions of the original papyrus rolls of New Testament books, one will find Pro- fessor J. Rendel Harris and Dr. F. G. Kenyon extremely sug- gestive and from opposite viewpoints. (Compare Kenyon, Handbook of Textual Criticism of the New Testament; Harris, New Testament Autographs.) 2. The Greek Copies or Manuscripts of the New Testament Text. This has been hitherto and probably will continue to be the OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 chief source of data in this great field. For determining the existence of the text in its most ancient form the autographs are of highest value. For determining the content and extent of the text, the versions are of greatest worth. For estimating the meaning and at the same time for gaining additional data both as to existence and extent of usage of the New Testament the quotations of its text by the Church Fathers, whether as apologists, preachers, or historians, in Syria, Greece, Africa, Italy, or Gaul, are of exceeding impor- tance. But for determining the readings of the text itself the Greek manuscripts or copies of the original autographs are still the principal source of evidence and criticism. About four thousand manuscripts, in whole or in part, of the Greeks New Testament are now known. These manu- scripts furnish abundant evidence for determining the read- ing of practically the entire New Testament, while for the Gospels and most important epistles the evidence is unprec- edented both for quality and clearness. They are usually divided into two classes—uncial, or large hand, and minus- cule, or small hand, often called cursive. The term “cursive” is not satisfactory, since it does not coordinate with the term “uncial,” nor are so-called cursive features, as ligatures and oval forms, confined to minuscule manuscripts. The uncials comprise about one hundred copies, extending from the fourth to the tenth century. The minuscules include the remaining manuscripts, and fall between the ninth century and the invention of printing. 3. Vernacular Versions, or Translations of the Scriptures into the Tongues of Western Christendom. Some of these versions were made as early as the second century, and thus antedate by several generations our best- known Greek texts. It is considered by many as providential that the Bible was early translated into different tongucs, so that its corruption to any large extent became almost, if not 40 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS altogether, an impossibility, since the versions of necessity belonged to parts of the Church widely removed from one another and with very diverse doctrinal and institutional tendencies. The testimony of a translation to the exact form of words used, whether in an autograph or a Greek copy of an author, is at best not beyond dispute, but as evidence for the presence or absence of whole sections or clauses of the original their standing is of prime importance. Such extreme literalnesg frequently prevails that the vernacular idiom is entirely set aside and the order and construction of words in the original sources are slavishly followed and even transliterated, so that their bearing on many questions at issue is direct and con- vincing. Although the Greek New Testament has now been trans- lated into all the principal tongues of the earth, comparative criticism is confined to those versions made during the first eight centuries. 4. Patristic quotations afford a unique basis of evidence for determining readings of the New Testament. So able and energetic were the Church Fathers of the early centuries that it is entirely probable that the whole text of the Greek New Testament could be recovered from this source alone if the writings of apologists, homilists, and com- mentators were carefully collated. It is also true that the earliest heretics, as well as the defenders of the faith, recog- nized the importance of determining the original text, so that their remains also comprise no mean source for critical re- search. It is evident that the value of the patristic quota- tions will vary according to such factors as the reliability of the reading as quoted, the personal equation or habit of accuracy or looseness of the particular writer, and the purity or corruption of the text he employed. One of the marked advantages of this sort of evidence rises from the fact that it OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 41 affords additional ground for localizing and dating the various classes of texts found both in original copies and versions. For general study the more prominent Church Fathers of the second, third, and fourth centuries are sufficient, though profitable investigation may be made of a much wider period. By the beginning of the fifth century, however, the type of text quoted almost universally was closely akin to that known as the Textus Receptus. 5. Lectionaries and service books of the early Christian period afford a source of considerable value in determining the general type of texts, together with the order, contents, and distribution of the several books of the canon. As the Lectionary systems both of the Eastern and Western Churches reached back to post-apostolic times, and all are marked by great verbal conservatism, they present data of real worth for determining certain problems of textual criti- cism. From the very nature of the case, being compiled for liturgical use, the readings are often introduced and ended by set formulas, but these are easily separated from the text itself, which generally follows copy faithfully. Even the sys- tems of chapter headings and divisions furnish clues for classifying and comparing texts, for there is high probability that texts with the same chapter divisions come from the same country. Probably the earliest system of chapter divi- sions is preserved in Codex Vaticanus coming down ‘to us from Alexandria probably by way of Caesarea. That it ante- dates the Codex in which it appears is seen from the fact that the Pauline epistles are numbered as comprising a continuous book with a break between Galatians and Ephesians, and the dislocated section numbers attached to Hebrews which fol- lows Second Thessalonians here, though the numbers indicate its earlier position after Galatians. Another system of chap- ter divisions at least as old as the fifth century, found in Codex Alexandrinus, cuts the text into much longer sections 42 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS known as cephalia majora. In all cases the numeration begins with the second section, the first being considered introduc- tory. Bishop Eusebius developed a system of text divisions of the Gospels based upon an earlier method attributed to Ammonius, adding a series of tables or canons. The first table contains sections giving events common to all four evangelists, and its number was written beneath the section number in the margin in each Gospel, so that their parallels could be readily found. The second, third, and fourth canons contain lists of sections in which three of the Gospels have passages in common (the combination Mark-Luke-John does not occur); the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth lists in which two combine (the combination Mark-John does not occur); and canon ten those peculiar to some one of the Gospels. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 43 CHAPTER Il The Necessity of Sifting and Criticizing the Evidence Criticism from its very nature concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds which it brings to light. In the writings of the New Testament the re- sources of textual evidence are so vast, exceeding, as we have seen, those of any other ancient literature, sacred or secular, that the area of actual error is relatively quite appreciable, though it must be remembered that this very abundance of textual variety ultimately makes for the integrity and doc- trinal unity of the teaching of the New Testament books. Conjectural emendation, which has played so large a part in the restoration of other writings, has but slight place in the textual criticism of the New Testament, whose materials are so abundant that the difficulty is rather to select right readings than to invent them. : We have catalogued the principal sources of right readings, but on the most casual investigations of them discover large numbers of wrong readings mingled with the true, and must proceed to consider the sources of error, or various readings, as they are called, of which approximately some two hundred thousand are known to exist in the various manuscripts, ver- sions, patristic citations, and other data for the text. ‘‘Not,” as Dr. Warfield says, “that there are two hundred thousand places in the New Testament where various readings occur, but there are nearly two hundred thousand readings all told, and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many various readings are counted on a single word, for 44 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS each document is compared in turn with one standard and the number of its divergencies ascertained; then these sums are themselves added together and the result given as the num- ber of actually observed variations.’ Dr. Ezra Abbott was accustomed to remark that ‘about nineteen twentieths of the - variations have so little support that, although they are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings; and nineteen twentieths of the remainder are of so little im- portance that their adoption or rejection would cause no ap- preciable difference in the sense of the passages where they occur.” Dr. Hort’s view was, that “upon about one word in eight, various readings exist, supported by about sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; about one word in sixty has various readings upon it, supported by such evi- dence as to render our decision nice and difficult, but so many variations are trivial that about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the effort of the critic in deciding between the readings.” The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid, that “the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design out of the whole lump of readings.” Despite all this, the true scholar must be completely fur- nished rightly to discriminate in the matter of diverse read- ings. From the very nature of the case it is probable that errors should be frequent in the New Testament. Even printed works are not free from them, as is seen in the most carefully edited editions of the English Bible; but in’ manu-- scripts they are increased in direct proportion to the number of various copies still extant. There are two classes of errors giving rise to various read- ings, unconscious or unintentional and conscious or intentional. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 45 Of the first class, that of unconscious errors, there are usually named five kinds: 1. Errors of the eye, where the sight of the copyist con- fuses letters or endings that are similar, writing, for example, € for C; O for 6; A for A or A; [I for TI; M1AN for TIAN; M for AA. Here should be named homeeoteleuton, which arises when two successive lines in a copy end with the same word or syllable, and the eye, catching the second line instead of the first, the copyist omits the intervening words, as in Codex C of John vi, 39. 2. Errors of the pen. Here are classed all that body of variations due to the miswriting by the penman of what lay correctly enough in his mind, but through carelessness he failed rightly to transfer to the new copy. Transpositions of similar letters has evidently occurred in Codices E, M, and H of Mark xiv, 65; also in Codex H, and Codex L, of Acts xiii, 23. 3. Errors of speech. Here are included those variations which have sprung from the habitual forms of speech to which the scribe in the particular case was accustomed, and which he, therefore, was inclined to write. Under this head ‘comes itacism, arising from the confusion of vowels and diphthongs, especially in dictation. Thus: ¢ is constantly written for e¢ and vice versa; a fore; 4 and for e&; 7 and ot for v; o for w; efor 7. It is observed that in Codex 8 we have scribal preference for ¢ alone, while in Codex B et is preferred. 4. Errors of memory. These are explained as having arisen from “the copyist holding a clause or sequence in his some- what treacherous memory between the glance at the manu- script to be copied and his writing down what he saw there.” ’ Here are classed the numerous petty changes in the order of 46 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS the words and the substitution of synonyms; as, el7ev for &p7; éx for 476, and vice versa. 5. Errors of judgment. Under this class Dr. Warfield cites “many misreadings of abbreviations, as also the adoption of marginal glosses into the text by which much of the most | striking corruption which has ever entered the text has been produced.” Notable instances of this type of error are found - in John v, 1-4, explaining how it happened that the waters of Bethesda were healing; John vii, 53 to viii, 12, the passage concerning the adulteress, and the last twelve verses of Mark. Turning to the second class, that of conscious or inten- tional crrors, we may tabulate: 1. Linguistic or rhetorical corrections, no doubt often made in entire good faith under the impression that an crror had previously crept into the text and needed correcting. Thus, second aorist terminations in a are changed to 0, and the like. 2. Historical corrections. Under this head is placed all that group of changes similar to the case in Mark i, 2, where the phrase “Isaiah, the prophet,’’ is changed into “‘the prophets.” 3. Harmonistic corrections. These are quite frequent in the Gospels; for example, the attempted assimilation of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke to the fuller form in Matthew, and quite possibly the addition of the words ‘‘of sin’”’ to the phrase in John viii, 34, “very one that doeth sin is a slave.” A certain group of harmonistic corruptions, where scribes allow the memory, perhaps unconsciously, to affect their writing, may rightly be classed under errors of memory, previously noted. in paragraph No. 4, on page 45. 4. Doctrinal corrections. Of these it is difficult to assert any unquestioned cases unless it be the celebrated trinitarian pas- sage, 1 John v, 7, 8", or the several passages in which fasting is coupled with prayer, as in Matt. xvii, 21; Mark ix, 29; Acts x, 30; and 1 Cor. vii, 5. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 47 5. Liturgical corrections. These are very common, espe- cially in the Lectionaries, as at the beginning of lessons, and are even found in early uncials, for example, Luke viii, 31; x, 23, and elsewhere. 48 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS CHAPTER III The Methods of Critical Procedure HERE, as in'other disciplines, ‘necessity is the mother of invention,” and the principles of critical procedure rest almost entirely on the data connected with the errors and discrepan- cies which have consciously or unconsciously crept into the text. The dictum of Dr. Salmon, that ‘God has at no time given his Church a text absolutely free from ambiguity’ is true warrant for free and continued inquiry into this attractive field of study. The process of textual criticism has gradually evolved cer- tain rules based upon judgments formed after patiently classifying and taking into account all the documentary evi- dence available both internally and externally. 1. An older reading is preferable to one later, since it is presumed to be nearer the original. However, mere age is no sure proof of purity, as it is now clear that very many of the corruptions of the text became current at an early date, so that in some cases it is found that later copies really represent the more ancient reading. 2. A more difficult reading, if well supported, is preferable to one that is easier, since it is the tendency of copyists to substitute an easy, well-known, and smooth reading for one that was harsh, unusual, and ungrammatical. This was commonly done with the best of intentions, the scribe sup- posing he was rendering a real service to truth. 3. A shorter is preferable to a longer reading, since here again the common tendency of scribes is toward additions and insertions rather than omissions. Hence arose, in the first OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 49 place, the marginal glosses and insertions between the lines which later transcribers incorporated into the text. Although this rule has been widely accepted, it must be applied with discrimination, in some cases a longer reading being clearly more in harmony with the style of the original, or the shorter having arisen from a case of homeotcleuton. 4. A reading is preferable, other things being equal, from which the origin of all alternative readings can most clearly be derived. This principle is at once of the utmost im- portance, and at the same time demands the most careful application. It is a sharp two-edged sword, dangerous alike to the user and his opponent. 5. A reading is preferable, says Scrivener, ‘which best suits the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of an au- thor, it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idio- syncrasics of the writer. Yet habit, or the love of critical correction, may sometimes lead the scribe to change the text to his author’s more usual style, as well as to depart from it through inadvertence, so that we may clearly apply the rule where the external evidence is not unequally balanced.” 6. A reading is preferable which reflects no doctrinal bias, whether orthodox, on the one side, or heretical on the other. This principle is so obvious that it is accepted on all sides, but in practice wide divergence arises, owing to the doctrinal bias of the critic himself. , These are the main canons of internal evidence. On the side of external evidence may be briefly summarized what has already been implied: 1. A more ancient reading is usually one that is supported by the more ancient manuscripts. 2. A reading which has the undoubted support of the earliest manuscripts, versions, and patristic writers is un- questionably original. 50 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS 3. A disagreement of early authorities usually indicates the existence of a corruption prior to them all. 4. Mere numerical preponderance of witnesses to a reading of any one class, locality, or time, is of comparative insig- nificance. 5. Great significance must be granted to the testimony in favor of a reading by witnesses from localities, or times widely apart, and it can only be satisfactorily met by a balancing agreement of witnesses also from different times and localities. These rules, though they are all excellent and each has been employed by different critics with good results, are now somewhat displaced, or, rather, supplemented by the applica- tion of a principle very widely used, though not discovered, by Westcott and Hort, known as the principle of genealogy of manuscripts. Inspection of the very broad range of witnesses to the New Testament text has led to their classification into groups and families, according to their prevailing errors, it being obvious that the greater the community of error the closer will be the relationship of witnesses. Although some of the terms used hy Westcott and Hort, as well as their content, have given rise to well-placed criticism, yet their grouping of manuscripts is so self-convincing that it bids fair, with but little modification, to hold, as it has done thus far, first place in the field. Sir Frederick G. Kenyon’ has so admirably stated the method that the gist of his account will be given, largely using his identical words. As in all scientific textual criticism, four steps are followed by Westcott and Hort: (1) The individual readings and the authorities for them are studied; (2) an estimate is formed of the character of the several authorities; (3) an effort is made 1 Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. F. G. Kenyon. te a ee, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 51 to group these authoritics as descendants of common ances- tors; and (4) the individual readings are again taken up and the first provisional estimate of their comparative probability revised in the light of the knowledge gained as to the value and interrelation of the several authorities. Applying these methods, four groups of texts emerge from the mass of early witnesses: 1. The Antiochian, or Syrian, the most popular of all, and that at the base of the Greek Textus Receptus and the Eng- lish Authorized Versions. In the Gospels the great uncials A and C support it, as well as N = and , most of the later uncials and almost: all minuscules, the Peshitto Syrian Ver- sion, and the bulk of the Church Fathers from Chrysostom. 2. The Neutral, a term giving rise to criticism on all sides, and by some displaced by the term ‘‘Egyptian.”” This group is small, but of high antiquity, including 8 B L T Z, A and C, save in the Gospels, the Coptic Versions, especially the Bohairic, and some of the minuscules, notably 33 and 81. 3. The Alexandrian, closely akin to the Neutral group, not found wholly in any one manuscript, but traceable in such manuscripts as N C L X, 33, and the Bohairic Version when they differ from the other members headed by B. 4. The Western, another term considered ambiguous, since it includes some important manuscripts and Fathers very ancient and very Eastern. Here belong DD,E,F,G, among the uncials, 28, 235, 383, 565, 614, 700, and 876 among the minuscules, the Old Syriac and Old Latin and sometimes the Sahidic Versions. Of these groups, by far the most superior, is the Neutral, though Westcott and Hort have made it so exclusively coin- cide with Codex B that they appear at times to have broken one of the great commandments of a philologist as quoted by Dr. Nestle from a German professor—“‘Thou shalt worship no Codices.”’ 52 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS Now, the only serious dispute centers on the apparent slight which this system may have done to the so-called Western type of texts in group four. The variants to this family are extensive and important, and appear due to an extremely free handling of the text at some early date when scribes felt them- selves at liberty to vary the language of the sacred books, and even to insert additional passages of considerable length. Although this type of text is of very early origin, and though prevalent in the East was very early carried to the West, and, being widely known there, has been called Western, yet because of the liberties above referred to, its critical value is not high save in the one field of omissions. In Egypt, how- ever, and especially Alexandria, just as in the case of the Old _ Testament, the text of the New Testament was critically considered and conserved, and doubtless the family called Neutral, as well as the Alexandrian, springs up here, and through close association with Czsarea becomes prevalent in Palestine, and is destined to prevail everywhere. The Westcott and Hort contention, that the Antiochian text arose as a formal attempt at repeated revision of the original text in Antioch, is not so convincing, but for want of a better theory still holds its place. Their objections, how- ever, to its characteristic readings are well taken and every- where accepted, even Von Soden practically agreeing here, though naming it the Kor text. It is also interesting to find that Von Soden’s Hesychian text so closely parallels the Neutral-Alexandrian above and his Jerusalem family the Western. And thus we arrive at the present consensus of opinion as to the genealogical source of the text of the New Testament. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 CHAPTER IV The History and Results of the Process ABUNDANT evidence exists, and is constantly growing, to show that critical opinion and methods were known at least from the very days of the formation of the New Testament canon. But we shall sketch the history only in modern times. The era of printing necessarily marked a new epoch here. Among available manuscripts choice must be made and a standard set, and, in view of the material at hand, it is re- markable how ably the work was done. It began in Spain under Cardinal Ximenes of Toledo, who printed at Alcala (Complutum) in 1514 the New Testament volume of his great Polyglot, though it was not actually issued until 1522. Meanwhile the great Erasmus, under patronage of Froben the printer, of Basel, had been preparing a Greck New Testa- ment, and it was published early in 1516 in a single volume and at low cost and had reached its third edition by 1522. His fourth edition of 1527 contains Erasmus’s Definitive Text, and besides using Cardinal Ximenes’s, had the advan- tage of minuscule manuscripts 1, 2, 3, and 4. The next important step was taken by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), whose third edition, Regia, a folio published in Paris in 1550, was a distinct advance, and, though based distinctly upon the work of Ximenes and Erasmus, had marginal readings from fifteen new manuscripts, one of which was Codex Beze (D). The learned Theodore Beza himself worked with Stephanus’s son Henri and brought out no less than nine editions of the New Testament, but no great critical advance was made in them. The same may be 54 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS said of the seven Elzevir editions brought out at Leyden and Amsterdam between 1624 and 1678, the second, that of 1633, in the preface of which occurs the phrase “Textum ergo habes nunc, ab omnibus receptum,” becoming the continental standard as the 1550 edition of Stephanus has for England. Thus we arrive at the Textus Receptus and the period of preparation is closed. ; The second period, or that.of discovery and research, was ushered in by the great London Polyglot of 1657, edited by Brian Walton (later Bishop of Chester), with collations by Archbishop Ussher, of fifteen fresh manuscripts, including Codex A and Codex 59. But Dr. John Mill, of Oxford, was the Erasmus of this period, and in 1707, after thirty years of | labor, brought out the Greek Textus Receptus with fresh collations of seventy-cight manuscripts, many versions, and quotations from the early Fathers. His manuscripts included A, B, D, E, K, 28, 33, 59, 69, 71, the Peshitto, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and his Prolegomena set a new standard for textual criticism. This apparatus was rightly appreciated by Richard Bentley, of Cambridge, and a revised text of the Greek and of the Vulgate New Testament was projected along lines which have prevailed until this day. The work and wide correspondence of Bentley had stirred up continental scholars, and J. A. Bengel published, in 1734, at Tiibingen, a Greek. New Testament with the first suggestion as to genealogical classification of manuscripts. J. J. Wetstein, of Basle and Amsterdam, though a very great collector of data and the author of the system of manuscript notation which has con- tinued ever since, made little critical advance. J. S. Semler, taking Wetstein’s material, began rightly to interpret it, and his pupil, J. J. Griesbach, carried the work still further, clearly ‘distinguishing for the first time a Western, an Alexandrian, and a Constantinopolitan recension. With Carl Lachmann began the last epoch in New Testament criticism, which has OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 succeeded in going behind the Textus Receptus and establish- ing an authentic text based on the most ancient sources. He applied the critical methods with which he was familiar in editing the classics, and with the help of P. Buttmann pro- duced an edition in 1842-50 which led the way directly toward the goal. But they were limited in materials and Tischendorf soon furnished these. G. F. C. Tischendorf, both as collector and editor, is the foremost man thus far in the field. His eighth edition, 1872, of the Greek New Testament, together with his Prolegomena, completed and published by C. R. Gregory, set a new standard. Dr. Gregory’s German edition of the Prolegomena (1900-09) supplemented by his Die Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (1908), marks the further advances of the master through his master pupil. Meanwhile 8S. P. Tregelles was doing almost as pro- digious and valuable a work in England, and thus preparing for the final advances at Cambridge. F. H. A. Scrivener also ranks high, and did extremely valuable though somewhat conservative work in the same direction. In 1881 ‘the greatest edition ever published,” according to Professor Souter, was brought out in England coincident with the Revised Version of the English New Testament. This, together with their introduction, which the same writer characterizes as “an achievement never surpassed in the scholarship of any country,’ was the joint product of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, friends and coworkers for many years in the University of Cambridge. Thus with the end of the nineteenth century the history of the process may be said to close, though both process and progress still advance with ever-increasing triumph. The present century has already received the earnest of what is destined to follow in this great field in the monumental work (Die Schrifien des Neuen Testa- ments in ihrer altesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt, auf Grund ihrer ‘Textgeschichte. Berlin, 1900-1912) of Dr. 56 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS Freiherr Von Soden, whose passing so recently has sorely bereft the New Testament world. Part I (Untersuchungen) of two thousand pages has already deeply influenced both thought and method in the entire world of criticism. His. fruitful life while Professor in the University of Berlin is only paralleled by that of Professor Dr. Caspar René Gregory, of the University of Leipzig, to whom we look with high expec- tation for what will probably be the definitive text of the Greek New Testament for generations to come. BNE =e at Mh tte * “ews : en icass amare ja ee yt ete a Plate Ill. St. Luke, from Drew MS. IX. 57 PART Il THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY Birt, T., Das antike Buchwesen. Berlin, 1882. Ebers, Georg, The Writing Material of Anti quity, Cosmopolit Magazine, New York, November, 1893. : —— Grenfell, B. P., and Hunt, A. 8., Sayings of Our Lord. Oxford, 1897. Hammond, C. E., Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament, . Fifth edition, revised. Oxford, 1900, ; Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquiti York, 1897. quities, New Harris, J. R., Stichometry. Cambridge and London, 1893, Johnston, H. W., Latin Manuscripts. Chicago, 1897. Kenyon, F. G., The Palwography of Greek Papyri. Oxford, 1899. Kenyon, F. G., Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament with 16 facsimiles. London, 1901. Madan, F., Books in Manuscript. London, 1893. Middleton, J. H., Mluminated Manuscripts in Classical and Medi- geval Times. Cambridge, 1892. Mitchell, E. C., The Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testa- ment. New and enlarged edition. New York, 1896, Montfaucon, B. de, Palaographie Greca, Paris, 1708. Nestle, Eberhard, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. London, 1901. Schaff, P., Companion to the Greek Testament and English Ver- sion. Fourth edition. New York, 1891. Scrivener, F. H. A,, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Fourth edition. London and New York, 1894. Silvestre, J. B., Universal Palwography. London, 1850, with plates. Taylor, Isanc, The History of the Alphabet. New edition. Lon- don, 1899. Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Palwography. London and New York, 1893. Tischendorf, C., Prolegomena to the Greek Testament, prepared by ©. R. Gregory and E. Abbot. Leipzig, 1884-04. Warfield, B. B., An Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Fourth thousand. New York, n. d. Wattenbach, W., Anleitung zur Griechischen Palwographie. Becond edition. Leipzig, 1877. Westwood, J. O., Palwographia Sacra Pictoria, London, n. d. Wilken, U., Tafeln zur wlteren Griechischen Palwographie. Leip- zig and Berlin, 1891. f 60 THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER | The Materials on which the Manuscripts were Written Tue Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, so far as known, were written on papyrus, parchment, or paper. The autographs, both of the historical and epistolary writers, are supposed to have been written on papyrus. The great uncial copies and the most valued of the minuscules and lectionaries were written on parchment, while paper was employed largely in the making of the later lectionaries and printed texts of the New Testament. Section J. Papyrus Papyrus (from tdrvpos, stalk) was a reed cultivated exten- sively in the delta of the Nile, and from about the time of the twenty-sixth dynasty (B. C. 664-525) it became a most impor- tant article of commerce. “Its use increased with surprising rapidity in consequence of the successful expeditions of Alexander the Great, introducing Greek culture into Asia’ aud Egypt. In all Hellenic states writing was now pursued with the greatest zeal, and everywhere on papyrus.”' It has 1 Ebers, Georg, ‘‘ The Writing Material of Antiquity,’ Cosmopolitan, Novem- ber, 1893. 61 62 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS now disappeared from its ancient home, but is found in Abyssinia and Nubia, and various parts of Sicily, especially in the vicinity of ancient Syracuse. Papyrus may also be studied in various botanical gardens and public parks in Europe and America, The plant is crowned with a grace- ful tuft of foliage, the stem is triangular and tapering in form, averaging three to six inches in diameter. At maturity it stands seven or eight feet high. Theophrastus, the suc- cessor of Aristotle, in charge of the Lyceum, in his history of plants (epi uray ‘lotopia, iv, 8, 3), describes the papyrus plant as growing along the Nile in water about two cubits (three feet) in depth, with a root as thick as a man’s arm, and of ten cubits (fifteen feet) or more in length. “The stalks (wdrvpot) ure about four cubits (six feet) in height and are of triangular shape. . . . The roots are used for firewood and for making various articles of furniture. The stalks are put to many uses. Boats are made from them, and from the BiBAoc, or pith, sails, mats, clothing, coverings, and ropes. The (Baia, or sheets made from PiBAv¢, are most familiar to people of other lands. Above all, this plant is useful as a means of subsistence, since the inhabitants chew it either raw, boiled, or roasted, drawing the juice and re- jecting the fiber.”? It was also used in the construction of light skiffs suitable for navigating the shallows of the Nile, and is doubtless referred to in Isaiah (xviii, 2), ‘‘ vessels of bul- rushes (papyrus, Rev. Ver.) upon the waters,” and in Exodus (ii, 8), “she took for him an ark of bulrushes” (papyrus, Rev. Ver., margin). Yet the younger Pliny, despite the fact that he evidently misunderstood and so misrepresented certain primary steps in the process, is the main source of our knowledge as to the manufacture of papyrus paper, or x¢pra¢ (compare 2 John 12). His chief error, as is now conceded on all hands, rests in the ‘Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, article “ Papyrus.” OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 fact that he considered the pith of the papyrus reed to be of a foliated nature, such ag might be separated and unrolled by means of a needle. “ The external part of the triangular stalk contains several very light and concentric skins, like the onion.” * On the contrary, papyrus pith is of a cellular or “fibro-vascular” tissue, and was divided into strips by the use of a sharp knife. These strips (oyidac) were cut as thin and as broad as possible and, according to sume, as long only as the joints would permit. This reed, however, being without joints there were no such limits. Those taken from the center of the stalk were the best, being widest. They were arranged vertically, side by side as closely as possible, their edges touching but not overlapping, upon a table to the required width, thus forming a layer (oyéda). This was moistened with paste, and across it at right angles another layer was placed. The whole was then soaked with water and pressed or beaten with a hammer into a substance very similar to paper. The sheets (seAideg) thus formed were again pressed, trimmed into uniform sizes, dried carefully in the sun, and finally polished down with a shell or piece of ivory. The breadth, thinness, toughness, whiteness, and simoothness of the sheets determined their relative value, as well as that of the finished roll. Pliny names nine different varicties of papyrus paper as known in his time,' The roll (réuo¢ or KvAcvdpoc) was formed by skillfully past- ing together a number of sheets at their lateral edges, thus forming a continuous strip whose right or face surface, ac- cording to Professor Wilken, invariably presented the lines of the fiber as running parallel with the length of the roll. “The page of the leaf on which the fibers run vertically is the reverse side. That which is written on the reverse side may either be the end of the writing, for which there was insuf- 3“ La Flore Pharonique,” V. Loret. See Cosmopolitan, November, 1893. ‘Pliny, Historia Natura, xiil, 71-88, Compare note 2, above. 2 64 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS ficient space on the principal page, or it may be a later addi- tion. Thonsands of papyri have confirmed this observation.” It follows that in cases where a papyrus document is in- scribed on both sides the writing on the face or horizontal side is the older; so that if the date of the writing on the re- verse or vertical side can be determined it may serve to settle, in a measure, the epoch of the original document, and vice versa. The first sheet of a roll (mpotéxoAAov) being on the outside and most subject to wear was of the best quality, while the last (¢oyatoxdAdov) was generally inferior, The average length of a roll, according to Birt, was thirty-nine feet, and according to Thompson twenty sheets, although there are Egyptian papyri extant as long as one hundred and forty feet. The inner end of the roll was fastened to a roller (cu@adéc) tipped with a simple button or ivory horn («épac), while the left or outer end was sometimes glued to a similar strip, either of wood or papyrus, for its better protection and handling. The top and bottom edges were smoothed will pumice stone and frequently stained, while the reverse side of the roll itself was often rubbed with cedar oil to preserve it from worms and moths. The title of the book was at- tached in the form of a parchment label (airrvBog or oidAvBoc) to the top edge of the inner sheet, and was thus easily exam-— ined without removing the roll from its leathern cover (dip9épa or parvddnc). The chest or box in which rolls were kept was known as the «orn or «Bwrdc.° Section II. ParcHMENT The use of parchment, in a more or less ernde state, prob- ably antedated that of papyrus, but its extensive manufacture and employment for literary purposes is usually traced to 5Ebers, Georg. See Cosmopolitan, November, 1893. : ¢Tbompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Puleography, p. 39. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 the rivalry which sprang up between Eunienes IT, King of Pergamum (197-159 B. C.), and the contemporary King of Egypt, Ptolemy Epiphanes. The account as given by Pliny, who quotes his predecessor Varro, narrates that Epiphanes desired out of jealousy to embarrass the project of Eumenes, who was a great book gatherer, in collecting a library at Pergamuin larger, if possible, than that at Alex- andria, Ile therefore forbade the sale of papyrus to his rival, and thereby caused the reintroduction and improvement of the skins of animals for bookmaking.’ ILence arose the term mepyaunvy, while peuGpdva (uddsota tac peuBpavac, 2 Tim. iv, 13), under Latin influence, came to be used as synonymous with the earlier terins dépua and dipbépa. The word owpdriov, often met with, properly had reference to the contents of a document, 76 owydriov being a manuscript capable of containing an entire work or corpus. Despite the fact that Pliny ascribes the invention of parch- ment to Eumenes, the records show that its use had been known to the Ionians for centuries, though it had been dis- placed by papyrus in Greece and Asia Minor, as well as in Egypt itself. In the latter country the use of skins was known as early as the time of Cheops. There is in the Brit- ish Museum a ritual roll of white leather which the librarian claims “may be dated about the year 2000 B.C.” The Ie- brews have always followed the custom of using parchment, and do so in their synagogue rolls to the present day. The same custom, moreover, prevailed among the ancient Persians, as is shown by the statement of Diodorus II, 32 (te trav BaoiAinav dipBépwr, év alc ol Tépoat tag mada npdtecc elyov ovetetaypévac)." During the early Christian centuries, however, papyrus was again alinost universally employed throughout the Med- ‘Pliny, Historia Natura, xiii, 120-179. 8Thoinpson, E. M., Mundbook of Greek and Latin Palkeogruphy, p. 35. 66 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS iterranean countries, its own inexpensiveness and the spirit. of conservatism possibly conducing to its wide popularity. Sir KE. M. Thompson says, “it was particularly the influence of the Christian Church that eventually carried vellum into the front rank of writing materials and in the end displaced papyrus. As papyrus had been thé principal material for receiving the thoughts of the pagan world, vellum was to be the great medium for conveying to mankind the literature ”° But the intrinsic superiority of of the new religion. parchment to papyrus must have been no small clement in determining its final rank. Its obvious durability as con- trasted with the fragile nature of papyrus ; the fact that both sides present equally good surfaces for writing, which was not the case with papyrus; that erasure could be effected without diftienlty, making it possible to use the eame parch- ment repeatedly, a process scarcely possible with papyrus ; _ together with the fact that it could be cut and bound up in the convenient codex (redxoc) form, after the manner of the two, three, and more leaved tablets (dimruya, tpinruxa, noddnrvya), a treatinent of which again papyrus was not easily susceptible, and finally, the advantage of greater economy in the matter of space, since more words could be clearly writ- ten in a line of the same length, and vastly more lines could be committed to the same expanse of surface, all played a practical part in the final selection of the fitter material. By the end of the third century, both in the Christian and pagan world, parchment had become the favorite material for receiving formal literature. When the emperor Con- stantine wished to supply the churches of his new capital with copies of the Bible, Eusebius states that he ordered him, the bishop at that time of Cwsarea, to prepare fifty copics on parchment (mevtijxovta owpdria ev dipBépatc).” ®Thompson, E. M., LMundbook of Greek and Latin Pulwography, p. 87. 10 Eusebius, Life of Cunstantine, \v, 86. Compare Thompson, ibid. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 67 Skins of goats, sheep, calves, pigs, asses, and antelopes were used in the manufacture of parchment, The term vellum, often used without discrimination, properly refers to the tiner qualities, while the ordinary term parchment generally designates the coarser varictics. The more ancient manuscripts are the finest, being thinner and whiter, as well as more smooth and glossy, than those of later times, which were usually coarser grained and frequently much discolored. Codex Sinaiticus is of the finest skins of antelopes, the leaves being so large that a single animal would furnish only two." Codex Vaticannus is also done on @ very superior quality of vellum. In the preparation of the skins fer writing, the points of chief importance were that all traces both of hair and flesh be removed and that they be evenly stretched, dried, ‘and filled. In the East the custom prevailed of sizing, with unslacked lime, while slacked lime, chalk, aiid in some cases brimstone were employed in the West. IHoles, unless quite small, were skillfully patched. The distinction be- tween the inner and outer side of the skin rarely disap- peared, even under the most careful treatment, the hair side being perceptibly the darker, and showing, in places; the points at the roots of the hair. It also took and retained the ink better than the flesh side, which, on the other hand, was lighter in color and more uniformly smooth. Sxorton III. Paper Writing paper was introduced into the West by the Arabs early in the eighth century. It had long been known in China and the middle East, but not until the capture of Samar- kand in Turkestan (704 A. D.) does it appear to have been known in Syria or Egypt. The name by which papyrus had "Scrivener, F. H A., In‘roduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 23. 68 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS been known, xdprys, came to be applied to paper, and being made of vegetable fiber it was also called gvAoydptiov and §vAdrevetov, From the considerable quantities which were manufactured at Damascus it became widely known in later times as xaptng Aapaonyjvy. Its name, xaprns BouBvnuvoc, arose from the supposition that it was made of cotton fiber, but according to recent researches by which many early samples have been analyzed it is found that hemp or flax was more frequently used than cotton, if indeed unmixed cotton were ever employed. Another widely received error is that which distinguishes oriental paper, as being cotton, from western or linen paper. A more accurate distinction is based on the watermarks which are found in European paper, whereas they are unknown in the East. The manufacture of paper in Europe began under the Moors in Spain, where it was called “ pergameno de panno,” parchinent of cloth, as dis- tinguished from “pergameno de cuero,” or parchment of skin.” It is interesting to note that the first European coun- try to inanufacture paper should also be the birthplace of the first printed Greek Testament, and that Xativa Valencia, Toledo, the city where it was first manufactured, was the seat of the bishopric of Cardinal Ximenes. The Arabs also introduced it into Sicily, aud from thence it soon crossed to the Italian peninsula and is known to have » been an article of export from Genoa as early as 1235, and as manufactured at Padua, Florence, Bologna, Venice, Milan, and other Italian cities in the following century. The striking similarity of early European paper to parch- ment has led to many mistakes on the part of palwographers, perhaps the most curions of which concerns the celebrated fragments of the Gospel of Mark now preserved in Venice. The Benedictine monks, in whose monastery they are kept, declared they were written on bark; Montfaucon, that they 19Thompson. E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Puleography, p. 44. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 were written on papyrus; Maffei, that they were written on cotton paper, while the microscope reveals that they were, in reality, written upon parchinent.” Paper did not come into general use throughout Europe until the second half of the fourteenth ceutury, but by the time that printing with movable types had become established paper had almost entirely displaced the use of parchiment. Perhaps the best known example of the use of paper in a biblical manuscript is that of the Codex Leicestrensis, “ com- posed of a mixture of inferior vellum and worse paper reg- ularly arranged in the proportion of two parchinent to three paper leaves, recurring alternately throughout the whole volume.” ™ 18 Bucyclynedia Britannica, article “ Paper.” Scrivener, F. MH. A., Jntroduction to the Criticis of the New Testament, vol, 1, p. 24. 70 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS CHAPTER II The Instruments with which the Manuscripts were Written Seorion I. Pens For writing upon papyrus the instrument commonly used was the hollow reed pen (kdAapoc, 3 John 18). It was cut to a point and split like a quill even in the earliest times. A fine pointed brush («ovdiacov) was not infrequently used, especially in Egypt, both for writing and illuminating. Other names for reed pens are oyoivoc and dévat ypadevc."* For parchment or vellum pens both of reed and of metal were early used; quills, being first mentioned by Bishop Isidorus, of Seville (560-636 A. D.), “cannot have been known to the classic writers.” "* Specimens of silver and bronze pens, almost identical in shape with those now used, yet of a single piece with the handle, are being constantly discovered in both Greek and Roman tombs of the period immediately before and after the Christian epoch. Secrion II. Inxs Ordinary black ink, ypagexov péAav or peAdvov, was nade of vegetable soot, mixed with a gummy medium and then molded into shape and dried like “India ink.” It thus required to be rubbed up freshly with water when used; a menial task, 7d péAay tpiBwv, which young Atschines was accustomed to perform in his father’s school.” 46 Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Tuleography, p. 49. 1’ Johnston, H. W., Latin Manuscripts, p.17. Compare Thompson’s Hand- book, p. 50; also, Middleton, J. H., IUluminated Manuscripts, p. 30. “41Demosthenes, De Corona. Compare Middleton’s Illuminated Manuscripts, p. 28, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 71 A more lasting ink was in vogue during the first Christian century, as was shown by its discuvery, still in a liquid state, at Pompeii and in use npon the Herculaneum rolls. This was made much as the best writing fluid is to-day, with the use of nutgalls, sulphate of iron, and gum. The price of ink, presumably of the former kind, in Dioclettan’s edict Tlept kaddpwv nal pedAaviov, was fixed at twelve sinall copper coins per pound, while that of reed pens varied widely with their: quality.” Red ink, peadvov xéxxevov, was early and commonly used, both on papyrus and parchment, in headings, first lines, titles, and marginal notes; hence the term rubrics. The more ex- pensive vermilion ink, péArog, was not ordinarily employed, the far cheaper red ochre, piAtog Levies, being more com- monly used. A sort of royal purple ink, «evvdBapec, was employed in Byzantium and even earlier to a limited extent, on specially prized manuscripts, and the purple-stained vellum written in gold or silver was known as early as the third century, while of the sixth century notable examples of the Greek Gospels are Codex Rossanensis and Codex Cottonensis. Seorion III. Orner Insrruments |For sharpening the reed and for scraping off errors and blots from parchment the knife, oiAn, yavoic, yAvpavor, or yAvntip, was used. While the ink was still fresh it could be removed from papyrus with asponge. After the copy was thorouglily dried, the writing on papyrus remained, as a rule, the texture of the roll not permitting the use of a knife for its erasure. The ease in which the reeds, brushes, and pens were kept was the «adapic or KadapoO7jnn. 18 Madan, F., Buoks in Manuscript, p. 16. Middleton, J. UL, WUraninated Manescripts, etc., pp. 28, 30. 72 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS In Egypt, combined brush cases and palettes have been found consisting of “long slips of wood, partly hollowed to hold the brushes and with two cuplike sinkings at one end for the writer to rub up his cakes of black and red ink.” ” They were also made of bronze. For fluid inks bronze cylinders, pedavddyn, pedavdoyor, pedavdoxeiov, single or double, were used, each with a lid which was often pierced with a small hole for the insertion of the pen. The inkhorn was widely used in later and mediseval times. As the horizontal fibrous lines of the material were dis- tinctly visible on the right or face side of papyrus, ruling was not generally necessary. A circular piece of lead, cvxdotepie pOABSoc, Tpoyderc bALBdoc, KvKACLOALBdoc, was, however, ocea- sionally used for ruling papyrus.” For parchment the ruler was called the xavay, The dividers or compasses, dtaBdtn¢, were used for spacing the lines, and the bodkin, or oriAoc, for drawing them in connection with the ruler. The Greek lead pencil, ~éAvBdoc, was formed by sharpen- ing a piece of graphite or lead to a point. 9 Middleton, J. H., Illuminated Manuscripts, etc., p. 30. %1Thompson, E, M., Handbouk of Greek and Latin Pulwoyraphy, p. 58. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 CHAPTER III The Forms in which the Manuscripts are Preserved Section I. Tue Rote Ir has already appeared (p. 63) that papyrus manuscripts took most readily the roll form. The only additional facts to be noted are that it engaged both hands to manipulate the roll in reading, the right unrolling, elAeiy, éAiooety, esedetv, dvediooetv, while the left rolled up, and that when the read- ing was done it was necessary to roll the document back tightly upon the dupadoc, the reader “holding the roll be- neath his chin and turning with both hands.” ” The writing was done, as a rule, in parallel columns, at right angles with the length of the roll, of lines averaging thirty-eight letters, so that in reading seven or eight columns were ordiparily exposed to the reader’s eye. As some of the earliest codices upon parchment are writ- ten in narrow columns, three or four to the page, so that when open to the reader they presented six or eiglt col- uns respectively to view, it has been thought, other things being equal, that the codices having the larger number of columns to the page possess the greater antiquity, the fashion having risen in imitation of the older papyrus rolls. Thus Co- dex Sinaiticus and a beautiful exemplar of a Psalter mentioned by Dr. Scrivener have four columns on a page ;* while Codex Vaticanus, the Milan fragment of Genesis, two copies of the Samaritan Pentatench at Nablous, the last part of Evan, 429, and a number of other Lebrew, Greck, and Latin manuscripts are arranged in three columns.” Codex Alexandrinus, of 9 Johnston, H. W., Latin Manuscripts, p. 19. %3 Scrivener, F. H. A., Jntroduction, vol. 1, p. 28, note. 94 Tbid, 74 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS the sixth century, has two columns to the page, as well as num- - berless minor codices for the next thousand years; and even in printed works down to the present century the enstom has prevailed, especially, it would seem, in the printing of Bibles. Section II. Tus Coprx The codex, or book of parchment, was far less simple in its construction than the papyrus roll. The structural unit of the codex, from the earliest times, has been the quire of four sheets, tetpd¢ or tetpddiov, which when folded once made eight leaves or sixteen pages. Per- haps the most notable exception to this form is that of Codex Vaticanus, which is made up of quires of five sheets or ten leaves and twenty pages. There are also examples of quires of three sheets aud a few sporadic cases ranging as high as ten sheets to the quire. Great care was exercised in making up the quires that the flesh and hair side of the parchment should not face one another. The flesh side presenting, as we have seen, the lighter and fairer surface, the first sheet in Greek manu- scripts was, as a rule, laid flesh side down. This would bring the darker, hair side uppermost, and the second sheet was therefore placed with the hair side down, the third sheet as the first, and the fourth as the second. Thus, when the quires were bound up, no matter where the book was opened, the colors of every two adjacent pages would be alike. The practical value of bearing in mind this rule is apparent not only in the process of rearranging a disordered manuscript, but in detecting, at a glance, the loss of a sheet from one otherwise apparently perfect. In the Greek Codex Alexandrinus and in most Latin mannscripts this rule is modified by uniformly beginning the quires with the hair side of the skin outermost. Ruling was necessary in the case of parchment, and was OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 done before the sheets were made up into quires, and gener- ally on the hair side of the skin only, as the pressure of the bodkin was sufticient to make the lines appear on the reverse side; indeed, to save the trouble of repeated measurements, two or more sheets were often laid the one upon the other and ruled together, As the slieets were not yet broken into pages the horizontal ruling ran clear across them, thus making the page lines uniform in number and spacing. Vertical lines were also drawn to confine the columns of writing, laterally. Sxorion III. Pacmrsxsrs After the fall of Rome the expense of procuring vellum and the decline of literary interest in previous authors led to the custom of washing or scraping off the original writing from many choice bouks and using their pages anew. Such a manuscript was called a palimpsest, taAipypqoroc, and several authentic cases are extant where this process was repeated, making what is called a double palimpsest. So common did this custom become in the Eastern empire that the Greek Church was compelled at the end of the seventh century to forbid such destruction of manuscripts of the Scriptures or of the Church fathers, imperfect or injured volumes excepted.” No less than eight valuable and ancient uncials of the New Testament are palimpsests, the most notable being Codex Ephraemi, of the National Library in Paris. % Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Puleography, p. 76. 76 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS CHAPTER IV The Methods of Marking and Measuring the Manuscripts Seorton I. Punorvation In the making of early uncial manuscripts the custom commonly prevailed of writing a continuous text, there being neither distinction of words nor separation of sentences. A method of distinguishing paragraphs, however, is found in carly manuscripts, both on papyrus and parchment. A dividing stroke or dash (—), called tapdypagpoc, was used to mark the termination of paragraphs, being inserted, as a tule, at the beginning of the following line, the text itself remaining continuous, or in some cases broken only by a short space between paragraphs, The d:Aq or wedge >, and kopwvic ur full stop 7, were also,frequently used as paragraph marks, These methods of marking paragraphs were afterward dis- placed by the fashion of enlarging and projecting beyond the margin the first letter of the next full line following the break, and this irrespective of its being an initial letter or not. This.system prevails in Codex Alexandrinus. The same Codex also illustrates the usage of two other marks in punctuation of biblical texts, namely, the orcyy7 tedeta or high point, placed on the level with the top of the letters to mark the full stop or period, and the oreypi péon, placed opposite the middle line of the letter and equivalent to a slight stop or comma. The broorryp7, a point on the lower level of the line to signify a pause midway between these two and equivalent to a semicolon, was adopted a little later. Both Codex Sinaitiens and Codex Vaticanus make occasional use of the short space and of the orryyq tedeia to mark a pause in OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 77 the sense, while Codex Basiliensis is a good example of the use of all three points named. To mark the end of a para- graph or chapter the custom widely prevailed of using the napdypagoc in combination with two or more dots (:, :-, .*.)."* The Greek mark of interrogation, or semicolon, first came into vogue at the end of the eighth century, and the comma used to mark a slight pause, a little later. The comma placed above a letter in the character of the apostrophe occurs in the oldest uncials, especially after proper names, and in Codex Bezaw and some others it as- sumes the shape of the d:Aq or wedge, rather than that of the comma.” Secrion II. Accents anp BreatHines The Greek system of accents, punctuation, and breathings is attributed to the invention of Aristophanes of Byzantium, who flourished during the latter half of the third century, as a part of his Aéa mpoowdiac. The Greek name for accents was tévo, und they were divided into the grave, Bapeta, or ordinary tone; the acute, déeia, or rising voice, and the circumflex, d&vBapeia or neptonupéyn, Which combined both a rise and fall or slide of the voice. Although accents were not applied with systematic accu- racy to Greek texts before the seventh century, many of our earliest New Testament manuscripts have been embellished with them by scribes since that time, and several cases of their introduction at first hand are. preserved on early papyrus as well as parchment manuscripts. As the function of accents, however, is not such as to finally determine questions of interpretation, but rather to assist the public reader, only slight critical assistance can be 36 Thompson, E. M., J/andbuok of Greek and Latin Ruleography, p. 70. ® Scrivener, F. H. A., Jutroduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. {, p. 49. 78 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS looked for from this source. Of breathings, mvevuata, more can be expected, since the rough breathing, in particular, is an essential portion of the language and represents the loss of a real letter.” The entire controversy as to the standing of avrod and its cognates in the New Testament is an ex- ample in point.” The original aspirate H is reflected in the sign of the rough breathing F and of the smooth breathing 4 respect- ively, still preserved in some of the old manuscripts. These forms gradually became simplified into 2 and 4, and finally took the curved shape of later usage, that is, ' and ’. Seotion III. Axpreviarions anp Contractions These terms are used in the sense employed by Sir E. M. Thompson: the former, “for the shortening of a word by suppressing its termination,” and the latter “for the shorten- ing of a word by omitting letters from the body.” ” In the oldest Greek papyri abbreviation is quite common, so that the tendency to avoid the labor of rewriting words of frequent occurrence existed long before the expense either of the labor or the material employed brought the custom into universal use. In sacred manuscripts of the earliest date, the various naines and titles of the Deity,as well as those of familiar places and houseliold use, were shortened by the omission of the middle letters and the use of a horizontal stroke above the word. For example, @C stands for eds, XC for Xpiotéc, KC for Kuptoc, IC for ‘Iqoovc, YC for 'Yedc, TIP for Tldrnp, MP for Mijrnp, CHP for Zwr7p, INA for Iveta, MAD for Aavid, THA for ‘Iopa7a, ete. % Scrivener, F. H. A., Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 46. 2% Horne, T. H., Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, vol. iv, p. 88. % Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Puleography, p. 86, note. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 79 On the other hand, examples of real abbreviation are To for "lwévyng, Ao for Aovadc, and the like. The omission of v at the end of a linc was uniformly in dicated by a straight stroke over the last remaining letter. Seorion IV, Sricnomerry The custom of measuring manuscripts, both of prose and poetry, by the use of the émo¢g or arixoc, the average hexameter_ line, prevailed from the carliest period of Greck literature. The normal use of the term oréyoe makes it refer to the number of syllables rather than the number either of words or Ictters in the line, although there is evidence that the process stands midway between “letter-by-letter writing” and “a transcription word-by-word.” ™ The title orivog tpwikde and Erog éédépetpov point in the same direction. This stichometrie device was employed in deter- mining the sale price of works, the wage scale of copyists, and the location of particular passages. By writing a manuscript oreynpd¢ and counting and record- ing the number of lines, both the market price of the copy and the wage of the copyist could be ganged. A standard thereby being set and the number of otixoe registered, * sub- sequent copies could be made in any form at the pleasure of the seribe, who need only enter the ascertained number of lines at the end of his work. Thus in practice we find pa pyri and early vellum manuscripts written in narrow columns, the lines of which by no ineans correspond in length with the regulation orfyot, but which were more easily read without tiring the eye.” ” Froin the tariff contained in the edict of Diocletian Dr. J. Rendel Harris calculates the cost of production of the com- plete volume of which Codex Sinaiticus forms a part at "Harris, J. Rendel, Stichometry, p. 9. 3Thompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Puleography, p. 80. 3 ‘ 80 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS approximately one hundred and eighty dollara, the cost of velluin being included.” Besides recording the number of otixo: contained in a work at the end of the book, the custom appears to have pre- vailed among librarians, as at Alexandria, of entering the number of orixoe along with the title in their catalogues. They also marked the number of lines at every fiftieth or hundredth line, in their copy of the book for the purpose ostensibly of literary reference.” 38 Harris, J. Rendel, Stichometry, p. 27. Johnston, H. W., Latin Munuscripts, p. 32, OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 81 CHAPTER V The Origin and Forms of the Greek Alphabet Setorion I. Oxigin Tur Latin alphabet is the literary alphabet of modern Christendom and divides with the Arabie any claim to cos- mnopolitan extension, while its present rapid diffusion promises to make it the ultimate literary vehicle of iman- kind. The Latin is the direct descendant of the old Attic or Chalcidian type of the Greek alphabet which was brought to Italy as early as the eighth or ninth century B.C. through the colony of Cums, which tradition las named as the earliest Greek settlement in the Italian peninsula.” The Greek alphabet was derived from the primitive Phavnician, as the term Powxjia ypaypara, the ancient name of Greek letters implies, although there are also traces of a certain Arammean influence, as appears froin the names of the letters themselves. Tt will be noticed that the names of the Greek letters commonly end in the final vowel called the “ Emphatie Aleph,” and which Dr. Isaac Taylor derives from the post-fixed article characteristic of the Aramean idiom. Otherwise the Greek names are maintestly descended from their Semitic prototypes, Alpha from Aleph, Beta from Beth, and so on. In either case the origin of the Greek alphabet as clearly Semitic is now abundantly proved by the evidence of epigraphic and numismatic material. A peculiar indica- tion of the probable dependence of Greek upon Pheenician letters is the fact that the earliest Greek inscriptions are written after the Semitic fashion, from right to left. Then 4 Taylor, Isauc, The History of’ the Alphabet, vol. ti, p. 136. % Thompson, E. M., Hundbock of Greek aud Latin Pueography, p. 10. 82 ' THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS followed a period when the lines proceed alternately from right to left and from left to right, as an oriental ox turns back and forth in plowing a field. This was called Bovotpo- gndov or plow-wise writing. Finally about the sixth century B. C. the more convenient practice of writing all the lines from left to right became generally prevalent. The further question of the source of the Phoenician or Semitic alphabet is one that has been variously answered, Dr. Eduard Meyer tracing it back to that of the Hittites; Dr. Hommel, and Dr. Deecke, to the cuneiform Assyrian, while many eminent scholars agree that the hieratic Egyp- tian is more probably its immediate predecessor. Even the hieroglyphic cartouche of King Sent or Send, of the second dynasty, is made up of three capital consonants in practically the same form that they have kept in the Phcenician, Greek, Latin, and English alphabets during the sixty-five and more centuries since they were inscribed, while the cursive eharac- _ ters found in the hieratic document known as the Papyrus Prisse, and dating perhaps two thousand years later, farnish abundant evidence for the contention of those who trace the Semitic alphabet to Egypt. Thus the prolific Nile valley has produced not only the papyrus roll and the pen, but the letters as well of classic and of Christian civilization. Seotion IT. Carirats Tue classification of the various forms of the letters in Greek manuscripts must, in the nature of the case, be arbit- rary, since capital, uncial, minuscule, and cursive, mingle and interchange with true literary inconsistency in documents of the same period and even in those proceeding from the hand of the same ecribe. Moreover the terminology of the subject has become singularly involved, the early and widely received division of manuscripts into uncial and cursive being peculiarly faulty, both becanse the terms themselves are in no sense courdinate and because there exists from the OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 83 earliest times a script which may be described as a cursive- uncial, on the one hand, and an archaic, carefully executed - minuscule script, by no means cursive in character, on the other. It is, of course, true that nu important manuscript of the New Testament is written either in a distinctively capital or a distinctively cursive hand. Capitals were invented and at first largely employed for the inscription of brief data upon hard substances, as rock, brick, pottery, coins, metals, ivory, shell, and horn. Their forms, therefore, are angular and comparatively stable and are often called lapidary forme. These capital letters are the direct source of the early uncial or book hands, and have themselves continued to be used in their most archaic shapes, in titles and superscriptions down to the present time. The inscription here reproduced from the Jerusalem Stele, a tablet which is supposed to have stood as a warning upon the barrier or fence dividing the inner court from the court of the Gentiles, in the Herodian Temple, furnishes interesting illustration of the lapidary Greek alphabet of New Testament times. MHOENAAAAOFENHEIZNO PEYEZOAIENTOX TOYNE PIT OIEPONTPY®AKTOYKAI MEPIBOAOY OLAANAH @OHEAY TQIAITIOLES TAIAIAT OE =AKOAOY OEINOANATON. 84 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS Secrion III. Unciars We have in Plates II to VII inclusive facsimiles of the chief uncial types of New Testament manuscripts. These are evidently the work of professional scribes and probably illustrate the best period of uncial activity as far as the Scriptures are concerned, being fully equal to the best manuscripts of classie Greek writers, whether contemporary or otherwise. It is often remarked that Homer in the Greek world, Virgil in the Latin world and the Bible in the world of Christian literature were published with a uniformity of care and elegance to which no other works could aspire, in- deed, so great was the respect of ancient copyists for these three classics that there are comparatively few manuscripts known of them written in a strictly cursive character, “The term uncial, which dates from the time of St. Jerome, .. . arose out of a misconception, uncial letters not being necessarily so very large and rarely an incl in height, as the name implies. It denotes a majuscule script in which the letters are nut so square or so upright as in the lapidary alphabets. The forms are somewhat rounded and have usually a slight inclination of the vertical strokes, the differfuce being mainly due to the nature of the writing material—papyrus or parchment instead of stone or metal.” ” There is considerable difference again as between the uncials upon papyrus and those upon parehinent. Although the line of descent and dependence of the latter is directly traceable to the former, and although “the general result of the progress of any form of writing through a number of centuries is decadence and not improvement,” yet, “ in the case of the uncial writing of the early codices there is im- provement and not decadence.” This, as Dr. Thompson suggests, is doubtless chiefly due to the change of material, " Taylor, Isaac, The History of the Alphabet, vol. ii, p. 148. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 85 the superior surface of the vellum furnishing the scribe’ “greater scupe for displaying his skill” than did that of papyrus. So that “there appears to have been a period of renaissance with the general introduction of vellum as the ordinary writing material.” ™ The Oxyrhynchus papyrus (plate II), although it is written in codex, and not roll form, and utilizes the verso as well as the recto side of the sheet, and although it contains a few conventional word contractions, as IC (line 5), OY (line 8), TPA (line 11) and ANQN (line 19) and the peculiar > shaped character to fill out the lengths of the shorter lines (for example, lines 3, 10, 17 and 18), nevertheless probably belongs to the earlier half of the second eeutnry and preserves a very pure type of the so-called Roman uncial hand of that period.” This papyrus fragment is of so much higher antiquity, as well as paleographical valne, to that of the first chapter of Matthew, found at the same time and place, that it is in- serted in preference to the latter despite the fact that it ean- not be strictly classed as canonical Scripture. The simplicity, dignity, and regularity of this hand when compared with the great vellum uncials following confirms the contention of Dr. Kenyon that the paleography of Greek papyri anticipated in its development the subsequent history of writing upon vellum, so that the corresponding styles of writing on the two materials are not contemporary, but are separated by sume centuries of time. The “five great uncials” on parchment which are illus- trated in plates III-VII have been so often and sv fully discussed elsewhere that there remains little to suggest save that the student cultivate a very close acquaintance with them, 38Thompson, E. M., f/audbook of Greck and Latin Puleography, p. 149, 3% Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of Our Lord, p. 6. 40 Kenyon, F.C., The Pulweoyraphy of Greck Paupyri, p. 88. 86 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS Section 1V. Muinuscuuxs Minuscule manuscripts of the New Testament outnumber those in uncial hand twenty to one, and although they all date, in their extant form, later than the eighth century, yet the possibility is now generally recognized that they may, in sume cases, reflect a text of as high antiquity as that preserved in the majority of uneials. Greater respect is now being paid to this class of manuseripts than in the days of Tregelles and the earlier text critics, and their careful collation is pro- ducing abundant material to warrant the labor involved. The minuscule is the most nearly perfect book hand that has ever been invented, combining the elements of legibility and dignity inherent in the literary uncial with those of grace and more rapid execution characteristic of the nonliterary cursive. As their name implics, the letters of this hand are some- what smaller in size than their predecessors, yet at the same time they show a marked tendency to extend themselves either above or below the normal line of the text as well as to reach ont laterally, asin cursive writing, and join together by the use of ligatures. The twofold origin of the minuscule from a combination of the uncial and cursive hands is seen in the Table of Alphabets at the end of this chapter, where it will be noted that in nearly every case of the duplicate letters in the miniscule columns one, is clearly derived from the corresponding uncial and the other from the cursive form. Another interesting peculiarity of minuscule script is the fact that these diversely derived forms of the same letter are often found side by side upon the same page and even in the spelling of a single word. The perfection of Greek minuscule writing upon vellum was attained, according to Dr. Kenyon, in the tenth century, and continued, as a type for biblical scribes, fully three hun- dred years. It had been distinctly anticipated in the cursive OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 87 hand prevailing in nonliterary papyri in Egypt as early as the seventh century," and thus again, as in the case of the lineage of Greek uncial letters, we tind the minuscules trac- ing their descent back to the land of the Nile. OF the eight New Testament minuscules in the Drew col- lection three may be classed as eleventh century and four as twelfth century manuscripts, while the latest is dated in the colophon of the scribe at the year 1366 and 1369, A. D, From this facet as well as from their facsimiles it will be seen that they belong as a whole to the earlier aud better period of the minuscule art. As to contents, it is possibly worth noting that the three eleventh century documents (plates, X, XI, XIT) are codices of the gospels, either in whole or in part; the four of the twelfth century (plates LX, XIII, XIV, XV) are sumptuous lectionaries of the gospels, and the last contains the Pauline epistles. For the study of the minuscule text of the gospels, therefore, this collection furnishes an apparatus not often ex- celled by single libraries even in Europe. 41 Kenyon, F.C., The Puleoyraphy of Greek Pupyn, p. 125. Compare Wilcken, U., Tufeln zur aclleren Griechischen Paleoyraphie, Vorwort. TABLE*®GREEK ALPHABETS Umea MWirrwnd le, ; & TFAOTI OHS ERY PO MHC SPVORE CE XO LAWS O7I OK CUNO OH WP iar S > Jow tty e-orn asose Gowt bpA~erPly mpxag JOMZX>R-OIN OP IR} TOMZTSAAOIN Bhrwy 1°RD vOXZZrA- XZNAMVO es DEX OT IAvOT TOME RVOUH* DIA D RQ < ey ¢ z LY | & NOTES ON THE TABLE OF ALPHABETS From the Table of Alphabets it will be observed : 1. That the complete number of letters in the capital columns of the Greck alphabet is twenty-seven, Fau or Digamma and San or Sampi and Koppa being found in the earlier writings, then gradually becom- ing obsolete in classic times, ulthough throughout the period of Hel- lenistic and later Greek they still survived in the numerical system which required the full complement of twenty-seven letters. The need for this number arose from the fact that the alphabet was divided into three groups of uine letters cach, the first doing duty for the units, the second for the tens, and the third for the hundreds. Thus a very simple system of notation for all numbers up to 999 was furnished, while at the same time three very important links in the development of Greek letters was preserved. 2. That the lineal descent of the first twenty-two Greek letters from the Semitic alphabet 1s best appreciated by comparing columns one aud two, in the latter of which the Greck Ictters are written from right to left, as they are found in the first epoch of the written language. 3. That the Latin alphabet is even more restricted in its lineal de. pendence upon the Semitic than the Greck itself, all of its letters, if we accept the opinion of leading Latin authorities, that U, W, and Y, as well as F and V are finally traceable to waw, having descended from the original twenty-two of the Phoenicians. Moreover, in case we trace the Latin C to the Greek Sigma, and the Greek Sigma and Latin S$ to San or Sampi, and the Latin G to Gimel, as there appears reason to some for doing, there remains only the single Semitic letter Teth [the Greek Theta] which has not its living witness in the Latin alphabet of to-day. Probably the main reason for this remarkable similarity between the Latin and Phonician letters is the acknowledged fact that the chiet Greek colonies in Italy, namely, those which became the foundation of Roman civilization, were founded by the Eubaans or Chaleidians, whe reflected in turn the Eastern or older forms of the Greek alphabet, 89 ADDITIONAL PLATES 91 sha wea aa Plate IV. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus. 2 KC TCAC ATTORCON Y ANCONTIAPAAUD COYCINIAPY MX CICCYNCAPIAKAL CN IAICOYNATOD PAICAY TOONMAID MDCOYUINY Ms RATCHET OG MONK * AGC KRAIKACIAICA | KOH COOAMENC KONO MOYCICMY | CIV RIORN AY TOOK we TOROCONCOING, SR OTANACTIAPAAGD T o¥MACMIIMC PIMA CHUTE TICO CHE TIAA ANIC HO AOOHCE TAT APY MINONG mo KIN PED RICOpPATIAN — ANCE PCOYPApY MIC CHEOLAARY PEC AAAMIOLINA POY TIPOCYMODNE ALRAOYNONYME LIAPAACDIOC VACA ACAPOCKAC AS ® CIC OKRN ATONKAL HP IO KNONWKAY CHUAN ACTHICON (RIT OKNACIIDE , NICKAIOANATOD , COYOINAY LUOTly ee COCO MICOYME NOMOHAN TaD ALALOONOMAMYT OAC YILOMIN ATE POAQOCOY FOC OIC CP AIOI ANA AICO KOC TN YM CNT IHEELOAT LAY yet 4s Yc VALCHCTHN TOPAN AMINE APACE ODY ' MINOYMILICA 2 CUE CO TACHIOAEET HHIACCDCTAOHO y YOLOVYANOYOYN 1 GHINMAGETEEECY ae rea) . A : ‘ w ft Wree en He PIONATAAC RA AON AY LOYOYAC KROYAOQECYEIOP LON IWNAY DOYAPRKE Io POM AOE EEIN AL NEP PAT CIC OATA RDS AOU Y LOVIK SION — AOCCCOMOI 107 YC ION OPROACE Phe KOO ZO KOYACHIORA ACOANTORIOCOD MAAAON TOYO OH KIAKOYOAY boy OYNWVOK HONE YK AY bOye OYAC NIA? COCTINKOKAAYM MO NONOOYICAH- IKAAY OTE C HE KAD PY HE TONOOT: YT ENDO CHIcCeree " ACLODYMINONIDN CIO PIACTIDAIOON Hed spa PLOOYCAROY OTC In . PYOALC CUI OD NA ALON KADM Tip. Ki CO APIO CLINA HOR TONNON TOD PON CIDP ADEN AC XTINMILAY NAME | NODNATIOR TINA ORICOCAG MARK ONAYNAMEOENON RAT chin KATE CODMAATION CCC HOONNIFOY XING CPPOYOPACOAPLY PICUIAC TIO KATONG LAT HOD NOHO INC PUI REEINITINAN CY SOVEIPOYMODN YMCONAC I AIATIP KEE PEK saat HIACATOIpROMIIM: NOCICENMIIOYN © POKICOCTIOAAGD PP POYOIOINAT - eels CARY MIC HIK oie OY NOC FICOMON? WIIOX DIAAN TAME PHCICONCMOIOM (TW OACKOMENOCHIB : HPOCOCNTCONAN OMOADE PEC ODICA fee NAY HDC Mp COON DOLE OMA HOE NOY PAN OL OC THO AAN APNE [Aime CMEIPOCON “TODNANCONAPNE COMCEBRALCDATIO CMIEEPOCOOCN TOT IPC MOYIOYUNGY Y PANOLOMIINOMI “CU IALOTIAQONE PUINtiN KAADNGH PRINT HNOY KU KAADNIPD ON DEN AANS MAXATPAN II AOU PAJAIXAC ALANON WAL AL OYTIAT POOKY LOY KALOY PALO PA KAIAD HTC MEET Poo AYITICKAINYMApn KRALADIEC HONGO PAC AY LED KATO OPOVLOPAN Oyo OIRTAKOLAY LOT OGZTACD NEE PAHIADS Jie fomeEeayree HINMPYyAsIO’ RaTOpINDN YEN HOTA PAIL peMCOYKOE CHIN MOYARS LOCKALOU OYAAM KANTION CIAYPONAY LOY KATAKOAOY ONO Hie CDMOYOYRKE CUINMOYVALIO’ ¢ OATPOAC CAC THIN YXUIN AY POYON IKONOMOYCYPIES ATIIN YORK XOMENOCY MALCEMC AC KO TE YOAC OC MCAC XOM: NOC AL KOE CHON 4A ‘ Y 4 + ps a pplenee named pasta tepasiene os aries F 5 BT hk A eich dhe ni teas nc teat o's a isctctin in th Plate V. Codex Sinaiticus. 9 5 -PTPHINGICONY pL SOM COONTP POW TO AMM $e TE RAIOK xXOMENOCAILKAE aie OMOMARIKALY | . MICOON ALKEOYNU! Le few Abidie TTC HW ALGINMI KPODON FOP LODNie: Typraney Por MONONEICONE i MAMAOH TOY Z| AMIINACEOCDYMIN | OY MHATIOACCHE 4 TON MICOONAY PT ; [A KAIOCL ONG FOO 16 1 " CPOKRECONQOIG AIK TACO ODN TOICIK 4 MAORITAIC AY oy | MOIC K HIG IK 1O€ POYATAAC IRIN IKAL: KEEpYCCENCN TAK PPoAC CINATVTCON TE OAC TOU ANANTIOA ~ KOYCACON HDAC CMO TIP PLOT AcE PALOY XYEEOM FA AIRKTODN MAGEE I~ AT IOYOULONAT]-| CYC FOCP KOME Neo HO POPONTIPOCK: | Ki MON KAIATIOKPIOICOp 5 CHUTE N ALTO Hoy POYOONTOCOATIN: PVAAT OF QDd CDANN: AAKOYOLEOKAIKX pcre KOT RND KACLIOYCIN KAI AOULEE PHIATOY) ACUI POUIKAOAPTE | PO INADKCD OL ART: OYCIN KNNEKPO! ct pe PCRATIIES AOU YADT CAL ZONE: 4 AMLIPO MUAY E trae trad Ne Te ray Tac nN re ) Re OTE CE VOMQMEL “LOYORD VCMO7OIKE Enmvorloy Cundcer CANO AO rahyn) Grider wee NOMOZMAQU Oyo eo,at Aspargs Ale cine Vordanayrer VOT AVONR ICI A TIAL, ~) DTC rea CiOreacihHy CCR RING CRT ater ce AUN POM KAD SINC N AY TOICAY( ATS ee ee poy Tere Iopic bras mac mice Ayrou Eiandy poi Faypaniory woes paKon “vamails cor Sico KUM HOMAOE by Te ICY LCL enae aiccre RY VO ENO” Si AC a Voy adypave alee yy eyore opine ARR CR MER ODIO MN ESCs Uimaunyparky sayy apy PUCAEE EUR AICI Cy eC ee pae fore cy waer wonder lene ne SORE Herr rT OIEIG oO COA MOLE CHET hes a Baa: PHIOAAON HA yee BN EIC TOO UUM ay tp sau GYNTC! wy roy, TAC Hemera ae diQuel ay Totae Oye Ne Tey CM ay” ronkysa. SE er ro er HIRE VACK ALOT IOT Keel ~> 1inonsinas reneay ry ET RS RE Sas Date Taitent., ERE IN ve nul yee FART WOOP ELEC KOE” Plate VI. aA corte vyanopan I oy ky Foctaperiias | fovea N WANOpE NALANOpusios ore lee L Ava PU RKOBHMOC soveas aaky DAP RUN TUE y eal wri Yrocnaociunys oy TUNNHY KR TOC KAIeL sytw AGBCIOMB AIC OT AHOOY EAM AY ORE AIBA RB AOCDS ACTIX AY NAT ALS ray aract MEDAHIOPE MACY HOLCHs ERA MNAOOCME DT AYIST AVE RPO te ATE ITIO AYT: Rare Ae COLE AMMEN Pe res RRO NOYAYNAT AIL AN PTE HEB RODAC TAM */ vy Be CA, Me ERGATIMOCIWICAS piAT AAD HOCH Eps avbernae Cpilisiabiee sere aed Bee PPh IEADAE TAC eeed POC AY TU AL) Pe porter Ge Andrey atte fran ANC NOH) 4 Gaia eee ae woe Ci ranere ne CMO AO Te Redrine yee ve CP AY NAT AICTE uae eee pete Bae tAcba ,VU) Ceny PEC h Creatas thane ce Bs Pears aeepe Rare ones Noreen ples ee woy TPA) RETO bebe g Rarer Oy Rea ae TST e rte ng ry aens CPI BUe TE “penne ye aby yours riskowar, ros)o- brent 97 Wa aa mroline Chess uted ore 5 wt Be mneutl Codex Vaticanus. e ny’ Fanconi BARA Oy KOTAKCIO OG He pee Do els “PPC CO THIN KCOLES MMO MOCER TOY f meer AMOR Tes ROAM K AICHE nay vw DOAY MAT AIDED PEMECQAH aren fon Wrarcmienay rbey ” fIOAPARCKAAUC rey ' we (ee AnPAy TAO! Noo K ene Aenea dnertes AC TU O1ror 1OGIA REE ARAOY MUN? ANC apa es me ren ’ ype ore, See ene = tata ee Danaea oy ypraea aac OyAasben ly ceri as HVPE CURE TPS Metra AD Oy mere ye ber ce BNGSTIG, FATA AMIAETE Pe VyYAy hor JARO w TOMoYyparionie VOY Nf sales he ee OF iv. perpen wre, Park sare en py ene, ee creng. & tn. noe [poor yn tse V4fsvee Ab p way A « UyAM e e RR ROOMS a CAG. a it * : Ae “MION Ly bel rapa PAHO Ome 1h Bou | wet, reOlericede macome Veyuyne ye Ay OW MH RHGAN Tapa nae Rae NADUINIOM Gyre He crab fomy elo Feb On KOCK nari PU. Ole Ao er ae - ea 1 ) Via, e ene fy \ VWIOKPIVAEKBAACIIPUOTOMT HT Yt. °° monKderaicrovo: moycoy KARP PUTGAIABASPCICE ICBAAGINGD * ven Wee TOCNTWMOodoatuwiwy j RAL OvCoY OY TAPCCH tree” 2, -Spornchson TOOT prroncenp” 3 OVACACNAPONCAI 1pOotrnowryere Ape IOTMCAAOTICKACTORIIAPAS | APONEKTOVINOYRAP Ovi tenn \ CGE OWEAPOSAISANO CDR Co VARKRCVOVCEINC ISS OF AGC ISB ATO Vpvraocmcr WALT AS OanoocanoCceld lOyarnOOvons SAV POY HHECyn acaAYyVOY type perei'oarxo N KMOMONAPpos NOCCICVOYT TONMPOVO! Cay Faeries a ferro BORTEOPON @icesyps upre COV MIRVOCICAPAIRZECN SACI oO CUOMAAVTOY —TLAS MCG IKAAcE ‘ Ni IKKE ICNOYVTIOICI TE AAOw ACOCPXOMCNOCTEPOCMH1E pas | AKOYUWNMOY TCU) NAONMUDNO THOLQUINAY POY'C YO TGD CaM INTINICCTINOMOIOY’ Gand ; e P N . —-—-- swp es + MAMOIOCCCTINAN MOMKNOmey © Vege Bic IAN OCG CII ON KAICE SOV NEHSKAIGCONKENGCMEXS - “C EETEYUDEPSTICU PAN EVAN NIMY pac ASVENOMENNCIIPOCCpyrize ae UTITOVANOCTHOIINIACIKCCINE WILK AIOSICIOXYCCNOAAC YCARY N PCOCMOCAI CIVOrspoin WOINITOUPAN QA AICOVYCAO ICAI THIOMICACOMOIOCUC!H * y VAN CDONSKQAOMTUCAN TIONAL Lo SEPT NO KAIErENEVOAYTON © a) - BNICARBATUACYVE POTepaT cis AP ; | { ApPEYECBAIAIATCONCTIOPIM COM ra \ OLIAEMAOMVTAIAY VOY Hpz ANTVOADIAACIN if ‘ COXONT VEC VAICKEPCIN ey VGYCOTAX YACKAL a ia VA once AP ICA IN : CACTANAY TED EIAETINOIOYCIN OF - . ‘ MAGHEAICUY TOICCAB RAC IN OY KEZ ECT : { Alok plociCAacaiHid CACFENMPACAy TAYE oy! OYAEV OTE TOY FO ANCTNUDVALDENOIACEN, i AAYOIA QHEEMEINACENAYVYGO fs ors KAIOICY NAY POQ1EICEA B CONE IC TON OID LaYeY KATOYCAPVOY C THE Npaced CEG CHAT CNKAIGCALOKEN KALIOIC MOTAY VOY. | - OICOY REZONHNPALEIN CIM MONGIT (bt 4 TE VOICTEPEYCUN | Tuay Poe he pag GAca Mepnr VINAGC PPAZO MENON TUICALEATUDEIMENAYTO { = SOP meeps, Fscow se fo THNNEIPACKONTIZ HAY EPEIpaY RAICT HAY. ce a NEU MECUD KAIANACTACERC TAR Sh ah Roy MMENAC OMEN POCAYTOYa GhE i = " ; > SVE paves j YMACCHEZECTINTOCABBAT UY APAQO >) { oo VOMCAMMKAR ONO CA x 5 ca HANCWCAE 4°. | ., HANQAECAT aAce cea ne a a = i \ ‘ ANePUONG CIMENDIAAC THIOIZIE 5 wy wane MAKAPOCEL GLAG MNOLA AC EMM KATAPATOC #1 oe KAMAPABATHCEIFOY NaMOeYy | fe fw j ESCM CASSEL LEGA Naa ae ae es acess | CY NAP OPN CAR BATU) CNH A NOPUrac | { | ie. ZUPANCXCONTHINX CIPA TAPETHPQY NTQ 9! : H 4 AY TAN OFF PAM MALE HAIQIG ApICAINI’ - een C11 CN CABB ATU OG PATE YEG 2 RAE CIN eee KATH TOPHeAIAY Fay AY DOCAG 9 a eck | i 1 WOYCAIMAAIICMOAYCAY FreomAermey ran ya | Plate IX. Codex Bezae. 103 [ ( i ¥ , ies atti. ome amit dpa pasiy Nao poorogle crop Teand pus ioe: kanoo o puyard poo og: Gasroparhw Aric Gury ov at AG ee ves assure cca he, PD LEY “you-orT] KUT 3 oti éd-rrao ci ao TWP CHEW teens h asd - "To UTOA\K nee whe bee's coli ote au yy Pap teutts xsuhsp ras 1 LES ° Co arg - = aN qoen-tqyrovas RAE VP SEL “14s ican Depron ov; AITO PUT TAL, rose! ee “etiicbenaosey ah 1 f on \ 2 AD eeBlien shes ad & Plate XI. Drew MS. II. '}EVATTE EAIONKATAAOVKAN 2: : eae ap eli aie An 5 or Fos “reel peurtpi rb prortbusp*pochors At Pporeps si proparsanmy, pastor cumapl ; Doospsivowmaraenmoaut owas Loos et, crasthye sebtor cours Fou- Dd. geKawoimoup abo ») AOU Or kcoraisca-fietorarbanp aleprusoe KarteQae geirya fal parts ecedp ins: Vpobancpesvaree? my! a Sp narracy’ Bee Aetwy TS pss vaygs- ecépGu : a p aaolybpare p@Yurcvuamntaon sot pots” cy ae Suceas 1 byfieritc opsuamBenepras- P6feg eee | e “oxy disses: KO 6 russ UTOUE K-TOOH bucorstq oy e agmp lyourroepopsmasrric’s yoo ky , Wonp At : "ng pootaps (D Serérper bye enor gubswe plo eee ‘@ pron wHAT Grstopeie tase Sy lacs oo pasar FO es: a {Bab cbnreres: tant odibparrrainer upon ie POrAe f Te “ IL oe avons | Spurcipas: ‘uatayslborrs corny urabuan KOM 25 = 4 ee ees Pesereusrriny ‘moms: Crh te NITE | : Plate XII. Drew MS. III. 109 Pera tot NM pnilarened raphe eee: Sasi :, Pipe iecadayaciuraluel \ f (hess iF Khon a live blig ‘OD be raze paw. Shard $2 G08 aly! ~ as S Geist cra. Gi pdnpwor 1 2 Stem Dae en ' amps {oer cu] Ai oar ished Q Ages aur o | o-; Se cued fe : Su yoe nortlras cure arard~ ; nnd emu fe rboares any | pete dari dowel nih oe Oud durrco H yur neapmpatTd C” Ie ‘ TPE ou Loud aoc cop -uwerp &- Hic eee eee oe ae | a Koc ompsmp ined wyteou/ Sear fe Plate XIII. Drew MS. IV. 111 STS eee fe ot es he : Hae : ; earn -4 ee bikes: : S eh {cnamnemivigen Send : a eee g euaeey wy pias yrare yy err ee K KadWa vo e eiDeoap harper drarde yews auverare K Kyu a at eueres pA post pot roune}e¥- Adod Kapp wee e& j ‘ we opoutreice rap abt prerconyeK er bust. Kem Ke dizworeipecteneaman arent | ive dinye™ sagt sy ATT ENS HUE THEA ENO i ( Vaverroterreictattpase neue TreUBaHIAIME 3 nviciouPurar. it_hoa ic a yaaarenCosent ee a t ey masprem cere Kaan pu uanreU.LKTELS aaa a: Meh Auparnpuyanpwy’ icoueted yaa arene ipa ei if Kemp Nrerereqasperruessd pd rene yrreubur are r edit por prarcomcerniesyrmncic nena ng _" ate gi rveunus dpi narfoy Musab MpeurTIC TUE A i sien Soerim(nrongier eu TTCS” Loree bemipat Senn eee ari ae oh oo 0p Lope awn! one if Plate XIV. Drew MS. V. 113 . hy aipedetne 2 TO etpanpopsnpArdzo °° Vttprorrt yup férew awpcRopn Gurt-To1c i or Sy SpnKopresype 5 ouTOIG pH TAY . v \ ae see aa g i ‘q ° & Qe koe on - r- e en TOW KA Aad: Pwo yaa oparre> ofsy rouwpo pcop and ! ba Korrealbpopwon_ Bs Touspousoic™ ouey TC Gyoo-reoy pe K pw UO H THU Go THO p pe ' sro urea pA deo apy K peop TouTCOp Gupde \ paprortoySAocray pepe o6 ocd A TopSpoipyoia Norway . &. reo Da Crd, | a Toe up SaraotTowpo LTOvOMTON aereurquos es aut 3 gw wo TOU WPEIHOU er ue . FS rout youscic ’ bas rouaxoans, Span joyce of 4 -~*- t3 ee, PE ono TouapoU: v0 PEGA opoouy Goats ae f 1) 2p Geaa-yo Osas0 ACOAG + Sapsiaeciant “wT S SY ee a mipoxg Sap on Aah ageoouGis gt { ree ThprapicoeKarrayy pundcipaeatquyw F “pon rre:. - “Kou 4 rea oper g coyhi -- ‘ , ‘prBa dy Szaurrea py: ov nprooporupy-ruphy hy xtad Ga rosy Cyne _ peouy aia eee aro Gy py Goes Gur! reve Haire HSK KAY ee | encraopdsdfa:Gurqire 2 Sup de Ka oSKKAR >, _ Aa pomspoy! Kou aac rattepa cocci, || ents ean’ Y . i ; ee ae Not ie 5 8 Sees eae: Os ot, i . i - ease ae vee ok Ok ill ‘ Plate XV. Drew MS. VI. Ws x ste — eee Kut: Sa yi “| oe : Pins pone: erore € av wap Gains s {oa SS vpaao eTOLS + TNS, Fie oper Spar Ker as Gp eres paripopyepac Hara dipge eb de ‘PU STTOP of appa Gres. ie 01 BS BsoLdG ol give pn ; Ui vat esp Granesype +e TOpoWDuyp: EPO | : 2 WPF erGeius postu | metap neu espor ssiel, © Pun -wpias apa-SZ Os TP NE as VAS pas-rod" fen Ke Gauip Gi xGos S b pag OU rE as lic ‘ _ KElpo Upson Qse , Neareip over a: yer Tax OTF WN soto OG- L. Sreuayous @ aS yap ou b ee ae TSN eae (rye -*reub- PUP 8STOU Ka) pus wras SUP RLS PHOSpap. ei KAopHOU irre Symp Re Lasorxdp GacGphy a . Kaleu pop rig Op: Y O4* eT TAw oh Peta Cela rtaes f nip inches: €' wroU rola gos « © VSS PWS Geen PEE Gor peor; ben {100 «Top Karouxdyro Spa ovsoxgne:svaoe | om: Cr aRysuas RU ApOUEp praren oR te TU KALE S- tease. : pw Sy psrunaqardy « ¥ ai I poperrap rac” burs, Aco xastpopipog: op, 4 ign mee 3 Gulia iewupouaia, (Un rd sxe ad,“ ee: ES abet TOU Gane SEpanm i ne PB Hop eras Gps ar airrouserouD iy : ype: sienna - POs OWeTe le ert eee ME Sn oe : i 2 fi Plate XVI. Drew MS. VIL. 117 ee Se curb o onnad ot oxo mpovlon KpiQuairoronti Dwongennry Tron paipn Naieal “4 Pie cee Sknov core: degar riveree OG wees Dacovern Hala icay ovpby ocr10d% prgo OE AGE ar egurare cufeg,, Oneréaurrou yo Cpiap-rwrod da” n&Gou! }€Xoidepm => = WAS on au fn “Darsup On Gre TApPauTOn Kater , ~. noo icon Geren tet Fro nia rss St SA cma biceipou tla he widod6;-iu p20 | Jager car Bie! eb or Ape iiaiaca) ee Oncroithssede ot ee _ Simondé-aud Doplnom741100 rarepinrer 6 ri Gere : ences ; Petes NarbreaostyeAT SO Caso -rop SY [ren ? on . Plate XVII. Drew MS. IX. 119 NOTES ON PLATES Piate I. Frontisprece. Copex W Tue United States now has in her National Library (the Smithsonian) at the Capital one of the foremost uncial manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. From its permanent location it is known as the Washington Manuscript, and with its companion volumes of the Old Testament comprises the proudest possession in the. line of biblical manuscripts to be found in all America. It contains a complete Codex of the Gospels, written in a slightly sloping but ancient hand, upon good vellum, in one column of thirty lines to the page, six by nine inches in size. By all the tests ordinarily given it belongs to the period of the earliest codices, possibly of the fourth century. Like Codex D, it has the order of the Gospels, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, and contains an Apocryphal interpolation, of great interest, within the longer ending of Mark, for which no other Greek authority is known, though it is probably referred to by Saint Jerome. It has been published in Facsimile by Mr. C. L. Freer, of Detroit, who obtained it in Egypt in 1906, and is edited by Professor H. A. Sanders and printed by the University of Michigan, 1911. The page here reproduced, by the kind permission of the pub- lisher, contains the text of Mark i, 1-7. Puate II. Papyrus Oxyruyncuus I This is a fragment of the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was found at the same time and place as the Logia described under Plate IV. Only part of a sheet, forming two leaves, was recovered, but it is done in an archaic hand only second in quality to the Logia, possessing the same kind of contractions and diacritical marks, and doubtless belongs to the period just succeeding, that is, the late third or early fourth century. The verso which is here given contains , Matthew i, 1-9, 12. This, too, is now in the United States, and may be seen at the Library of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. Piate III. St. Luke This is a full-page illumination, reduced about one third, taken from a Manuscript Lectionary of the Gospels, No. IX of the Drew Collection of New Testament Minuscules. It portrays ‘St. Luke, the author of the third Gospel, and faces the beginning of the lections from that evan- 121 122 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS gclist in the Manuscript. The original is done in pigments of blue, brown, pink, red, and gold, and represents the apostle in the attitude of profound meditation while turning the leaves of 8 book. For a de scription of the Lectionary, see under Plate XV. Pirate lV. Papyrus OxyRuYNcHUS This plate is a slightly enlarged reproduction of the verso side of the notable papyrus fragment recovered, but a few years since, from the tubbish heaps near the Egyptian town of Behnesa, 120 miles south of ' Cairo, in the edge of the Libyan Desert. Oxyrhynchus was the ancient name of the city as well as of the Nome of which it was the flourishing capital in Roman and early Christian times. The Papyrus was called by its discoverers, Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt, AOFIA IlICOY from the fact that it is made up of what purport to be sayings of Jesus. There are upon both sides of the leaf what appear to be eight separate utterances of our Saviour, either in part or entire, three of which, perhaps as suggestive as any, may be read from this plate without difficulty. In so far as these sayings coincide at all with the spirit and letter of the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, they undoubtedly reflect a tradition of those teachings belonging to the times immediately following the apostolic age. Af the upper right- hand corner of the page will be seen the number IA, or eleven, which, both from the difference in the character of the hand and of the ink employed, is clearly a later addition. Papyri are as yet comparatively rare in America. Outside of the valuable beginnings toward collections at the Universities of Chicago, Pennsylvania, und Johns Hopkins, perhaps the most noteworthy is found in the Abbott Collection of Egyptian Antiquities, at the rooms of the New York Historical Society. Here may be seen three consider- able fragments from Thebes written in Greek characters, and six from Sakkara in the Demotic; besides these there are three remarkable scrolls worthy of serious study: one is a Ritual of the Dead, twenty- three feet long, written in hieratic characters and illustrated freely with figures in outline; a second, also in the ancient. hicratic, is thirty- six feet long, and in such perfect preservation that it does not require _ to be stretched upon paper, as nearly all long papyrus rolls are now mounted; while a third is another Ritual of the Dead, perfect both at its commencement and at the end, twenty-two feet long, and most beautifully written and illuminated. Piate V. Copex Sinarnicus, 8 A facsimile of folio vi, one fourth actual size, taken from the Drew Seminary copy of Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus, vol. i, Novum Testa- mentum, St. Petersburg, 1862. x is the most complete and one of the most ancient uncials of the entire New Testament, dating as early as the fourth century, “It is also one of the very few manuscripts written with four columns to the OF THE’ NEW TESTAMENT 123 page, the open book presenting eight columns of writing to the eye, which makes a “papyrus-like arrangement” suggesting the roll (see page 73). It is written in large uncial hand on antelope skins of singular fineness, the pages being 1314x147 inches in size and containing forty- eight lines to the column. he text of the facsimile is that of Matt. x, 17 toxi, 5. On the margin will be seen the so-called Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, evidently not in the hand of the original scribe, though Tischendorf thought them by a contemporary, as also the note on Matt. x, 39, written below the third column. Piate VI. Copex Vaticanvs, B This plate, about one quarter of the original page, is copied from the phototype facsimile of Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209, vol. iv, Novum Testamentum, folio 1352, Rome, 1889. Codex B is written with some- what greater accuracy than &, and by many is considercd a little earlier in date. It is done on very fine, thin vellum and in small but clear ‘and neat uncials, with three columns of forty-two lines to the page, which is nearly square, being 10x10)4 inches in size. It is incomplete from Heb. ix, 14, on, lacking Philemon, the Pastoral epistles, and Reve- lation. The folio in the illustration contains John ii, 16 to iii, 17. Piate VII. Copex ALEXANDRINUS, A This copy is made from the autotype facsimile of Codex Alexan- drinus issued by the British Museum jn 1880. It is reduced a trifle more than one half the actual size, which is in quarto, 1014x1234 inches, with two columns of fifty lines each to the page. Codex A was the first of the great uncials to come into the hands of English scholars, being a gift of Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constanti- nople, to Charles I, of England, in 1628. As this was seventeen years after the publication of the Authorized Version of the English Bible, it is important to note that none of the great English yersions have been influenced directly by the readings of the most ancient uncials save that of the Revision of 1881-1884. : The vellum of this codex is not quite as fine or well preserved us B, but the writing is done in a somewhat larger and more elegant hand, and although the text is devoid of accents or breathings, the presence of capital letters at first hand and the canons of Eusebius date jt at least as late as the fifth century. Our facsimile presents folio 49, verso, from vol. iv, and contains the text of Luke vi, 42°, to vii, 16°. Prate VIII. Copex Ernraemi, C We have in Plate VI a reproduction of a folio, reduced one half, taken from the article on St. Ephraem in the Dictionnaire de la Bible of F. Vigouroux. The Scripture passage is Matt. xi, 17 to xii, 3. This is an average specimen page of the celebrated Codex Ephraem Syri rescriptus, which may be seen by any visitor at the National Library 124 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS in Paris. Its name rises from the fact that a Greek translation of some of the works of St. Ephraem, a Syrian Church Father, were written over the original Greek text of a very ancient and valuable copy of the Scriptures. The original belongs to the fifth century, and ranks in purity and antiquity with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It was not erased by the unknown hand of an ardent admirer of Ephraem until some seven centuries after it was first written, nor really restored to the Chris- tian world until seven centuries later still by the energy and patience of Tischendorf in 1841. Although this codex when first written probably contained the entire Bible, it has been so mutilated by the various hands through which it has passed that not more than two thirds of ita original contents still remain. Pirate IX. Copex Breza, D This is reproduced at about one half the original size from a plate in Dictionnaire de la Bible, Vigouroux, F., Fascicule vi, page 1768. Codex D is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Greek of the left-hand page being offset on the opposite page by a Latin translation done by the same hand. It is a large quarto, 10x8 inches in dimensions, containing most of the four Gospels and the Acts. The text is in square archaic uncials with one column of thirty-threc lines to the page. It is without spacings, accents, or breathings, and dates at least from the early part of the sixth century. Our specimen folio contains the text of Luke vi, 1-10. Pirate X. Drew Minvscute, I This is reproduced from Manuscript I of the Drew Seminary Collec- tion of New Testament Minuscules. It is classified in Dr. Gregery’s Prolegomena, p. 069, as No. 371 in his Minuscule Codices of the Pauline Epistles. It is written on well-sized parchment 774x111% inches, in sin- gle column of twenty-three lines to the page, and consists of one hun- dred and three leaves. The last folio bears the signature of the scribe Joasaph and is dated 1366 and 1369. From the numbering of the quires, the first of which in the present state of the codex is signed «c=16, it is probable that the copy originally contained the Acts of the Apostles preceding Paul’s epistles. It is also noteworthy that Hebrews follows the Pastoral epistles. The codex contains prologues, ié6eserc, and has the dvayvéonata or lection marks, itoypadal or subscriptions, and otiyo. The facsimile contains the text of 2 Cor. i, 6-12, photographed from folio 26, recto. Puate XI. Drew Minoscute II This is a facsimile of folio 162, recto, of Manuscript II of the Drew Seminary Collection. It is a minuscule Lectionary of the Gospels, und stands as No. 301 in the Prolegomena, p. 728, of Dr. Gregory, who also dates it as of the twelfth century. It is written on 334 leaves of strong white parchment, 1254x854 inches, with two columns of nineteen lines to the page, and is furnished with musical accents in red. The ee ee OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 125 first several leaves are badly mutilated, and not a few are lacking. Our specimen folio contains the text of Matt. xxiii, 11-15. Puate XII. Drew Minuscute III This is a minuscule of the four Gospels, Manuscript III of the Drew Seminary Collection, No. 667 in Dr. Gregory's Prolegomena, p. 565, and No. 900 in Scrivener’s Introduction, vol. i, p. 276. It is assigned to the eleventh or twelfth century, is written on fine vellum 314x4 inches, of 178 leaves, with one column of twenty-five to twenty-eight lines to the page; is done in a very fine, neat hand, “with chapter-tables, chapters, titles, and metrical verses.” ‘Two leaves are evidently by a later hand, possibly of the sixteenth century, namely, ff. 163 and 170. The binding is very ancient and is in good preservation, being finely tooled and ein- bellished in gold leaf. The titles and illuminations at the beginning of each Gospel are in elaborate Byzantine designs of blue and gold. That of St. Luke, which is given in the facsimile, contains the text of the first seven verses of that Gospel enlarged about one half. Puate XIII. Drew Minuscute IV This is a minuscule of the Gospels, Manuscript IV of the Drew Sem- inary Collection and No. 1275 in Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 1309. ° Dr. Gregory classes it in the eleventh century. It is done on very fine, thin vellum, with exceeding care and neatness. Besides chapter head- ings and titles it contains the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons. There are thirty-nine leaves, 814x614 inches in dimensions, with one col- umn of nineteen lines to the page. It is only a fragment of the original document, containing portions of Luke xxi, xxii, xxiii, and xxiv, and John ii-viii. The facsimile contains John iv, 5-9, from folio 17, recto. Piate XIV. Drew MInuscuLe V Another minuscule fragment of the Gospels, Manuscript V of the -Drew Collection, and No. 1276 in Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 1309. Of the same century as the preceding, it is done in similar style and on the same fine quality of vellum of the same-sized page, with single col- umn of twenty-four lines. The ornamentation and use of silver in the lettering, together with the extreme elegance of the workmanship and character of its readings, make this codex exceptionally interesting. Though incomplete, it contains most of the Gospel of Mark and nearly twenty-one chapters of Luke. We have, in the plate, the heading and first seven verses of Luke. Puate XV. Drew Minuscute V1 Drew Manuscript VI is another large Lectionary of the Gospels, cited as No. 951 by Dr. Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 1313, and classed as from the twelfth or possibly the eleventh century. It contains 247 leaves of parchment, 1214x934 inches, with two columns of twenty-seven lines 126 THE CANON, TEXT, AND MANUSCRIPTS to the page. Though it has had severe usage, its original rank must have been high, judging from the character and quality of the work- manship. Like Manuscript II, it is furnished with musical notation in red. The specimen page is the beginning of the lection for Whitmonday beginning the series of lessons from Matthew following Pentecost, and is taken in accordance with the Synaxarion of the Greek Church from Matt. xviii, 10-17. Puate XVI. Drew Minoscu.e VII This is Manuscript VII of the Drew Collection, and No. 952 in Dr. Gregory’s list of Gospel Leetionaries or Evangelisteria; see Prolegomena, p. 1313. It consists of 175 large nearly square leaves on medium quality parchment, 844x934 inches in dimensions, with two columns of twenty- six lines to the page. One entire quire, A, is lost, but the last quire remains and gives the date as 1148. The musical notation is neatly inserted, as are also the headings for the reading lessons, but in the page given in the plate the scribe inserted the name of the wrong Gospel, that of Mark, for his lection for the third day of Holy Week, the passage actually copied being from Matt. xxiv, 26-46, as it should be for the liturgy of that day. Puate XVII. Drew Minuscuce IX Manuscript IX of the Drew Lectionaries is in some respect the most complete in the collection. It consists of 334 leaves of beautiful vellum, 9x1134 inches in size, and, with the exception of two initial and highly illuminated folios of a single broad column of text, is written in two columns of nineteen lines to the page. It is done in brilliant inks, with red musical notes, while the words of our Lord and the initial folios mentioned above are done in gold, making nearly one half of the work in gold script. There are two full-page illustrations, one of St. John and the other of St. Luke (see page 57), while the portraits of the other two evan- gelists have been clumsily cut out, together with three leaves of the text. It is strongly bound, in very ancient if not the original form, with green velvet on thick wooden boards, a remnant only remaining of the rich fastenings which formerly held it on its three open sides. The page of text in the plate is folio 45, verso, and contains John ix, 23-29. *wHNIOS. TJ Pue TNO} 37} ussmyaq eye] (sooMdeNUOT) A Io 7wT porod aq [LM 9[—"ION ‘tyusubosf judpiodurun fo usyn) 61 203j0u ou Angus ysusu 24) WOT wdroeunsy esryiioy : [7] ‘ryuruboss yurrodusug - [/] ‘srusubosl propsoduy - [X] 0d uy : PF] sana: BA enuoreoyy prpus, omy 3 mmunoy0 4 Gunqusp) PPS munyoH saucer |d |d|d|d onayobup T\|T|7 TL usnceoR, XX enuppswicg 0 orrust6ay a a owog | vpuntedosy fo 'q7T | 7 rruundsog ruratosf rastdns é wad) cory 6 “ur fo'as 9i'dpnccy evan] 51 mar | Fo mperwy ee DDI\D/O}) ~” VIV IV iV iV ‘LO oye oH peRunarze 4 q\qigig - , Owe ade worrBoo] qaeey owoy “BF UTLL A TMOMTEISO], MON ON} 67 OMLIOG BY STINT HO] UT HIPC) JoTED ON} Je LonTER — HECKMAN BINDERY, INC. |. Bound-To-Please* DEC 02 N.