Читать книгу The Criticism of the New Testament - Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener - Страница 13

א. Cod. Sinaiticus

A. Cod. Alexandrinus.

B. Cod. Vaticanus.

C. Cod. Ephraemi.

D. Cod. Claromontanus, No. 107 of the Royal Library at Paris, is a Greek-Latin copy of St. Paul's Epistles, one of the most ancient and important in existence. Like the Cod. Ephraemi in the same Library it has been fortunate in such an editor as Tischendorf, who published it in 1852 with complete Prolegomena, and a facsimile traced by Tregelles. This noble volume is in small quarto, written on 533 leaves of the thinnest and finest vellum: indeed its extraordinary delicacy has caused the writing at the back of every page to be rather too visible on the other side. The words, both Greek and Latin, are written continuously (except the Latin titles and subscriptions), but in a stichometrical form (see p. 52): the Greek, as in Cod. Bezae, stands on the left or first page of the opened book, not on the right, as in the Cod. Laudianus. Each page has but one column of about twenty-one lines, so that in this copy, as in the Codex Bezae, the Greek and Latin are in parallel lines, but on separate pages. The ink is dark and clear, and otherwise the book is in good condition. It contains all St. Paul's Epistles (the Hebrews after Philemon), except Rom. i. 1–7; 27–30, both Greek and Latin: Rom. i. 24–27 in the Latin is supplied in a later but very old hand, as also are Rom. i. 27–30 and 1 Cor. xiv. 13–22 in the Greek: the Latin of 1 Cor. xiv. 8–18; Heb. xiii. 21–23 is lost. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been erroneously imputed by some to a later scribe, inasmuch as it is not included in the list of the sacred books and in the number of their στίχοι or versus, which stand immediately before the Hebrews in this codex208: but the same list overlooks the Epistle to the Philippians, which has never been doubted to be St. Paul's: in this manuscript, however, the Epistle to the Colossians precedes that to the Philippians. Our earliest notice of it is derived from the Preface to Beza's third edition of the N. T. (Feb. 20, 1582): he there describes it as of equal antiquity with his copy of the Gospels (D), and states that it had been found “in Claromontano apud Bellovacos coenobio,” at Clermont near Beauvais. Although Beza sometimes through inadvertence calls his codex of the Gospels Claromontanus, there seems no reason for disputing with Wetstein the correctness of his account (see p. 125, note 2), though it throws no light on the manuscript's early history. From Beza it passed into the possession of Claude Dupuy, Councillor of Paris, probably on Beza's death [1605]: thence to his sons Jacques and Pierre Dupuy: before the death of Jacques (who was the King's Librarian) in 1656, it had been bought by Louis XIV for the Royal Library at Paris. In 1707, John Aymont, an apostate priest, stole thirty-five leaves; one, which he disposed of in Holland, was restored in 1720 by its possessor Stosch; the rest were sold to that great collector, Harley, Earl of Oxford, but sent back in 1729 by his son, who had learnt their shameful story. Beza made some, but not a considerable, use of this document; it was amongst the authorities consulted for Walton's Polyglott; Wetstein collated it twice in early life (1715–16); Tregelles examined it in 1849, and compared his results with the then unpublished transcript of Tischendorf, which proved on its appearance (1852) the most difficult, as well as one of the most important, of his critical works; so hard it had been found at times to determine satisfactorily the original readings of a manuscript which had been corrected by nine different hands, ancient and modern. The date of the codex is doubtless the sixth century, in the middle or towards the end of it. The Latin letters, especially d, are the latest in form (facsimile No. 41, 1 Cor. xiii. 5–8), and are much like those in the Cod. Bezae (No. 42), which in many points Cod. Claromontanus strongly resembles. Leaves 162, 163 are palimpsest, and contain part of the Phaethon, a lost play of Euripides. We have already noticed many of its peculiarities (pp. 33–40), and need not here repeat them. Delta and pi look more ancient even than in Cod. A: the uncials are simple, square, regular and beautiful, of about the size of those in Codd. CD, and larger than in Cod. B. The stichometry forbids our assigning it to a period earlier than the end of the fifth century while other circumstances connected with the Latin version tend to put it a little lower still. The apostrophus is frequent, but there are few stops or abridgements; no breathings or accents are primâ manu. Initial letters, placed at the beginning of books or sections, are plain, and not much larger than the rest. The comparative correctness of the Greek text, and its Alexandrian forms, have caused certain critics to refer us as usual to Egypt for its country: the Latin text is more faulty, and shows comparative ignorance of the language: yet of what use a Latin version could be except in Africa or western Europe it were hard to imagine. This Latin is more independent of the Greek, and less altered from it than in Codd. Bezae or Laudian., wherein it has little critical value: that of Cod. Claromont. better represents the African type of the Old Latin. Of the corrections, a few were made by the original scribe when revising; a hand of the seventh century went through the whole (D**); two others follow; then in sharp black uncials of the ninth or tenth century another made more than two thousand critical changes in the text, and added stops and all the breathings and accents (D***); another D**** (among other changes) added to the Latin subscriptions. Db supplied Rom. i. 27–30 very early; Dc, a later hand, 1 Cor. xiv. 13–22. Tischendorf distinguishes several others besides these.

E. Cod. Sangermanensis is another Greek-Latin manuscript and takes its name from the Abbey of St. Germain des Prez near Paris. Towards the end of the last century the Abbey (which at the Revolution had been turned into a saltpetre manufactory) was burnt down, and many of its books were lost. In 1805 Matthaei found this copy, as might almost have been anticipated, at St. Petersburg, where it is now deposited. The volume is a large quarto, the Latin and Greek in parallel columns on the same page, the Greek standing on the left; its uncials are coarse, large, and thick, not unlike those in Cod. E of the Acts, but of later shape, with breathings and accents primâ manu, of about the tenth, or late in the ninth, century209. It was used for the Oxford New Testament of 1675: Mill obtained some extracts from it, and noted its obvious connexion with Cod. Claromontanus: Wetstein thoroughly collated it; and not only he but Sabatier and Griesbach perceived that it was, at least in the Greek, nothing better than a mere transcript of Cod. Claromontanus, made by some ignorant person later than the corrector indicated by D****. Muralt's endeavours to shake this conclusion have not satisfied better judges; indeed the facts are too numerous and too plain to be resisted. Thus, while in Rom. iv. 25 Cod. D reads δικαιωσιν (accentuated δικαίωσιν by D***), in which D*** changes ν into νην, the writer of Cod. E adopts δικαίωσινην with its monstrous accent: in 1 Cor. xv. 5 Cod. D reads μετα ταυτα τοις ενδεκα, D*** εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα (again observe the accents), out of which Cod. E makes up μετα ταυεἶτα τοῖς δώενδεκα. In Gal. iv. 31 Cod. D has διο, which is changed by D*** into ἆρα: Cod. E mixes up the two into διἆραο. Compare Tischendorf's notes on Eph. ii. 19; Heb. x. 17, 33, and Dr. Hort's longer specimen, Rom. xv. 31–3 (Introd. p. 254). The Latin version also is borrowed from Cod. D, but is more mixed, and may be of some critical use: the Greek is manifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the list of authorities. This copy is defective, Rom. viii. 21–33; ix. 15–25; 1 Tim. i. 1-vi. 15; Heb. xii. 8-xiii. 25.

Fa Cod. Coislin. I.

F. Cod. Augiensis in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. xvii. 1), is another Greek-Latin manuscript on 136 leaves of good vellum 4to (the signatures proving that seven more are lost, see p. 28), 9 inches by 7-¼, with the two languages in parallel columns of twenty-eight lines on each page, the Greek being always inside, the Latin next the edge of the book. It is called from the monastery of Augia Dives or Major (Reichenau, or rich meadow ), on a fertile island in the lower part of Lake Constance, to which it long appertained, and where it may even have been written, a thousand years since. By notices at the beginning and end we can trace it through the hands of G. M. Wepfer of Schaffhausen and of L. Ch. Mieg, who covered many of its pages with Latin notes wretchedly scrawled, but allowed Wetstein to examine it. In 1718 Bentley was induced by Wetstein to buy it at Heidelberg for 250 Dutch florins, and both he and Wetstein collated the Greek portion, the latter carelessly, but Bentley somewhat more fully in the margin of a Greek Testament (Oxon. 1675) still preserved in Trinity College (B. xvii. 8). Tischendorf in 1842, Tregelles in 1845, re-examined the book (which had been placed where it now is on the death of Bentley's nephew in 1787), and drew attention to the Latin version: in 1859 Scrivener published an edition of the Codex in common type, with Prolegomena and a photograph of one page (1 Tim. iii. 14-iv. 5)210. The Epistles of St. Paul are defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; and the Greek only in 1 Cor. iii. 8–16; vi. 7–14; Col. ii. 1–8; Philem. 21–25; in which four places the Latin stands in its own column with no Greek over against it. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Greek being quite lost, the Latin occupies both columns: this Epistle alone has an Argument, almost verbatim the same as we read in the great Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate. At the end of the Epistle, and on the same page (fol. 139, verso), commences a kind of Postscript (having little connexion with the sacred text), the larger portion of which is met with under the title of Dicta Abbatis Pinophi, in the works of Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, who died in a.d. 856; from which circumstance the Cod. Augiensis has been referred to the ninth century. Palaeographical arguments also would lead us to the same conclusion. The Latin version (a modification of the Vulgate in its purest form, though somewhat tampered with in parts to make it suit the Greek text211) is written in the cursive minuscule character common in the age of Charlemagne. The Greek must have been taken from an archetype with the words continuously written; for not only are they miserably ill divided by the unlearned German212 scribe, but his design (not always acted upon) was to put a single middle point at the end of each word. The Latin is exquisitely written, the Greek uncials are neat, but evidently the work of an unpractised hand, which soon changes from weariness. The shapes of eta, theta, pi, and other testing letters are such as we might have expected from the date; some others have an older look. Contrary to the more ancient custom, capitals, small but numerous, occur in the middle of the lines in both languages. Of the ordinary breathings213 and accents there are no traces. Here and there we meet with a straight line, inclined between the horizontal and the acute accent, placed over an initial vowel, usually when it should be aspirated, but not always (e.g. ίδιον 1 Cor. vi. 18). Over ι and υ double or single points, or a comma, are frequently placed, especially if they begin a syllable; and occasionally a large comma or kind of circumflex over ι, ει, and some other vowels and diphthongs. The arrangement of the Greek forbids punctuation there; in the Latin we find the single middle point as a colon or after an abridgement, the semicolon (;) sometimes, the note of interrogation (?) when needed. Besides the universal forms of abridgement (see p. 49), [symbol] and [symbol] are frequent in the Greek, but no others: in the Latin the abbreviations are numerous, and some of them unusual: Scrivener (Cod. Augiensis Proleg. pp. xxxi-ii) has drawn up a list of them. This copy abounds as much as any with real variations from the common text, and with numberless errors of the pen, itacisms of vowels, and permutations of consonants. It exhibits many corrections, a few primâ manu, some unfortunately very recent, but by far the greater number in a hand almost contemporary with the manuscript, which has also inserted over the Greek, in 106 places, Latin renderings differing from those in the parallel column, but which in eighty-six of these 106 instances agree with the Latin of the sister manuscript.

G. Cod. Boernerianus, so called from a former possessor, but now in the Royal Library at Dresden. In the sixteenth century it belonged to Paul Junius of Leyden: it was bought dear at the book-sale of Peter Francius, Professor at Amsterdam, in 1705, by C. F. Boerner, a Professor at Leipsic, who lent it to Kuster to enrich his edition of Mill (1710), and subsequently to Bentley. The latter so earnestly wished to purchase it as a companion to Cod. F, that though he received it in 1719, it could not be recovered from him for five years, during which he was constantly offering high sums for it214: a copy, but not in Bentley's hand, had been already made (Trin. Coll. B. xvii. 2). Cod. G was published in full by Matthaei in 1791, in common type, with two facsimile pages (1 Cor. ii. 9-iii. 3; 1 Tim. i. 1–10), and his edition is believed to be very accurate; Anger, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Böttiger and others who have examined it have only expressly indicated three errors215. Rettig has abundantly proved that, as it is exactly of the same size, so it once formed part of the same volume with Cod. Δ (see p. 157 and note): they must date towards the end of the ninth century, and may very possibly have been written in the monastery of St. Gall (where Δ still remains) by some of the Irish monks who flocked to those parts. That Cod. G has been in such hands appears from some very curious Irish lines at the foot of one of Matthaei's plates (fol. 23), which, after having long perplexed learned men, have at length been translated for Dr. Reeves, the eminent Celtic scholar216. All that we have said respecting the form of Cod. Δ applies to this portion of it: the Latin version (a specimen of the Old Latin, but as in Codd. Bezae and Laudianus much changed to suit the Greek) is cursive and interlinear; the Greek uncials coarse and peculiar; the punctuation chiefly a stop at the end of the words, which have no breathings nor accents. Its affinity to the Cod. Augiensis has no parallel in this branch of literature. Scrivener has noted all the differences between them at the foot of each page in his edition of Cod. F: they amount to but 1,982 places, whereof 578 are mere blunders of the scribe, 967 changes of vowels or itacisms, 166 interchanges of consonants, seventy-one grammatical or orthographical forms; the remaining 200 are real various readings, thirty-two of them relating to the article. While in Cod. F (whose first seven leaves are lost) the text commences at Rom. iii. 19, μω; λεγει, this portion is found complete in Cod. G, except Rom. i. 1–5; ii. 16–25. All the other lacunae of Cod. F occur also in Cod. G, which ends at Philem. 20 ἐν χρω: there is no Latin version to supply these gaps in Cod. G, but a blank space is always left, sufficient to contain what is missing. At the end of Philemon G writes (ad) Προς (laudicenses) λαουδακησασ217 (incipit) αρχεται (epistola) επιστολη, but neither that writing nor the Epistle to the Hebrews follows. It seems tolerably plain that one of these manuscripts was not copied immediately from the other, for while they often accord even in the strangest errors of the pen that men unskilled in Greek could fall into, their division of the Greek words, though equally false and absurd, is often quite different: it results therefore that they are independent transcripts of the same venerable archetype (probably stichometrical and some centuries older than themselves) which was written without any division between the words218. From the form of the letters and other circumstances Cod. F may be deemed somewhat but not much the older; its corrector secundâ manu evidently had both the Greek and the Latin of Cod. G before him, and Rabanus, in whose works the Dicta Pinophi are preserved (p. 178), was the great antagonist of Godeschalk, on whom the annotator of Codd. ΔG bears so hard. Cod. G is in 4to, of ninety-nine leaves, with twenty-one lines in each. The line indicating breathing (if such be its use, see p. 178) and the mark > employed to fill up spaces (p. 51), more frequent in it than in F.

Since Dr. Scrivener wrote the above, a very valuable little treatise—a “specimen primum”—has been given to the learned world by Herr P. Corssen219, and a most clear and carefully argued paper has been sent to the editor by the Rev. Nicholas Pocock of Clifton. Both Herr Corssen and Mr. Pocock agree in showing that F was not derived from G, nor G from F, but that they come from the same original. Both agree, again, that the Greek version is derived, at least in large measure, from the Latin, as in such instances as the following, which are supplied by Mr. Pocock, who holds, and appears to prove, that F and G were copied from an interlinear manuscript: ut sciatis, ινα οιδαται (F, G), 1 Thess. iii. 3; sicut cancer ut serpat, ως γαγγρα, ινα νομηνεξει (G), 2 Tim. ii. 17, F having the same reading, only dividing the last word; Gal. iv. 3 eramus autem servientes, ημεθα δε δουλωμενοι (F, G). Herr Corssen considers that a Latin was the scribe of the original, that it was written in Italy, and that it was better than the Claromontanus (D), to which it had affinities, this last having an amended text with corrections from the Greek. The original of all three he supposes to date from not before the fifth century. But in some of these last suppositions we are getting upon the ocean of conjecture.

H. Cod. Coislin. 202 is a very precious fragment, of which twelve leaves are in the Imperial Library at Paris; nine are in the monastery or laura of St. Athanasius at Mount Athos, and have been edited by M. Duchesne in the “Archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires” (1876); two more are at Moscow, and have been described by Matthaei (D. Pauli Epp. ad Hebr. et Col. Riga, 1784, p. 58); some others are in the Antonian Library of St. Petersburg (three); some more in the Imperial Library as described by Muralt (two), or in that of Bishop Porphyry (one), or at Turin (two). The leaves at Paris contain 1 Cor. x. 22–29; xi. 9–16; 1 Tim. iii. 7–13; Tit. i. 1–3; 15-ii. 5; iii. 13–15; Heb. ii. 11–16; iii. 13–18; iv. 12–15. At Mount Athos are 2 Cor. x. 18-xi. 6; xi. 12-xii. 2; Gal. i. 1–4; ii. 4–17; iv. 30-v. 5. At Moscow, Heb. x. 1–7; 32–38. At St. Petersburg, 2 Cor. iv. 2–7; 1 Thess. ii. 9–13; iv. 5–11 (Antonian); Gal. i. 4–10; ii. 9–14 (Imperial). In the Library of Bishop Porphyry, Col. iii. 4–11; and at Turin, 1 Tim. vi. 9–13; 2 Tim. ii. 1–9. They are in quarto, with large square uncials of about sixteen lines on a page, and date from the sixth century. Breathings and accents are added by a later hand, which retouched this copy (see Silvestre, Paléographie Universelle, Nos. 63, 64). These leaves, which comprise one of our best authorities for stichometrical writing, were used in a.d. 1218 to bind some other manuscripts on Mount Athos, and thence came into the library of Coislin, Bishop of Metz. Montfaucon has published Cod. H in his “Bibliotheca Coisliniana,” but Tischendorf, who transcribed it, projected a fuller and more accurate edition. He observed at Paris in 1865 an additional passage, 2 Cor. iv. 4–6 (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. ix. p. xiv, note), and cites Cod. H in his eighth edition on 1 Tim. vi. 19; Heb. x. 1–6; 34–38. The subscriptions, which appear due to Euthalius of Sulci220, written in vermilion, are not retouched, and consequently have neither breathings nor accents. Besides arguments to the Epistles, we copy the following final subscription from Tischendorf (N. T. 1859, p. clxxxix): ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν; τόδε τὸ τεύχος παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν. τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμας ἀδελφῶν; παρῶν ἀπάντων τολμης συγγνωμην ἀιτῶ. εὐχὴ τῆ ὑπὲρ ἐμῶν; τὴν συνπεριφορὰν κομιζόμενος; ἀντεβλῆθη δὲ ἡ βιβλος; πρὸς τὸ ἐν καισαρία ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμένον αὐτοῦ (see p. 55, note 1). From this subscription we may conclude with Dr. Field (Proleg. in Hexapla Origenis, p. xcix) that the noble Library at Caesarea was still safe in the sixth century, though it may have perished a.d. 638, when that city was taken by the Saracens.

I. Cod. Tischendorfian. II, at St. Petersburg. Add also two large leaves of the sixth century, elegantly written, without breathings or accents, containing 2 Cor. i. 20-ii. 12. Described by Tischendorf, Notitia Cod. Sin. Append, p. 50, cited as O in his eighth edition of the N. T.

K. Cod. Mosquensis.

L. Cod. Angelicus at Rome.

M. Codex Ruber is peculiar for the beautifully bright red colour of the ink221, the elegance of the small uncial characters, and the excellency and critical value of the text. Two folio leaves, containing Heb. i. 1-iv. 3; xii. 20-xiii. 25, once belonged to Uffenbach, then to J. C. Wolff, who bequeathed them to the Public Library (Johanneum) of Hamburg (see Cod. H of the Gospels). To the same manuscript pertain fragments of two leaves used in binding Cod. Harleian. 5613 in the British Museum, and seen at once by Griesbach, who first collated them (Symbol. Crit. vol. ii. p. 164, &c.), to be portions of the Hamburg fragment222. Each page in both contains two columns, of forty-five lines in the Hamburg, of thirty-eight in the London leaves. The latter comprise 1 Cor. xv. 52–2 Cor. i. 15; x. 13-xii. 5; reckoning both fragments, 196 verses in all. Tischendorf has since found one leaf more. Henke in 1800 edited the Hamburg portion, Tregelles collated it twice, and Tischendorf in 1855 published the text of both in full in his “Anecdota Sacra et Profana,” but corrected in the second edition, 1861 (Praef. xvi), five mistakes in his printed text. The letters are a little unusual in form, perhaps about the tenth century in date; but though sometimes joined in the same word, can hardly be called semicursive . Our facsimile (Plate xii, No. 34) is from the London fragment: the graceful, though peculiar, shapes both of alpha and mu (see p. 37, ter) closely resemble those in some writing of about the same age, added to the venerable Leyden Octateuch, on a page published in facsimile by Tischendorf (Monum. sacr. ined. vol. iii). Accents and breathings are given pretty correctly and constantly: iota ascript occurs three times (2 Cor. i. 1; 4; Heb. xiii. 21)223; only ten itacisms occur, and ν ἐφελκυστικόν (as it is called) is rare. The usual stop is the single point in its three positions, with a change in power, as in Cod. E of the Gospels. The interrogative (;) occurs once (Heb. iii. 17), and > is often repeated to fill up space, or, in a smaller size, to mark quotations. After the name of each of the Epistles (2 Cor. and Heb.) in their titles we read εκτεθεισα ὡς εν πινακι, which Tischendorf thus explains; that whereas it was customary to prefix an argument to each Epistle, these words, originally employed to introduce the argument, were retained even when the argument was omitted. Henke's account of the expression looks a little less forced, that this manuscript was set forth ὡς εν πινακι, that is, in vermilion, after the pattern of Imperial letters patent.

N. (Od Hort.) Two leaves of the ninth century at St. Petersburg, containing Gal. v. 14-vi. 2; Heb. v. 8-vi. 10.

O. (Nc Tisch.) Fragmenta Mosquensia used as early as a.d. 975 in binding a volume of Gregory Nazianzen now at Moscow (S. Synodi 61). Matthaei describes them on Heb. x. 1: they contain only the twelve verses Heb. x. 1–3; 3–7; 32–34; 35–38. These very ancient leaves may possibly be as old as the sixth century, for their letters resemble in shape those in Cod. H which the later hand has so coarsely renewed; but they are more probably a little later.

Oa. One unpublished double leaf brought by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg from the East, of the sixth century, containing 2 Cor. i. 20-ii. 12.

Ob of the same date, at Moscow, contains Eph. iv. 1–18.

P. Cod. Porphyrianus.

Q. Tischendorf also discovered in 1862 at St. Petersburg five or six leaves of St. Paul, written on papyrus of the fifth century. From the extreme brittleness of the leaves only portions can be read. He cites them at 1 Cor. vi. 13, 14; vii. 3, 13, 14. These also Porphyry brought from the East. It contains 1 Cor. i. 17–20; vi. 13–15; 16–18; vii. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12–14, with defects. This is the only papyrus manuscript of the New Testament written with uncials.

R. Cod. Cryptoferratensis Z. β. 1. is a palimpsest fragment of the end of the seventh or the eighth century, cited by Caspar René Gregory as first used by Tischendorf. It is one leaf, containing 2 Cor. xi. 9–19. Edited by Cozza, and published amongst other old fragments at Rome in 1867 with facsimile (Greg., p. 435).

S. From Laura of Athos.

T. Paris, Louvre, Egyptian Museum, 7332 [iv-vi], 5-¾ x 4, two small fragments, 1 Tim. vi. 3; iii. 15, 16. See Gregory, p. 441, who, however, unconsciously classes it as an Evan.

ב. Rom. Vat. Gr. 2061.