UC-NRLF

MI

ΠΣ φῦ

ee

pent Savas AE ke

ΣῊ ὙΦ

“-

ἜΣ

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/remnantsoflatersOOgwynrich

ii ar ἀπ τον

ΡΣ a

Cext and Cranslation Society

President. Dr. A. Cow.ey, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.

Vice-Presidents.

Prof. F. C. Burxirr, Cambridge. Mr. W. E. Crum, M.A.

Bon. Creasurer. Dr. C. D. GINSBURG.

Committee.

The Rev. Prof. W. E. BARNEs, Cambridge.

Dr. J. S. Brack, Joint-Editor of the Eucycdopedia Biblica.

Mr. F. C. ΟΟΝΥΒΕΑΒΕ, formerly Fellow of University College, Oxford. Mr. S. A. Cook, Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge.

The Rev. Prof. S. R. Driver, Oxford.

Mr. A. G. Ettis, M.A.,. India Office.

Mr. Norman McLean, Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge. The Very Rev. The Dean of Westminster (Dr. ARMITAGE RoBINSON). Mr. J. F. STenninc, Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.

Mr. Atpis WricHtT, Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.

bon. Secretaries.

Miss CARTHEW, 154, Kensington Palace Gardens, London. Prof. H. W. Hocc, Manchester University.

a i a ea i i lt ΚΟ i | το ν΄ -

REMNANTS

OF THE

| LATER SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

IN TWO PARTS

PART I: OF NEW TESTAMENT

(StxtH CenTURY VERSION)

PART II: OF OLD TESTAMENT

(SEVENTH CENTURY VERSION)

LUI ley YVE\SE(L OM DO, cd he ease ΝᾺ :

REMNANTS

LATER SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE IN TWO PARTS ae

PART I: NEW TESTAMENT

THE FOUR MINOR CATHOLIC EPISTLES IN THE ORIGINAL PHILOXENIAN VERSION, OF THE SIXTH CENTURY .

AND

THE HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (ST. JOHN VII. 53—VIII. 12)

PART IIT: OLD TESTAMENT

Extracts (HITHERTO INEDITED) FROM THE SyRo-HEXAPLAR VERSION, OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY, AFTER THE GREEK OF THE LXX.

GENESIS: LEVITICUS: 1 AND 2 CHRONICLES: NEHEMIAH

EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTIONS, NOTES, AND RECONSTRUCTED GREEK TEXT

BY

JOHN GWYNN, D.D. (Dubl.), Hoy. D.C.L. (Oxon.)

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

PUBLISHED FOR

THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY BY WILLIAMS AND NORGATE 14, Henrietta Street, Covent GARDEN, LONDON, AND 7, Broap STREET, OxFoRD.

1909.

GHNERAL PREFACE

THE contents of this Volume are by no means homogeneous. Under the comprehensive head of “ Remnants” it includes portions of the Old Testament and of the New: the former being excerpts merely ; the latter, complete Epistles: the former belonging indisputably to the seventh century; the latter, to be assigned rather to the sixth: of the former it merely exhibits the text preserved in a single manuscript; of the latter, it offers a critical edition based on an ample Apparatus of authorities.

Thus the two Parts into which it is divided have hardly anything in common, save what the Title expresses,—that both belong to the later Syriac Versions of the Bible, and that of the Versions to which they severally belong neither has reached us in a complete form.

In Part I, I present a thoroughly revised text of the Four shorter Catholic Epistles, which are not found in the Peshitta, but of which this anonymous Version is, and has for nearly three centuries been, included in the printed editions of the Syriac New Testament. And in the Introduction I have set forth the grounds on which I claim _ for it that it belongs to the Philoxenian New Testament of .D. 508.

Part II consists of Extracts from the Version of the Old Testa- ment, after the Hexaplar Greek text of the Septuagint, which is known to have been made between A.D. 613 and 619. They are all (except the first two) taken fromthe Books of Chronicles and of Nehemiah. None of these extracts,—in fact, no portion of the Syro-Hexaplar text of these Books—has hitherto been published.

To have placed these Old Testament Extracts before the New

Testament Epistles would have been a more obvious arrangement.

VTO8805

a

il GENERAL PREFACE .-

But I have preferred to follow the order of priority in date as be- tween the Versions, and to treat the work of the Sixth Century as Part I, and that of the Seventh, as Part II.

The History of the Woman taken in Adultery (St. Joh. vii. 53- viii. 12) I have subjoined to the other New Testament writings, —in two distinct recensions. Of these, though the one usually printed (assigned to one Paul as translator) is probably of the seventh century, the other has come to us from a sixth-century source, through a sixth-century translator. It therefore properly belongs to Part I, and I have not thought it worth while to separate from it the later but better known recension.

REMNANTS OF THE LATER SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.

PA eee ak

THE FOUR MINOR CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

THE HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.

δι δ κ

a ΎΨ ΝΥ ΡΝΝ

ον ὦ

THE FOUR MINOR CATHOLIC EPISTLES

IN THE SYRIAC OF THE ORIGINAL

PHILOXENIAN VERSION °° MADE IN THE SIXTH CENTURY BY POLYCARPUS THE CHOREPISCOPUS

2 PETER: 2 anp 3 JOHN: JUDE AND

THE HISTORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY (St. Joun vir. 53—vuit. 12)

IN TWO RECENSIONS (SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES)

A REVISED TEXT

EDITED, WITH INTRODUCTION AND ANNOTATED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERLYING GREEK TEXT,

BY

JOHN GWYNN, D.D. (Dubl.), Hoy. D.C.L. (Oxon.)

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.

PUBLISHED FOR

THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION SOCIETY BY

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE 14, Henrietta Street, Covent GARDEN, LONDON,

AND 7, Broap STREET, OxrorpD

1909.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the task of collecting and verifying the materials for this edition of the Four Minor Catholic Epistles in Syriac, I have benefited by the counsel and assistance of many other workers in the field of Semitic and Biblical studies.

Of these, two of the most eminent are no longer within reach of the expression of my gratitude, Professor William Wright and Professor R. L. Bensly.—From the former I obtained from time to time much information and guidance when I first entered on the examination of the Syriac MSS available for my purposes, especially those of the British Museum Library, to which his great Catalogue supplies the key.— The latter generously and unasked communicated to me his notes of two of the principal texts of my list of authorities (Codd. 9 and 14) ; and afterwards, while on his homeward journey in 1893 from his memorable sojourn on Mount Sinai, within the last month of his life, contributed a valuable and unlooked-for addition to that list, by sending me a full collation of a text from one (Cod. 18) of the Syriac MSS, found and catalogued by Mrs. Lewis, of the Library of the Sinaitic Convent of St. Catherine.

For a second unexpected accession to my authorities, from the same Library—the unique copy (no. 154 of Mrs. Gibson’s' Catalogue) of an Arabic Version made from the Syriac text of these Epistles, I am indebted to one of Prof. Bensly’s companions in that sojourn, Mr. (now Professor) F. C. Burkitt, who on his return voluntarily sent me ample memoranda of the textual evidence yielded by that Version as repre- senting its Syriac basis, and who has ever since been a helpful adviser in the course of my work.

To the two ladies, Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, who have done such inestimable service to Biblical literature by their researches, especially among the treasures of the Sinaitic Library, I desire to offer my thanks for their kindness in sending me several Numbers of their Studia Sinai- tica, from which I have gathered much knowledge not elsewhere attain- able, of value in my investigations.

To Dr. Rendel Harris I am under very special obligations, for access to three important MSS brought by him from the East. From one of

Vili ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

these (Cod. 20) he was so good as to photograph for me the needful pages. The other two (Cod. 19 and the Harklensian Cod. y) he kindly placed in my hands for collation.

My acknowledgments are also due to the Rev. Professor W. Emery Barnes, for his ever-ready responses to the applications for information and advice which I have repeatedly had occasion to make to him. Also to the Rev. Dr. J. B. Mayor, for useful suggestions and corrections affecting my Greek Text and Notes attached to it.

To the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Editor of the Peshitta Gospels, I desire to repeat my thanks, already offered elsewhere, for making me acquainted with the remarkable MS which in his List of Authorities, as in mine, is noted as Cod. 12.

T have also to thank the Rev. Professor D. 8. Margoliouth, and Mr. A. F. Cowley (Sub-Librarian of Bodley’s Library), for many kind offices,— the latter especially for the pains he was so good as to take in tracing out for me the history of the MS (Cod. 8) from which the text of these Epistles was first printed.

In this First Part of my work, and yet more frequently in the Second, I have had frequent occasion to consult the Rev. George Margoliouth, of the Oriental Book and MSS. Department, British Museum, and I owe much to his wide and exact knowledge, and his unfailing kindness. 3

I have also to acknowledge with cordial thanks the material services rendered me by members of my own University.— The Rev. Dr. H. J. Lawlor, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, has recollated for me with minute care the texts of the above-mentioned Codd. 9 and 14, and also of Codd. 15 and 16.—The Rev. A. Edward Johnston, formerly Principal of the Church Missionary Society’s College, Allahabad, has made for my use a full and exact examination of the Arabic Version, comparing it point by point with the Syriac.—From the Rev. Arthur A. Luce, now Tutor and Assistant Chaplain of St. Columba’s College, I have received invaluable assistance throughout, in every part of my labours ; not only in re-collating MSS, but in careful reading of all the proof sheets, and in correcting errors of omission or inadvertence, and ambiguities or “inaccuracies of expression. Without his aid, I should have been ill able to bring my task to a satisfactory completion. If (as I hope) the book as produced is found to reach a high standard of correctness, the credit is largely due to his painstaking diligence, quickness of eye, and sound scholarship.

CONTENTS

Page ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA xiii INTRODUCTION: . XV Section I. The Peshitta New Testament first printed . Xvii (1) From Text sent by a Jacobite Patriarch, xvii. (2) Its Canon defective, xviii. (3) Earlier action of a Maronite Patriarch, ib. Il. The extra-Peshitta Epistles xix (1) Version obtained from Maronite source, xix. (2) First used by a European Scholar, 7b. (3) First printed, xx. (4) First included in Syr. N.T., ab. III. Date and Authorship of our Version : : sa (1) Later than Peshitta, xxii. (2) Before, or after, Harklensian? ib. (3) Harklensian Translator’s account of his Version, xxiil. IV. Identification of our Version as part of the Philoxenian N.T. ‘ . €xiv (1) The two Versions related as primary and _ derivate, xxiv. (2) The Harklensian professedly a revision of the Philoxenian, xxvi. (3) Infer- ence that ours is the Philoxenian, 7b. V. The Philoxenian New Testament .. XXVii (1) Why it has not survived entire, xxvii. (2) History of its origin, xxvii. (3) Of its trans- mission, 7b. VI. Other surviving Remains of the Philoxenian xxix (a) Of New Testament, xxix: (a) Pauline Frag- ments, xxx, (8) Apocalypse, ib. (Ὁ) Of Old Testa- ment, ib.: (a) Psalter, 2b., (8) Isaiah, xxxi. VII. The Harklensian New Testament . Sex

VIII. Comparative Value of the Two Versions

ab.

CONTENTS

Page Suction IX. The Affinity between them, twofold. ; XXXiV X. Their Affinity (i.) in Diction . : ; : XXXV

(a) Coincidences in Rendering of unusual expres- sions, xxxv. (b) In erroneous or imperfect Ren- derings, xxxvi. (c) Simultaneous Variation of Renderings, 7b. (d) Philoxenian Renderings re- tained on Harklensian Margin, xxxvii.

XI. Their Affinity (ii.) in Text. : : XXXViii (a) Shown by Frequency of Agreement, xxxix. (b) By Agreement in Singular Readings, xl. (c) By Apparatus attached to Harklensian Text, b.: (1) Asterisks, ib. ; (2) Marginalia, xli. XII. Avrnorities for Present Text: Manuscripts . xlii (i.) MSS of Group A (Earliest), xlii. (Cod. 1, xlii. Cod. 2, xliii. Cod. 9, xliv. Cod. 12,xlv. Cod. 14, xlvi.) (1.) MSS of Intermediate Character, xlvii: (a) Earlier (Codd. 4, 5, xlvii). (Ὁ) Of Cent. xv (Codd. 3, 11, xlviii; Cod. 13, xlix; Cod. 20, 1). (ce) Recent (Cod. 18, li; Cod. 19, 111). (d) Unclassed (Cod. 6, liii). (iii.) MSS of Group B (Late), liii. (Codd. 7, 8, liii. Cod. 10, liv. Cod. 15, lv. Codd. 17, 16, lvi.) XIII. Avruorities for our Text: Epitions Ὁ

XIV. AvtHorities for our Text: VuRSIONS . ee) |” (a) Latin, lviii. (Ὁ) Arabic, cb. XV. The Text of the Earlier as against the Later MSS, adopted in this Edition . : < ae XVI. The Teat of the Later MSS upheld by Pro-

fessor Merx . Ix

XVIT. Prof. Merz’s Theory tested by Juxtaposition of — Examples of Rival Readings . : + |xi (i.) Examples where Greek Teat is beyond doubt, Ixii, ((a) 2 Pet. i. 4, xii. (Ὁ) 2 Pet. ii. 1, δ. (ὁ) 2 Pet. li. 17, Lxiti. (d) 2 Pet. ii. 18, ἐδ. (6) 2 Pet. iii. 1, wb. (f) 3 Joh. 10, ib, (9) Jud. 11, 7b.)

CONTENTS

(ii.) Where Greek Text may possibly be doubted, Ixv. (h) 2 Pet. i. 4, Ixv. (ὃ 2 Pet. i. 15, ὦ. (j) 2 Pet. i. 16, ib. (1) 2 Joh. 6, tb. (ὃ) 3 Joh. 9, ἐδ. (m) Jud. 2, ab. (iii.) Examples affecting single words, xv. XVIII. The Arabic Version and the B-Text .

XIX. The Harklensian Version and the A-Teat . (1) A-text not invariably with Harklensian, lxvii. (2) When they agree in Reading, often differ in Rendering, ib. (3) Instances of 3 Joh. 6, and of 2 Pet. iii. 10, ib. (4) Instances where MSS of A-group have been corrected after B-text, lxviii. (5) Instances of corrections after Harklensian

text, found in Intermediate MSS only, ib.

XX. SUMMARY

XXII. The Underlying Greek Text : (1) Its Instances of Agreement with the Greek Uncials severally, lxx. (2) Its Agreement with the Greek Text underlying the Harklensian more extensive than with any Greek MS, ib. Postscript. The Pericope de Adultera (1) The Recension usually printed (Paul's), lxxi. (2) An Earlier Recension (Mara’s), ib. (3) Ver- sion from a Malabar MS of Gospels, Ixxii.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES SYRIAC TEXTS. (Epistles, 5; Pericope, 39.)

GREEK TEXTS. (Prefatory Note, 52; Epistles, 53; Abbre- viations, &c., 54; Pericope, 85) . Postscript.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES Appenpix I. Collation of Cod. 20 . AppenpDiIx II. Collation of White’s Edition of Harkl, Foran of the Epistles, with MSS Appenpix III. The Syriac Versions of the Apocalypse

INDEX .

xl

Page

lxvi

. xvii

. lxvili '

lxix

lxxi

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 1 (under 7): for xiv, read xv. 2 (under 11): dele Gospels. 3, line 4: for Lawler, read Lawlor. 4, line 12: for A, read 11. 10 (notes), line 6: for 3 writes, read 35 write. 12 (notes), line 18: after hkl, add *. 14 (notes), line 1: dele arb. 19 (text), line 3: write LaaXe (with ribbui). 19 (notes), line 16: for 13 (after 11), write 13*. 20 (notes), line 17: after 18 18 19, insert (11, 13, final ων). 25 (notes), line 7: correct as in Suppl. N. on 2 Joh. 10, p. 121. 26 (text), line 1: add final | to wt9. 30 (notes), line 6: dele arb, and correct as in Suppl. N. on : 3 Joh. 12, p. 127. 31 (notes), line 9: after 1 2, insert 6. 32 (notes), line 6: after edd, insert (exc. L). 34 (notes), line 14: after 8, insert (corr.). 35 (notes), line 3: for (similarly hkl), read (hkl om.). 37 (notes), line 3: for cootaisa\o, write «οσιΐξονο. 38, line 5: for (9), write (9, omitting the rest). 46, line 26: dele and translated. 57 (notes), line 7: for (some), read (m), 57 (notes), line 18: after authority, insert except hkl as regards (a). Pages 58 to 61: see p. 104, note * for omissions in these pages. Page 58 (notes), line 12: after lat, insert vg. 59 (notes), line 15: after lat, insert vg. 61 (notes), line 12: dele arb. 62 (notes), line 5: after lat, insert (correction as in Suppl. N. on 2 Pet. ii. 4, p. 104).

X1V

Page 62

62

(9) με

90

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA,

.

(notes), line 9: for καί Ὁ), write καί Θ),

(notes), lines 13, 14: place (8) before S im 13, and dele in 14,

(notes), line 5: for A write A*.

(notes), line 8: for δα Αἴ, write N* A.

(notes), line 23: before sing., insert gen.

(notes), line 6: dele So before 8* B, and ins. om after eth.

(notes), line 8: after mss., ins. hkl. |

(heading): for IOANNOY, write IQANNOY.

(notes), lines 13, 14: dele hkl in 13, and ins. bef. lat an 14.

(notes), line 22: ins. οὐκ before ἐβουλήθην (for ἠβουλ.) and before ἤθελον.

(notes), lines 4 and 6: (correct as in Suppl. N. on Jud. 5, p. 130, note f). |

(text), line 2: for αὐτῶν, write ἑαυτῶν (see p. 140, on Jud. 16).

(notes), line 25: dele gr.

(notes), line 3: for D write P.

(notes), lines 26 and 27: (correct as in Suppl. N. on Jud. 25, Ρ. 137).

(notes), line 3: dele in hkl.

96, line 10: dele 5, and for nine, write ten.

98, 101, 109, 110, 115, 121, 121, 130,

132,

133,

143,

line 37: before ὅλο- insert καί.

line 15: for ii. 9, write i. 19.

line 12: for .Q23, write QQ).

line 12: for γελῶτα write γέλωτα.

line 15: for 1 write 2 bis.

line 16: for 1 alone, write 1 and 20.

line 34: for 12 read 18.

line 18: in Ἰλοολῖο insert a before 1.

line 34: in loQsu write 2 ‘jor Ὁ.

line ὃ: for from noun to participle, read from absol. to emphat.

line 30: after wd; insert | Lasso (as 1).

pee ey ΠΣ ξ =) Ω 2) ΡΩ͂

Η

(avn)

INTRODUCTION

Section I.—The Peshitita New Testament first printed.

1. The Syriac Version of the Four Minor Catholic Epistles,—the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, and that of St. Jude—of which a revised text is here offered, has for more than two centuries and a half been included in all printed editions of the Syriac New Testament. But from the earlier editions it is lacking. When the Editio Princeps was published in 1555,* Widmanstad, the ᾿ editor, was obliged to call attention to the fact of the absence from his volume, not only of a few passages here and there, but of five whole Books,—the Revelation and these Four Epistles. For this omission he apologizes in such terms as to imply that he believed it to be due to the imperfection of the manuscript whence he derived his text,—a copy which the Jacobite Patriarch of Antiocht had sent to Europe from Mardin in Mesopotamia by the hands of a priest named Moses, with the object of having it printed.§ Widmanstad must therefore have been unaware that the Canon of the current Syriac New Testa- ment—the Peshitta—was, in respect of these Books, deficient according to the standard of the Greek and Latin Churches.

* The history of this Edition is to be gathered from the Dedicatio prefixed to it by the editor, and from his subjoined Hpistola. In these he gives some account of his life and studies. He was born in 1506 or 1507, and died not long after the issue of his work.

t+ Of these the most considerable is the Historia Adulterae (St. Joh, vii. 58— Vili. 12), for which see pp. 39 et sqq., and pp. 85 et sqq., infr.

Ζ Probably Ignatius XVII, or his successor. The dates of these Patriarchs in the sixteenth century are not clearly ascertained. They all have for many centuries assumed the name Ignatius.

§ “‘ Reliquae Sanctorum Petri Ioannis et Iudae epistolae, una cum Apocalypsi, etsi extent apud Syros, tamen in exemplaribus quae sequuti sumus defuerunt.”’ Widmanstad, fo. BB, 1r°. The MS brought by Moses was written at Mosul, but its date is not recorded. The seat of the Jacobite Patriarch was, and still is, Deir Zaferan, a monastery near Mardin.

XViil INTRODUCTION

2. This deficiency, as regards the Four Epistles, had been noted as early as the sixth century by the Greek traveller Cosmas (known as Indicopleustes),* and has since been abundantly verified by the con- curring evidence of the earlier Peshitta manuscripts, all of which, like the Mardin copy, give only three Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John). Whatever may be the age of the Peshitta New Testament,— whether its literary structure, and its Canon, were of gradual growth or due to a definitive act at a more or less determinable date,—it is agreed by all that never, from the time when it first attained accep- tance as the Syriac Authorized Version, did it include the Books which (after the Mardin manuscript) the Editio Princeps omits. Moses, however, assured Widmanstad that all the missing portions of the sacred text were extant in Syriac, and undertook to bring back copies of them from the East, whither he was about to return.t This undertaking was not fulfilled ; he appears to have proved untrustworthy, to have left Europe under a cloud of suspicion, and never to have resumed communications with the West.

3. Nor was it through any Jacobite agency, nor from Mesopotamia, that the Syriac text of these Four Epistles first reached Europe, and found its way into our printed Syriac New Testaments: it came from the Lebanon, and is due to the Maronite Church.

This Church indeed had already, before the time of Widmanstad and his edition, become the medium threugh which the Syriac Serip- tures were first introduced to European scholars. It had submitted itself to the Roman See as early as the time of the Fourth Lateran. Council (1211); and at the Fifth (1513) its Patriarch was represented by three of his priests. From one of these, the learned Teseo Am- brogio of Pavia acquired a knowledge of Syriac, being thus the first European to study that tongue ; and he was also the first to possess a Syriac manuscript—a copy of the Gospels and the Psalter, obtained no doubt from his teacher. This Teseo, though he never succeeded in printing more than a few fragments of the Gospel text in Syriac, yet was an important agent in bringing about its ultimate publication ; for in his latter years (in 1529) he instructed Widmanstad, the future

* Topographia Christ., lib. vii. 292.

+ “Moses noster Meredinaeus....ex Mesopotamia favente Deo reversus.... reliquas SSS. Petri Ioannis et Iudae Epistolas cum Apocalypsi quae ad perfectio- nem Novi Testamenti nobis defuerunt.... adportabit.” Widm., fo. KK. 3.

INTRODUCTION xix

editor of the first Syriac New Testament—then a youthful student of Biblical literature—in the elements of that language, and entrusted to him his Syriac Gospels, charging him to commit it in due time to the Church of Christ.*

It was not, however, till after the lapse of more than five and twenty years (Teseo having died in the interval), that Widmanstad was enabled to fulfil the charge thus laid upon him. But his Syriac New Testa- ment of 1555 more than fulfilled it. That edition, though Teseo’s Maronite manuscript of the Gospels was used for reference by its editor, presents (as above stated) a completer text—not the Gospels merely, but the entire Peshitta New Testament as exhibited in the Mardin manuscript. And to the Patriarch who sent that manuscript to Europe in order to have it printed for the use of his people, and to Widmanstad who carried out its publication, belong the honour of having enriched Biblical literature by the Editio Princeps of the New | Testament as read in all the Churches, Jacobite, Maronite, and Nes- torian alike, whose Vulgate Bible was the Peshitta.

Section IIl.—The extra-Peshitta Epistles.

1. Thus, though it was from the Jacobite Church of Mesopotamia that the New Testament in the Peshitta Version first came complete into the hands of Western scholars in the middle of the sixteenth century, the way had been prepared for its publication by a series of causes, ultimately due to the action some forty years earlier (in the time of the Fifth Lateran Council) of the Maronite Church of the Lebanon. And it is noteworthy that from the same Maronite Church—apparently at or soon after the close of the same century—came the first copy that is known to have reached Europe of the supplement to the Peshitta text with which this Introduction deals—the Four Epistles which the Peshitta omits.

2. Nicolas Serarius, a learned Jesuit of Mainz, in his Prolegomena

* “Obtestatus ut quo me beneficio tum complecteretur, id olim apud Ecclesiam Iesu Christi collocarem.” Widmanstad, ut supr.Some account of this Teseo Ambrogio is to be found in Tiraboschi, Letteratura Italiana, vol. viii, pt. iii; and in his own Introductio in Chaldaicam Linguam, &c.,—a rare book, published in 1539, which contains the short passages from the Gospel text above mentioned. He was born in 1469, and died in 1540.

xx INTRODUCTION

Biblica (1612), informs us that a copy of these Epistles in Syriac had been brought to Rome by some Maronites, and thence to Mainz ; * where it was translated into Latin by Balthasar Etzel, Professor of Hebrew in the Jesuit College of that city. This translation Serarius prints at the end of his Commentary on the New Testament (1612)., What became of this copy is unknown ; but his Latin, which is very literal, is still reckoned among the authorities for the Syriac .text of these Epistles, and agrees in the main, though not without variations, with other copies which have since become accessible,—especially late copies of Maronite origin.

3. The publication of the actual Syriac text followed after no long interval. A copy of the Acts and all seven Catholic Epistles in Syriac, presented to the Bodleian Library in 1611, by Paul Pindar, British Consul at Aleppo, attracted the notice of Edward Pococke, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, from his early youth an eager student of the Semitic tongues. From it he derived the text of his edition, the Hditio Princeps of our Four Epistles, which he published at Leiden in 1630. To this work he was stimulated by the example and in it he was aided by the services of Louis De Dieu, of Leiden, who in 1627 had published there a Syriac text of the Apocalypse. The two volumes, De Dieu’s and Pococke’s, issued from the same press, are exactly uniform in shape and arrangement; taken together they supply the Books of the New Testament Canon which are not in the Peshitta, so as to enable the student to read the whole of it in Syriac.

4. It only remained to put the parts together in due order, and exhibit the Syriac New Testament as a whole. This was done by Gabriel Sionita, a Maronite, who edited the Syriac text of the great Paris Polyglot published by Le Jay in 1645, in which our Four Epistles and the Revelation appear each in its place as in the Bibles of Western Christendom: and so likewise in the better known and more con-

* Serarius, writing at Mainz, says of the parts of the N.T. that were lacking in Widmanstad’s edition, ‘‘ nunc a Maronitis Romam et inde huc perlata habentur, scil., 2 Petr., 2 et 3 Joann., Jud., et Apocalypsis.”” (Prolegg. Bibl., p. 80.)

+ See below, Sect. xiv, “ Versions”; also p. 4.

t+ For the Bodleian MS (our Cod. 8), and the Editio Princeps, see below (Sect. x11, “" Manuscripts”; x11, ‘‘ Editions,” and pp. 1, 4). For Edward Pococke (1604—1691), see his Life by Dr. T. Wells, prefixed to his collected Works (1740). He was Lecturer in Arabic (1640), and afterwards Professor of Hebrew (1649), in the University of Oxford.

INTRODUCTION xxi

veniently arranged London Polyglot, commonly called Walton’s, which followed twelve years later.*

It is not to be assumed that (as some have supposed) Sionita merely inserted into his text, in their places, the Epistles and Apocalypse as edited by Pococke and De Dieu. A careful comparison of his texts with theirs leads toa contrary conclusion. Of the Apocalypse this is not the place to treat :Τ as regards the Epistles, the Apparatus attached to the text of the present edition shows clearly that Sionita has given them from an independent manuscript, better (on the whole) than Pococke’s. It appears, moreover, that Thorndike, who edited the Syriac for Walton, was content to reproduce Sionita’s text of them, with very few (apparently casual) deviations. The only addition made to the Syriac New Testament in Walton’s volume, is that of the Historia Adulterae,t which the Peshitta omits, and no edition before Walton’s supplies. |

The whole of the supplementary matter then introduced into these great Polyglot Bibles has ever since held its ground, and is included in every edition of the Syriac New Testament since issued. Yet its two main components —the Four Epistles and the Apocalypse — differ widely in point of congruity with the main text to which they have thus been attached. No one could possibly mistake the Apocalypse of De Diew’s text for a part of the Peshitta—its differences of diction and method lie on the surface, and in point of fact it has never been found in any manuscript associated with any Book of the Peshitta. But it may well be doubted whether these Four Epistles, if they had been first published as they appear in the Polyglots, arranged as in the Greek New Testament in their places as four of the series of Seven Catholic Epistles, would have been challenged by critics as the work of a later age. If the manuscript whence Widmanstad printed his Editio Princeps had been one of those which (as our Codd. 11 and 12) exhibit them so placed, it is not improbable that they would have passed for a long time, perhaps to the present day, as an integral part of the Peshitta New Testament. The translator’s idiom is pure; he has shown himself a skilful continuator by successfully maintaining the

* See below, Sect. x11, ‘‘ Editions;”’ also p. 4. t+ See for it Appendix ITI, infr., p. 154.

t See note ἔ to p. xvii, supr.; also Postscript, p. lxxi, infr.

Xxii INTRODUCTION

manner and linguistic usage of the Peshitta, of which he must have been a diligent student.

Section III.—Date and Authorship of our Version of the extra- Peshitta Epistles. —

We are thus led to enter on the inquiry, In what age, and by whom, was this translation made?

1. The major limit of its age may be unhesitatingly fixed. Itisa production of the Monophysite Church. Of the manuscripts which | exhibit it not one is Nestorian. It cannot, therefore, claim to be coeval with the Peshitta, the “ Authorized Version” of all Syriac- speaking Christendom,—of Nestorian and Jacobite alike, presumably prior to the earlier of the schisms in which those names arose. It belongs, therefore, to a period later than that of the Council of Ephesus (431), later probably than that of Chalcedon (451).

The evidence of Cosmas (above referred to) may be supposed to bring the limit yet lower down, into the sixth century, to which his work belongs. Yet his statement is not to be pressed so far. It testifies to the general and public Syriac use in receiving but three Catholic Epistles; it merely tells us what we know on other testimony, that none but those three were contained in the Syriac Vulgate, and it does not exclude the possible existence in his time (though unknown to him, and perhaps not widely known nor ever generally accepted) of a Syriac translation of the other four.

2. Later, thus, than the Peshitta, where does it stand in order of time relative to the other extant Syriac New Testament, the Harklensian ?

Here we are on firm ground, for concerning the Harklensian our information is at first hand, full and precise. The official colophon subscribed by the translator to most copies of it, including the oldest, states that it was made at Alexandria, A.Gr. 925 (a.p. 614), by one Thomas, otherwise known as “of Harkel,” Jacobite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis). It includes all the Books of the New Testament (with the doubtful exception of the Apocalypse), our Four Epistles with the rest, each in its place among the Seven, as in the Greek.—T wo complete copies of it,* and many portions of it (especially of the Gospels) have

* See infr., p. 146. The copies above noted as complete are the a and B there described. The former has, however, lost by mutilation a few leaves at the end.

ee ΨΥ a ΑἌΡο

INTRODUCTION Xxill

been preserved. Its character (as a translation which has attained a singular degree of accuracy by sacrificing propriety of idiom as well as _ literary quality) is such that it lends itself readily to critical com- parison. And we shall have advanced a step towards fixing the age of our Version, if we can satisfy ourselves whether it, or the text of the same Four as given in the Harklensian, is the earlier.

The question thus raised has been confidently answered by White, the editor of the Harklensian.* He lays it down as certain that our Version is later—not only than the Harklensian, but also—than the time of Bar-Salibi, who (writing in the middle of the twelfth century) in his Commentaries on the Acts and Epistles follows the Harklensian text of these Four Epistles, and states that they were not found in Syriac except in that Version.| This statement, however, is demonstrably erroneous ; for we have tangible evidence that these Epistles in our Version, though Bar-Salibi had not met with them, were known and transcribed in and before his time. Our oldest copy of them, dated A.Gr. 1134 (a.p. 823), was in fact three hundred years old before he wrote. And an Arabic Version of them, undoubtedly based on it, is also believed to belong to the ninth century.{ Thus the evidence of Bar-Salibi, and White’s inference from it, fall together to the ground.$

Putting aside, accordingly, as inadmissible, the low date assigned by White, we return to the question above stated, Is our Version prior or posterior to the Harklensian? It cannot well be dated (as we have seen) so early as the fifth century, nor so late as the ninth. Does it belong to the eighth, or to the seventh, or to the sixth?

3. And here a fact presents itself, of cardinal importance towards the solution of our problem. Thomas of Harkel, who in his colophon

* Dr. Joseph White was Laudian Professor of Arabic (1775), afterwards Regius Professor of Hebrew (1802), in the University of Oxford. His edition (under the title Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana) was published at Oxford (1778—1803), in successive volumes.

+ This statement White cites (in his opening note on 2 Peter, p. 43) from Pococke’s Prefatio to the Editio Princeps. Pococke found it in a (still inedited) Commentary by Dionysius (better known as Bar-Salibi, Bishop of Amid (Diarbekr), 1166—1171, the most learned of the Jacobite divines of the twelfth century) contained in the Bodleian MS Or. 560, on the Apocalypse, Acts, and Epistles. This MS has lost many leaves; a more complete one is in the British Museum (Rich 7185).

t See below, Sect. x11, ‘‘ Manuscripts,” Cod. 1, p. xlii, Sect. x1v, “ Versions” ; also pp. 1, 4.

§ On this mistake, see further in Sect. v1, p. xxxii in/fr.

XX1V INTRODUCTION

above referred to, appended to the several divisions of his work,* is himself the primary authority for all we know of his Version of the New Testament, expressly and with exact detail of time and place describes it as being—not a fresh translation, but rather—a revision of a previous translation, modified by comparison with one or more Greek texts. Of that earlier translation likewise he gives a particular account: it was made (he tells us) at Mabug (Hierapolis), in A.Gr. 819 (a.p. 508), “in the days” of the famous Philoxenus (or Xenaias),f his predecessor by a century as Bishop of that city. And he distinctly intimates that our Four Epistles were included in that primary version as they are in his revision of it ; for at the close of the second division of his work,—the Acts followed by the Catholic Epistles (all seven), —he repeats in somewhat more precise terms the colophon as before— subjoining it in immediate sequence to the Epistle of Jude.

This Philoxenian Version, however, failed to supersede the Peshitta, and as a whole it has disappeared, itself superseded by the Har- klensian—or at most surviving only in its revised form as in the

Harklensian.

Section IV.—Identification of it as part of the Philoxenian N.T.

These facts have suggested the surmise that the Four Epistles of our Version may be in fact the Epistles as they stood in the original and unrevised Philoxenian—retained (while the rest was left to lapse) to supply the defect of the Peshitta where it falls short of the Greek.f{

A careful examination of the two texts will enable us to deter-— mine — (1) Whether there is between them a relation of inter- dependence? (2) If they are so related, which is the original work, and which the derivate ?

(1) In the first place, it may be accepted as certain that the two

* See, for this colophon, White, wt swpr., vol. i, p. 561; ii, p. 274.

+ Bishop of Mabug, 485; an active upholder of the Monophysite doctrines ; banished by Justin in 518, along with the Patriarch Severus of Antioch, and many other Bishops who refused to accept the decrees of Chalcedon; died in exile (probably by violence) a few years later. See Assemani, Biblioth. Orient., t. ii, pp. 19, 20.

t+ Dr. Davidson seems to have been the first to suggest this identification (Biblical Criticism, p. 642). From him it was adopted by Dr. Tregelles (Dict. of Bible, vol. iii, p. 1636); and afterwards by Dr, I. H. Hall (Syr. Antilegomena, p. 2, and elsewhere).

INTRODUCTION , XXV

versions are not independent. Here again it is necessary to set aside the judgment of White, who has laid it down as a self-evident fact

that the Harklensian Version of 2 Peter [and, by implication, of all

the four] “has nothing whatever in common with the Version published by Pococke.”* He gives no reasons for this decision, he alleges neither differences of diction nor divergences of substance, such as undeniably present themselves: he treats the question as one to be disposed of without argument. — In opposition to his dictum, it is to be emphati- cally affirmed that the relation between the two is so close as to compel the conclusion that one of them is founded on the other. Farther on in this Introduction it will be shown in detail (Sectt. x, x1) that, under- neath differences and divergences which lie on the surface, there is a solid and extensive substratum of agreement, amounting to affinity— both in the language and in the matter represented by it—an affinity which can be adequately expressed only by stating that one of them is a revision of the other, rewritten throughout as regards diction and style, and altered in substance here and there into accordance with a fresh Greek text. They are not two translations made each of them direct from a different Greek text, each by a scholar independently rendering the Greek before his eyes in his own words and way. Thus the problem remaining to be solved is, whether (a) our Version is the Harklensian rewritten into purer Syriac after a freer method of trans- lation ?—or (Ὁ) the Harklensian is our Version corrected by a scholarly (not to say pedantic) hand so as to attain a servile fidelity of repro- duction ?!—in either case with some readjustment of text after a second Greek exemplar.—Or in other words, and more briefly, the question is: Of these two Versions of the Four Epistles, ours and the Harklensian, which is the primary, and which the derivate? f

* White, μέ supr., p. 43. It is to be noted that in this matter Pococke, with less material to judge on, judged more sagaciously than White. In the Commen- tary of Bar-Salibi (see note ¢ on p. xxiii swpr.) he had found many citations from these Epistles in a version by a translator unnamed, whom he designates Syrus alter [“*S.A.”]. This version he discerned to be, though distinct from that which he edited, yet so obviously akin to it that he cites its renderings all through his notes. They are now identified as belonging to the Harklensian, which in Pococke’s time was unknown: but it is strange that White, its editor 150 years later, should have failed to recognize the kinship which the earlier scholar had the acuteness to detect in the short and scattered fragments he had lighted on.

+ A third alternative might be supposed: that the two Versions are related not as primary and derivate, but as two derivates from a lost primary, their common

d

Xxvi INTRODUCTION

(2) In deciding between the alternatives (a) and (b), one consideration forces itself into notice which goes far towards determining our judg- ment. The two alternatives do not stand before us on an equal footing of probability. Of these two Versions of the Four Epistles, one (the Harklensian) is professedly a revision of a previous one (the Philoxenian) ; and this fact raises a strong presumption against the theory (of alterna- tive a), that it may also be the primary version from which ours was derived. For that theory would require us to suppose three successive versions, — the original Philoxenian, the Harklensian (admittedly derived by revision from it), and our Version (again by re-revision derived from the Harklensian). To postulate thus two revisions where only one is necessary and sufficient to account for the facts of the case, —and three versions where the evidence points to the existence of but two,—would be idle; and in point of fact no one has ever advanced alternative (a) as an hypothesis worthy of notice. I have stated it here only as logically possible, not as entitled to practical regard. Dismissing it therefore, we fall back on alternative (b), and accept the theory that our version is the primary whence the Harklensian is the derivate.—But, inasmuch as the author of the Harklensian presents it as a revision of the Philoxenian, the identification of our Version with the Philoxenian follows by necessary inference. Thus the surmise above indicated (p. xxiv) takes shape in the definite conclusion that the Version of the Four Epistles, into whose age and origin we are inquiring, is a part of that previous Version, the Philoxenian, on which the Har- klensian was based,—surviving while the rest of it has disappeared.

(3) In confirmation of this conclusion, we shall find in the details given in the Sections (x, x1) above referred to, proof that our Version is exactly such as the Philoxenian basis of the Harklensian must have been ;—that it is a version which, if modified in its diction after the graecizing method which Thomas affected, and altered in substance here and there after a Greek text (or texts) such as he tells us he employed, would yield as result a version answering exactly to the description of the Har- klensian. We are justified, accordingly, in closing the inquiry here, and accepting the solution of the question proposed which thus offers itself.

original. But (seeing that the parent of the Harklensian was admittedly the Philoxenian) this supposition would merely mean that our Version, though not the Philoxenian, is directly derived from the Philoxenian,---a theory not only baseless, but so needless that it may safely be dismissed.

INTRODUCTION XxVil

And in answering the question of the age of the Version we have found moreover the answer to the question of its authorship. We have learnt not only that it is prior to the Harklensian of a.p. 614, and therefore not later than the sixth century, but that it belongs to the original Philoxenian New Testament, the Syriac Version made for Philoxenus of Mabug, in the first decade of that century.

Section V.—The Philoxenian New Testament.

(1) How it has chanced that the Philoxenian Version, as a whole, has passed into oblivion, we cannot tell. It never seems to have gained acceptance, Probably it was altered too much to find favour with ᾿ readers who clung to the accustomed words of their familiar Peshitta, excellent as all admit it to be,—yet not altered enough to satisfy the desire of the scholarly student, who wanted to have the Syriac Scriptures brought into strict conformity with the Greek—a desire fulfilled not long after by the Harklensian. But why these Epistles have survived while the bulk of the works perished is easily under-

stood. As above suggested, they supplied to Syriac-speaking readers and hearers what the Peshitta failed to give—the text of Epistles, short but precious as bearing the names of three holy Apostles, and widely accepted by great Greek Fathers of the Churches, not only of Antioch but of Alexandria. Writings known to form part of the New Testament as read by the “ Faithful” (MWhaimne)* of the Monophysite Church of the Copts in Egypt,f could not fail, when presented in the Syriac tongue, to be welcomed by their brother “ Faithful” of the Church, Mono- physite likewise, of the Syrians, the Jacobites in Mesopotamia.—How, or when, these Epistles first came to be read in Church, does not appear.

* By this title the Monophysites designated themselves, regarding the adherents of the Fourth General Council, the ‘‘ Chalcedonians,” as having fallen away from the Faith.—The name “ Jacobite” came to be applied to the Syrian Monophysites when Jacob (usually known as “ Baradaeus ”) had revived their Church from its collapse under the persecutions which had nearly put an end to it. He was Bishop of Edessa, 541-578. It is usual to call the Coptic Church also “‘ Jacobite,” the Coptic and the Syrian Churches being alike Monophysite, and in close com- munion. The Life of Baradaeus has been written by John of Ephesus (see for it Land’s Anecdota Syr., t. ii, pp. 249 et sqq., 264 et sqq.).

+ Not only the text of all Greek manuscripts of the N.T., but that of the Coptic Versions, includes our Epistles; and also (though not without signs of doubt) the Apocalypse.

XXViil INTRODUCTION

The earliest copy of them (see above, p. xxiii, and below, p. xlii) is included in a volume of Miscellanies, not in a book for ecclesiastical use; but copies from the twelfth century down (codd. 12, 13, ἄς.) bear rubrics marking parts of them for Lessons,—not of the ordinary yearly course, but for special Festivals.

(2) Concerning the previous history of this Philoxenian New Testa- ment, and especially these Epistles, the sum total of our information is brief, but definite. It is first mentioned by Moses of Agel,* a writer of the middle of the sixth century (a Monophysite), who states that one Polycarpus, whom he designates ‘‘ Chorepiscopus,” “ translated the New Testament and David into Syriac from the Greek, for Xenaias [Philo- xenus| of Mabug.” This was written apparently about the year 550, when the Version spoken of was only about forty years in existence ; ~ and Moses evidently supposed it to be probably unknown to his readers. His evidence thus not merely confirms that of Thomas (above cited, p. xxiv), who wrote a generation or two later, but throws light upon it by explaining how the Version came to bear the name of Philoxenus to whose “ days” Thomas assigns it ; and it further gives us the name of the actual translator. It is, however, from Thomas, not merely in his colophon, but in his Version at large, that we gain our fullest and most important knowledge of its Philoxenian prototype ; for in that Version we may presume that he has retained much of the general substance and leading features of the work of Poly- carpus. And, moreover, in his asterisks and marginal notes (to be dealt with presentlyt) he has apparently preserved traces of it.—But beyond these indirect indications, and a few minute fragments of the — Pauline Epistles that have casually survived,{ our Four Epistles are the only part of the Philoxenian New Testament—with the probable exception of the Revelation §—that is now forthcoming.

(3) The earliest evidence of their existence appears (as above stated, p. xxiii) in the ninth century, in a MS volume dated a.p. 823

* See for Moses of Agel (or Aggil), Assemani, B.O., t. ii, p. 82. His statement (as above) occurs in an Epistle prefixed to his Syriac translation of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, in which he warns his readers to expect to find that Cyril’s citations from the Greek Bible often differ from the Peshitta, and refers them to the more recent and exact version of Polycarpus. This is probably the version of the Glaphyra that is extant (though mutilated) in MS. Add. 14555 (Br. Mus.).

+ In Sectt. x (d) and x1 (c), infr., pp. xxxvii, xl.

t See below, Sect. v1 (a), p. xxx. § Ib.

INTRODUCTION xxix

(our Cod. 1); and in it they are not set apart, but associated with the

three Catholic Epistles of the Peshitta—2 and 3 John subjoined to

1 John (which stands first of the Seven), 2 Peter to 1 Peter, Jude following,—with no note to mark them as belonging to a different Version. They appear also, probably within the same century, in another shape, rendered from our Syriac into Arabic,* in ἃ copy of the Acts and Epistles, in which all the Seven stand on equal terms, in the usual order as in the Greek.—After this there is a blank in their his- tory. No other copy of them can be dated with confidence earlier than the twelfth century,t to which three of our five oldest MSS (9, 12, 14) apparently belong. The later ones are mostly of the fifteenth century (as Codd. 11, 13, 20),—or of the sixteenth and seventeenth (as Codd. 8, 10, 15, 17), or even more recent. Cod. 1 (Add. 14623) was written in an Egyptian (Copto-Syrian) monastery ; the twelfth century group, and apparently a few of the later ones (Codd. 19, 20), come from Tar-‘Abdin (a district of Mesopotamia); the rest are mostly from the Maronite Church of the Lebanon,—except one, recent but of much importance (Cod. 18), which was probably written in the convent on Mount Sinai where it is preserved. The manuscripts also which Etzel’s Latin and the Paris Polyglot text represent, though not forthcoming, are known to have been Maronite (see pp. xx supr., lvii infr.).

Thus the materials by which is established the text of the present edition, testify to the fact that these Epistles have been preserved, read, and transcribed by Syriac-reading Christians dispersed over many regions, through many centuries.

Section VI. Other surviving Remains of the Philoxenian.

The question may be conveniently treated at this point, which naturally arises, whether any other portions survive of the Version to which Philoxenus gives his name and authority.

(a) As regards the New Testament, one or two copies of the Harklensian Gospels have been with some confidence put forward by successive critics as Philoxenian, on the ground of certain divergences

* See below, Sect. xiv (δ). + For the date of our Cod. 2 (Add. 14473), which may be older, see below, Sect. x11, p. xliii.

XXX INTRODUCTION

from the Harklensian manner and from the consent of most other copies, which appear in the text presented by them,—as the Florentine MS of a.p. 757 by Adler,* the Cod. Angelicus of Rome by Bern- stein,t—and (more recently) an early MS (not later than 900) now at Beirit, by Dr. Isaac Hall.f But of none of these has the identi- fication been, or can be, admitted as even probable; though the peculiarities noted in each of them may be due to the retention of some Philoxenian words or forms of words—just as many (probably most) Latin Vulgate MSS exhibit in their text an admixture of “ Old Latin” readings. The only relics of the unrevised Philoxenian (other than our Epistles) that are to be accepted as such without doubt, are the five minute fragments, above referred to (p. xxviii), of the Pauline Epistles found by Cardinal Wiseman on the margin of his “ Karka- phensian” MS, and published by him in 1828.§ They are from Rom. vi. 20, 1 Cor. i. 28, 2 Cor. vii. 13, ib. x. 4, Eph. vi. 2.

But the Version of the Apocalypse, of which a short account is given in Appendix III (p. 154 infr.), discovered and published by me in 1898, has a good claim to be reckoned Philoxenian, bearing to the Apocalypse, as published by De Dieu in 1627 (and printed in the ordinary editions of the Syriac New Testament), much the same relation as our Four Epistles bear to the Harklensian text of the same. Of this Apocalypse the only known copy forms part (along with the Four Epistles) of our Cod. 12,|| which is the only complete Syriac New Testament MS that has reached Europe from the East. If this identification of it as Philoxenian be admitted, it follows that this MS is to be regarded as a copy of the Peshitta supplemented into conformity with the Greek canon by interpolation of these books from the Philoxenian,—or, in other words, that it preserves for us just so much of the Philoxenian as suffices to supply the defect of the Canon of the Peshitta. ,

(Ὁ) Further, our primary authority in the matter, Moses of Agel, informs us (see p. xxviii supr.) that besides the New Testament the Philoxenian translator extended his labours to one Book of the Old—

* N.T. Versiones Syr., p. 55. + Das heil. Evang. des Joh., Syr., pp. 8, 25.

t In Journal of Society of Bibl. Lit. and Exeg., 1882. Dr. Hall issued also a phototype reproduction of two pages of this MS.

§ Horae Syr., p. 178, note 11. || See below, Sect. x11, p. xlv.

INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧῚ

the Psalter, which (it is implied) he rendered from the Greek. Of this Version no fragment is known to have been preserved as a citation, nor is any trace of it identifiable now. Yet it is probable that the text of the Psalms as they appear in the existing Peshitta, may have been (in parts at least) modified somewhat into approxima- tion to the Philoxenian text. The large use made of this Book, far beyond all other Old Testament writings, in the offices of the Church, would naturally dispose the Syriac-speaking “Faithful” to favour a Psalter based (as the Philoxenian was) on the Greek, as a means of assimilating their psalmody to that of the Greek-speaking fellow- members of their communion.—If this be so, it seems to account for the fact that in very many places the Psalter, unlike the other Books of the Peshitta Old Testament, represents the text of the LXX rather than that of the Hebrew.

Moses, as above cited, mentions no other Old Testament Book as translated by Polycarpus. But we have direct evidence that his work comprised at least one great Book of the Prophets—that of Isaiah. The great Milanese MS of the latter half of the Syro-Hexaplar Old Testament (Cod. Ambros. C. 313, injr.), which bears on its margin a wonderfully complete apparatus of the readings and renderings of the later Greek translators, exhibits also in one place (Hsai. ix. 6) an alternative rendering which it definitely cites as from “the version that was translated by the care of holy Philoxenus.”—Being thus assured that this Version extended to Isaiah, we are justified in following the judgment of Dr. Ceriani who accepts as Philoxenian a series (preserved in a seventh-century MS) of large fragments of Isaiah* in Syriac in a translation made from the LXX; distinct, therefore, from the Peshitta, but agreeing neither textually nor in diction with the Syro-Hexaplar.t

* These fragments (B.M., Add. 17106) have been printed in Monwmenta S. et P., t. v, fasc. i, by Dr. Ceriani (Milan, 1868), They are, Esai. xxviii. 3-17, xlii. 17— xlix. 18, Ixvi. 11-23.

+ The Syriac translation of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, made by this Moses of Agel, has been mentioned above (note* to p. xxviii). To it the Syriac fragment of that treatise extant in MS. Add, 14555 presumably belongs. It is reasonable therefore to infer that the passages of Isaiah which occur in it belong likewise to the Philoxenian; for inasmuch as Moses commends that Version to his Syrian readers, he would no doubt himself borrow its renderings to represent the Prophet’s words where cited by Cyril in the Glaphyra. See my article Polycarpus Chorepiscopus in Dict. of Christian Biography, vol. iv, p. 433.

XXXii INTRODUCTION

Section VII. The Harklensian New Testament.

Compared with the Philoxenian New Testament, the Harklensian has not fared amiss. Many copies of the Gospels in this Version exist: two (a, 8) of the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse.* Portions of the Epistles are to be found in some manuscript lection- aries. In one MS (y) these Four Epistles alone, though of the Harklen- sian Version, are in a subscriptiont wrongly described as Philoxenian. This mistake suggests the suspicion that the two Versions, the primary and the derived, had in course of time become confused in ordinary usage, regarded perhaps as merely first and second editions of the text sanctioned by Philoxenus. Some such confusion has prevailed even among modern Biblical scholars,f and to it in fact the wording of Thomas’s colophon naturally leads. Possibly this usage may account for the apparent misstatement of Bar-Salibi above noticed, which seems to ignore our Version, and which has so far misled White in his estimate of its age and its relation to the Harklensian.

Section VIII. Comparative Value of the two Versions.

We claim then that our Version, though it has reached us without a name, is properly to be designated as The Philoxenian. And we claim also that it is worthy of the care bestowed on it by the scribes to whom its preservation is due, and by the editors of later times who have included it in every edition of the Syriac New Testament, from the Paris Polyglot of 1645 to the present day. Its evidential value ranks high; it is that of a witness to the text of these Epistles as read in Greek by a scholar belonging to the Church of Edessa in the first decade of the sixth century. That text he has reproduced with such careful exactness that the textual witness borne by his work is equivalent in most respects to that of a Greek copy certainly not later in date than the fifth century,—inferior, therefore, in age to none of the Greek manuscripts available for the text of this part of the New Testament, save only the four great uncial Bibles. The points are few, scarcely one of them other than trivial, at which his render-

* See Appendix 11, p. 146, anfr. t+ Ib. See for this subscription, p. 152 infr. t+ So White :—see title of his edition, given in note * to p. xxiii supr.

INTRODUCTION XXXili

ing leaves the reader in any doubt what the Greek words were which he meant to represent. And this merit of faithfulness he has attained without sacrificing—as Thomas throughout and of set purpose has sacrificed—the propriety of the Syriac tongue. His translation is as idiomatic as the Peshitta, while it keeps closer to the Greek. Two. of the Four Epistles (2 and 3 John) are simple in style and pass readily into Syriac ; but the other two, often obscure in their wording, and full of unusual forms of speech, present difficulties that tax a translator’s resources seriously. The Philoxenian translator has proved himself equal to the task: he has, with admirable effect, in instance after instance, conveyed by brief periphrasis the full sense of an expression—especially in the case of compound words, for which Syriac neither supplies, nor can be made to supply, an equivalent. To his success in these trials of skill and resource his Harklensian reviser has paid emphatic though silent tribute by retaining in nearly every such case of difficulty the rendering of his predecessor.

The merit of the later worker is of a different order from that of the earlier ; it is critical, not literary. His work, as a witness to the text of the Greek, is more nearly equivalent to a Greek manuscript than any other existing Version can claim to be.—But at what a sacrifice of propriety of Syriac idiom, and by what a strain on the resources of Syriac vocabulary and syntax, he has secured this exact- ness of rendering we have already seen, and the fact is well known to all who have even cursorily examined his Version. To describe in detail his methods of translation would be out of place here ;* it may suffice to say that in his rendering of the Greek of the New Testa- ment he has systematically done just such violence to the Syriac as Aquila before him did to the Greek in forcing it into verbal con- formity with the Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Yet it would be unfair to ignore the fact that now and then his alterations of the Philoxenian are neither petty nor pedantic: in some cases he has improved on it. Thus, he does well to give lanato for σκήνωμα (2 Pet. i. 13) instead of ly? (= σῶμα), Ἰσι ΟΣ 2202 for φώσφορος (ib: 20) instead of laos (= ἥλιος). So, again, wo represents τεφρῶ (ii. 6) better than ,20| (= κατακαίω), and JaXto more adequately expresses προπέμψας (3 Joh. 6) than OO (= ἐφο-

* See my article Thomas Harklensis, in Dict. of Christian Biography, vol. iv. 8

XXXIV ; INTRODUCTION

διάσας). On the other hand, for the only really gross blunder in either Version he is solely responsible,—the 1202039 wa SiS (Jude 7) by -vhich he misrepresents in his text the still stranger misreading of his margin, μεμψιμυροι for μεμψίμοιροι (see p. 135 infr.).

Section IX. The affinity between the two Versions, twofold.

The conclusion above drawn (Sect. Iv, p. xxvi et sqq.), that the two Versions of the Four Epistles are closely akin,—ours being the primary of which the Harklensian is a revision—is based on the affirmation that when compared together they reveal an affinity such as can be accounted for in no other way. Of this affinity the proper evidence lies in the Apparatus subjoined to the Syriac and Greek Texts as printed in this edition, where the Harklensian readings and renderings are set forth for comparison ; and it is more fully stated in such instances as seem important and illustrative, in the Supplementary Notes. The strength of the case cannot be adequately appreciated without a careful study of these texts and annotations. But in the two following Sections it is proposed to state the main heads of the evidence they yield, and to illustrate them by examples.

The relation between the Versions, its nature and extent, would best be exhibited by printing them side by side, as our Authorized and Revised English Versions are often printed, and marking their agreements and disagreements (whether of substance or of form) by distinctive type. The comparison between the Versions thus facilitated would disclose many examples of textual divergence, and moreover it would place them in instructive contrast as regards literary method. Such differences, textual and literary, are to be expected; they are consistent with—in fact, necessary to—our hypothesis that ours is the text which Thomas re-handled in his graecizing manner, and emended after an auxiliary Greek copy.—But along with the occasional disagreements in text there would be apparent a prepon- derating amount of textual coincidence; and the dissimilarity of literary form would be seen to be grammatical merely and _ super- ficial, insufficient to disguise an intimate and fundamental affinity in diction and phraseology. For the purpose of our present inquiry, therefore, we set aside such minor differences, whether of substance or of form, and we address ourselves to show that the affinity which

INTRODUCTION XXXV

subsists between the two Versions is twofold,—(i.) in diction, and (11.) in text; and is of such a nature, so intimate, and manifested in so many ways and at so many points, as to negative the possibility of regarding them as independent of one another.

SEcTION X. Their Affinity (i.) in Diction.

Under this head the evidence is so abundant that to do justice to it would be impracticable within the limits of an Introduction. Its force can be fully learnt only (as has-been said above) by a thorough comparative study of both texts. An idea of it, sufficient to carry conviction, may, however, be given within small compass by setting down a representative collection of examples of Greek words or phrases that are unfamiliar, or that find no adequate equivalent in Syriac, which both Versions render or represent alike. Such examples are as follows :—

a. Coincidences in rendering unusual or difficult expressions.

The Versions coincide in their rendering of ἰσότιμος, φιλαδελφία, ἢ μεγαλοπρεπής, αὐχμηρός, τρυφή, σπῖλος, μῶμος, κύλισμα, κατακλυσθείς, δυσνόητος (2 Pet. i. 1, 6, 7, 17, 19; ii. 18, 22; iii. 6, 16): χαῴριν (of salutation), 2 Joh. 10: φλυαρῶ (3 Joh. 10): ἐπαγωνίζομαι, παρεισδύω, ἐνυπνιάζομαι, ἐπιτιμῶ, ἐκχέω, ἀντιλογία, φθινοπωρινός, ἐπαφρίζω (Jud. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13).

It is not credible that two translators dealing independently with words such as these (and the list might be extended) should in all cases light upon identical renderings. A few such instances might be casual; some measure of coincidence is likely to occur between any two trans- lations of one and the same original. Butas between the two Versions we treat of the points of identity are too frequent and uniform in recurrence to be thus fortuitous.—This observation applies especially to the examples in which the coincidence is not merely in the selection by both of the same word to render a Greek word, but in the employ- ment of the same periphrasis to represent a Greek word for which Syriac offers no equivalent (as often happens in the case of Greek compounds). Such are the first three of the ten examples from 2 Peter, and five (the

* Their rendering of this word is different from that of the Peshitta, in signi- fication as well as in form.

παχνὶ - INTRODUCTION

first three and last two) of the eight from Jude, of those above given. It is hardly possible to question that in these instances the later Version borrowed from the earlier,—especially as the periphrases are neither easy nor obvious, but formed with skill and study.—More- over (it may be fairly added), they are in the freer manner of our Version,—not in that of the Harklensian with its word-for-word laboriousness ; and the latter, therefore, may be presumed to be the borrower.

ὃ. Coincidences: in erroneous or imperfect Renderings.

Further, the Versions concide, not only in renderings, but now and then in mis-renderings. The reviser has in some places followed his predecessor, not in well-chosen equivalents or happy periphrases, but in his (by no means frequent) errors or failures. Thus, both treat μυωπάζων (2 Pet. 1. 9) as signifying merely οὐχ ὁρῶν, both misconstrue ἐπιλύσεως (ib. 20) as a nominative,* both force on πυρούμενοι (111. 12) the sense of πυρὶ δοκιμαζόμενοι, both render δίκην ὑπέχουσαι (Jud. 7) as if it were eis δίκην κατακρινόμεναι, both pervert διακρινομένους (ib. 23) to mean μεταμελομένους. But under this head the leading example is in Jud. 6, where both are misled by a false etymology into translating ἀϊδίοις as if equivalent to dyvworois. This error appears, it is true, to have had some currency,} and is not, therefore, peculiar to these Versions. But inasmuch as the Harklensian translator renders ἀΐδιος correctly where it occurs in the Epistle which follows next in order (Rom. i. 20), it is fair to infer that his mistranslation of it here in Jude is due to his too faithful adherence to his Philoxenian precursor.

c. Simultaneous variation in Renderings.

Another class of coincidences carries the evidence farther, and convincingly. They are found to agree not only in single renderings, but in simultaneous variation of renderings where a word recurs. Such instances appear where 2 Peter and Jude run parallel_—Thus in the case of [συν]ευωχούμενοι. In 2 Pet. ii. 13 both render it by the verb (a rare one) —2aralso ; in Jud. 12 by the still rarer

* Possibly both followed a Greek reading (unattested), ἐπίλυσις (see Greek Text, p. 61 infr.). If so, this is an instance of textual coincidence, to be added to those given in the following Section (x1,—see p. xl).

+ See Note, p. 130, ifr.

INTRODUCTION XXXVil

«ἀϑοιϑάϊο. The passages in which the verb occurs are closely alike—in both it is used in one and the same sense; no reason can be assigned for the change of rendering: the former Version has arbitrarily varied, and the latter has mechanically followed.—Again : For ὑπέρογκα, in 2 Pet. ii. 11, both give δῶν ; in Jud. 12 both vary to the equivalent and cognate but distinct form {As21,,—a coin-

cidence in itself petty, but none the less telling as evidence of the mutual relation between the Versions. So again, both distinguish the σπιλάδες of Jud. 12 from the σπῖλοι of 2 Pet. ii. 13, by making the

‘minute change from [SoAa’s to —ohaso.— Other cases, affecting less unfamiliar words, point the same way ;—as that of κρίμα, translated in both by the usual }1.᾽ in 2 Pet. 11. ὃ; but by to. where it is used, with no alteration of meaning, in Jud. 4.—In like manner, in comparing 2 John with 3 John, we note that the verb ἐργάζομαι is rendered in 2 John by both translators by the ordinary wXQ2; in 3 John by the less familiar ;S00.—A coincidence the converse of this, but equally pointing to affinity, appears in the use of the verb m.2] (properly equivalent to πείθω) which both exceptionally employ to represent two other Greek verbs,—épwré in 2 Joh. 5, παρακαλῶ in Jud. 5.—In all such cases the fact that the two vary needlessly, yet vary together and alike, amounts to a proof of their interdependence. Moreover, inasmuch as of the two, the one is nowhere studious to maintain, while the other habitually affects, precision in uniform rendering, it follows that the latter, which in the above-cited instances of variation deviates from its ordinary practice, has in these cases been led so to deviate by the example of the other,—in other words, is the derivate Version. 3

d. Philoxenian Renderings retained on the Harklensian margin.

Another line of investigation leads also to a like conclusion. It lies in the critical apparatus attached by Thomas to his text,—his asterisks and his marginal notes. The former usually relate to variations of reading in the Greek original as to the presence or absence of the words marked by them, and belong to our next Section. The latter for the most part offer alternative renderings of the Greek (where no doubt exists as to the reading); and in these are to be found distinct proofs of the relation we allege, for some

XXXVIii | INTRODUCTION

of them prove to be words or phrases belonging to our Version, which the reviser has discarded from his text and replaced by renderings of his own, but has thought worth retaining on his margin. The two most important of these for our purpose are as follows:—(a) In 2 Pet. ii. 4 our Version renders ταρταρώσας by

aAsAS «τῷ r2 (as if καταβαλὼν εἰς τὰ κατώτερα). The Harklensian follows, as regards the form of the periphrasis, and retains the verb employed (a rare one), τὰ" . But for the noun he substitutes

mos Litho (cis Τάρταρον), transliterating the Greek word; and in

explanation he inserts as a note the ἸΔίλωδλθο which he has dis- placed from his text.—(b) Again, in 3 John 6, where our Version translates προπέμψας by 20}SO (which strictly means ἐφοδιάσας), the re- viser (as above noted, Sect. vill, p. xxxiii) with greater accuracy writes JaXSo in his text, but places the former participle on his margin.— In neither of these cases is there any question as to the Greek word represented : they are merely examples of the endeavour of the later translator to improve on, and of his carefulness at the same time to record in a note as an alternative, the rendering of the earlier.*—It is not to be expected that more than a few instances of this kind should appear; but even one such would be evidence that Thomas had our Version before him as he worked, that it is the Version which he revised, and therefore is the Philoxenian.

Section XI.—Their Affinity (ii.) in Test.

Under this head it is to be premised that only a limited extent of textual agreement is to be expected, in view of the known facts. Thomas informs us (as we have seen) that in revising the work — of his predecessor he used a Greek copy or copies. Hence we must be prepared to find more or less of textual divergence in his Version from the other. And, moreover, in examining the two Versions from this point of view, it is to be borne in mind that the relation between them cannot be determined by comparing them in isolated places chosen as test-passages because they furnish notable examples of disputed text,—such as 2 Pet. ii. 13 (where there are the rival

* See below, pp. 109, 112, for instances where, by insertion of a Greek word on his margin, Harkl. calls attention to his correction of our Version.

INTRODUCTION XXXI1X

readings, ἀδικούμενοι and κομιούμενοι, ἀγάπαις and ἀπάταις),---ΟΥ iii. 10 (where some authorities give κατακαήσεται for εὑρεθήσεται)---ΟΥ as the passage Jude 22, 23, with the complicated variations recorded on it. For it is on such passages that the hand of the reviser, guided by his auxiliary Greek copy, is most likely to have operated. The only trustworthy method is to select for examination a fairly complete list of passages in which textual variations, great or small, affecting the sense, are recorded in critical editions of the Greek. If on a scrutiny it proves that in their reading of a large number of such passages the Versions agree, that fact will outweigh as evidence of affinity the counter-fact that they diverge in a limited number of conspicuous passages. 7

a. Shown by frequency of agreement.

In forming such a list it will, of course, be proper to disregard variations so petty as to be attributable to accident, and those in which the intention of the translator is doubtful. Putting aside all such, and confining ourselves to the textual variations attested by the Greek uncials only, it will be found that the Apparatus attached to our Greek Text records more than one hundred places where there exists textual variation of such nature as to show itself in the Syriac translation.—It would take up too much space to print the list of these passages here in full,—and it would be needless, inasmuch as for the purpose of our present inquiry the question is of the amount of agreement on the whole, not of the importance of each individual in- stance. It suffices to state as the result that, of the hundred instances, in about two-thirds the Versions coincide in the reading they repre- sent ; in one-third they differ. The amount of agreement thus shown is evidently greater than would probably be found to exist between two Versions made independently by two translators, neither of whom had knowledge of the work of the other, directly from two distinct and unrelated Greek exemplars.—This result is such as might reasonably be expected when of the two Versions compared one is a revision of the other, made with the help of a fresh Greek text; and it is therefore consistent with our hypothesis as to the two Versions under consideration. It confirms us in the view that ours is the previous Version on which Thomas of Harkel based his; and it gives us a measure of the extent of his textual alterations, showing how far he

xl INTRODUCTION

retained the text of his basis, and how far he emended it on the authority of his auxiliary Greek text. (See further in Sect. xx.)

b. Shown by agreement in singular readings.

It is possible, no doubt, that the extensive textual affinity thus ascertained may be in part due to agreements in text between Thomas’s Greek copy and the copy which the Philoxenian translator followed. But though such agreements are not improbable in cases where the affinity shows itself in readings which (as those of our list) are attested by existing Greek MSS, there are over and above these not a few examples of coincidence between our two Versions in readings weakly or doubtfully supported by Greek authority,—some even where our Philoxenian and the Harklensian stand together against all Greek authority whatever. About twenty such are recorded in the Apparatus of our Greek Text (infr.),—such as 2 Pet. 1. 3 (omission of ἡμῖν), 1. 20 (ἐπίλυσις for ἐπιλύσεως), 111. 2 (διά prefixed to τῶν ἀποστόλων) ; 3 Joh. 10 (ἐποίησεν for ποιεῖ), ἐδ. 15 (insertion of ἕκαστον before κατ᾽ ὄνομα, and αὐτοῦ after it); Jud. 9 (ὅς for dre), ib. 18 (ἐπ᾽ ἀσέβειαν for τῶν ἀσεβειῶν). Of these and such as these the natural explanation is that they are textual individualisms, possibly errors, of the prior translation, retained by the reviser.

6. Also by the Apparatus attached to the Harklensian Text.

1. Evidence less obvious, and more limited, yet more distinct where it exists, is to be found in the asterisks (4) above referred to, attached to certain words and phrases in the Harklensian text. It may safely be assumed that Thomas in using this sign was led by the famous example of Origen in his Hexapla, and that he thus marked whatever in his text was not found in his Greek exemplar, but inserted on some other authority. Sometimes the other authority so referred to may be a second Greek copy ; for in one or two cases the sign relates to nothing found in the Philoxenian text. But in most places where they occur they are capable of being explained as references to this text ;—and not a few of them refuse to admit of any other explanation, inasmuch as in it, and it alone, are to be found the word or words on which the Harklensian sets this mark.—Thus (2 Pet. i.) no authority except the Philoxenian vouches for the insertion of ὑμᾶς (after καθίσ- τησιν, ver, 8), or of αὐτῷ (after ἐνεχθείσης, ver. 17); and therefore,

INTRODUCTION xli

when we note that in these verses the Harklensian writes τῶν +, σιδ + , we are bound to infer that in each case he refers to the word present in the text of the prior Version, and that he prefixes + to note the absence of the word so marked from his Greek exemplar. A more conspicuous instance—an absolutely conclusive one—is the lastas> + (= κολάσεως) of 2 Pet. ii. 4 (Harkl.);—and to it are to be added, ἸΟΟΙ͂» # (= οὖσαν)" of 2 Pet. ii. 13; the OtXar # (= αὐτοῦ, after διδαχῇ) of 2 Joh. 9; the διδο + (= πάσης, before τῆς ἐκκλησίας) of 3 Joh. 6. Many other words with + may be in like manner accounted for,— as σιδο + (= πᾶσαν, after σπουδήν), 2 Pet. 1. 5; σιδ.» (= αὐτοῦ, after ὀνόματος), 3 Joh. 7; but in these cases there exists Greek authority for the marked words, to which the asterisk may possibly refer. |

2. The marginal notes also of the Harklensian (which in Section x, d (p. xxxvii supr.) have been used as evidence of affinity between the Versions in diction) yield in a few places evidence to like effect, of affinity in text. Thus, the ols (= εὑρεθήσεται), given in the Harklensian margin as alternative for the a,0}2 (= κατακαήσεται) οὗ its text, points to our Version as its source. And so in other in-

stances,—as the 2a? (= ἐπιδεχομένους), for cee 2 (= βουλο- μένους), 3 Joh. 10; and the insertion of δὰ eOIlQOO (= καὶ ὑπ’

αὐτῆς τῆς ἐκκλησίας), ib. 12,—the like inference is at least probable.

Thus by these two independent lines of inquiry into the relation between these two Versions—the line of Affinity in Diction, as shown (Section x) in coincidences of rendering,—and the line of Affinity in Text, as traced in the examples adduced in the Section (x1) just completed—we have justified the assumptions on which the argument of Section 1v is founded. And we have confirmed the result there arrived at, that the Versions are related one to another as primary and derivate, the Harklensian (professedly a revision) being the derivate and ours the primary ; whence the conclusion drawn in that Section irresistibly follows, that our Version is the translation which alone is properly entitled to bear the name of Philoxenus, issued under his sanction A.D. 508.

* Probably in the Greek text (p. 63 infr.) οὖσαν ought to have been inserted before τρυφήν. f

xlii INTRODUCTION

Section XII.—AUTHORITIES FOR OUR TEXT: MANUSCRIPTS.

A brief list of the Manuscripts on which the text of this Edition of our Four Epistles has been constructed is given below (pp. 1, 2), prefixed to the Syriac Text. In this Section I proceed to give such fuller details concerning them as seem worth recording.* I deal first with the MSS of the earlier group (see p. 96 infr.), which I distinguish as A, the later being B, with an “ Intermediate” group between.

, (i.) MSS of Group A (Early).

Cod. 1. (British Museum, Add. 14623, Catal. pccLxxx1.)

Of our MSS this stands first, alike in age and in textual value. It is free from the corrupt readings which here and there disfigure the printed texts, and though it is not without errors of its own, they are mostly errors of sight on the scribe’s part, and not due to editorial attempts at correction. Examples of such errors are -—| Oa for [por (2 Pet. i. 4), poOtaAsa for (OOM ana (ib. ii. 13, and Jud. 12), 2AsSo for 5Aa%o (ib. iii. 4), eaza00] for καλαροὶ (ib. 7). But the interpo- lation orNo (ib. iii. 2), and the great divergences (by omission and insertion) in Jud. 24 are grave exceptions to the general trustworthi- ness of its text. On the whole, however, its superiority to all the rest is so marked as to place it at the head of group A, and seems to warrant us in accepting its readings, as in some cases has been done in our text, even where it stands alone-—The MS as a whole is not to be classed as Biblical ; it is a miscellany of which the other contents are extracts from approved divines, Syriac, or Greek in a Syriac translation ; its only Biblical section is No. 7, which exhibits our Epistles. But it is not therefore to be presumed that the compiler of the MS regarded our Four Epistles as non-canonical, for he includes them with the Three of the Peshitta, arranging all Seven as on an equal footing (though not in their normal Greek order), 1, 2,3 John; James; 1, 2 Peter; Jude:—Alone of all our MSS it was written in Egypt, but by a Mesopotamian monk of Dara (not far from Mardin), and was

* It may be taken for granted that all of them are (directly or indirectly) Jacobite (the Maronite being presumably derived from Jacobite sources), as follows from the fact that they include these Epistles, which were unknown to the Nestorian Churches.

————— τ γν ὑπ νι δ

INTRODUCTION ΧΙΠῚ

presented some thirty years later to the monastery of the Theotokos, in the Nitrian Desert. It bears date A. Gr. 1134 (a.p. 823), being thus older by at least three centuries than any of our other MSS which can be dated with certainty. Its age thus gives weight to its textual authority :—while, on the other hand, we are to remember that it is later, also by three centuries, than the time of Philoxenus; an interval long enough for the entrance of many errors into the text had it been transmitted to our scribe by less competent or careful copyists.—It is on vellum, palimpsest, written in a clear, cursive script, and in good preservation. This MS, and Codd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, belong to the great Nitrian collection acquired by the Museum in 1839-47.

Cod. 2. (Br. M., Add. 14473(2), Catal. cxxxt1.)

An undated MS of which the age cannot be determined with con- fidence. Dr. Wright’s opinion is, ‘‘of about the x1th century.” But its script gives no trustworthy evidence in the matter, for it is evidently not the normal handwriting of the scribe, but a somewhat clumsy attempt to imitate the fine estrangela character of the MS (see Catal. Cxxv1) to which it is appended, a copy of the Acts and Three Epistles (Peshitta). It consists of nine leaves of vellum, supplying our Four.— Its text agrees closely with Cod. 1 in most of the crucial passages, and even in its most notable misreadings, as noted above (2 Pet. iii. 2, 4, and 7,—in the second of which 1 and 2 stand alone), and also in the remarkable double aberrant reading in Jud. 24. It avoids, however, in 2 Pet. ii. 13 the (Ooh sad of Cod. 1, yet inconsistently adopts it in the parallel, Jud. 12 (correcting it, however, in the margin). Yet its agreement with Cod. 1 is so much less strong in 2 and 3 John* than in 2 Pet. or Jude, as to suggest the suspicion that in 2 and 3 John the text follows a different exemplar. But on the whole, while there is enough of divergence between Codd.1 and 2 to preclude the supposi- tion that 2 was copied from 1, their internal evidence proves them to represent a common archetype. Hence follows the important inference, that the readings common to 1 and 2 (which, as we shall see, are the readings for the most part which characterize group A) were not originated by the scribe or editor of 1, but represent an earlier authority—how much earlier we cannot tell.

* See notes infr. on Syr. text, 2 Joh. 1, 5, 8,13; 3 Joh. 4, 6, 7, 9.

xliv INTRODUCTION

After Codd. 1 and 2 it will be convenient to disregard numerical order, and to pass on to the other MSS (9, 12, 14), which may be distinguished from 1 and 2 as forming a later subdivision of group A.

Cod. 9. (Cambridge University Library, Oo. 1, t. 2.)*

This is the second volume of the great Syriac Pandect (the “ Buchanan Bible”), which, though the vellum of which it is composed is much damaged by damp and decay, is one of the most notable monuments of Syriac Biblical antiquity. It was presented to the University of Cambridge by Dr. Buchanan in 1809. The New Testament in it is complete, except that it lacks the Apocalypse. Though it exhibits our Four Epistles, it places them, not in their proper order, but together, subjoined to the Three of the Peshitta. It adds, however, a note in which it reckons them all together and on a par, as “The Seven Catholic Epistles of the Apostles.” This tacit recognition of their canonicity is hardly weakened by the fact that next after them it places ‘‘the Six Books of Clement,”—documents coinciding in the main with those which are known as the “Syrian Octateuch.” t—From this MS Dr. Lee ft derived many corrections of the text of our Epistles, and of the Syriac New Testament at large, for his editions.—It gives a general, but far from uniform, support to the text of Cod. 1, deviating now and then into the readings of the later MSS. But in no case does it follow 1 in its exceptional lapses (as noted above), save in the instance of the word (Oot anat (see above, p. xlii; also notes on 2 Pet. ii. 13, Jud. 12 (ὅγε. text), and Note on p. 107 infr.).

Its script is estrangela, of the modified form affected in the twelfth century in Τῶν ‘Abdin, the district of N.E. Mesopotamia,

* See Cambridge Catal. Syr. MSS, p. 1087.

+ For these six documents, see Jowrnal of Theological Studies, vol. iii, pp. 59 et sqq-, Where Book 8 is printed by Dr. Arendzen, partly from this MS and partly from one at Mosul. It is the ‘ Apostolic Church Order’ (see Bishop Wordsworth’s Ministry of Grace, p. 34), the Greek of which has been edited by Harnack and others. Books 1 and 2 are the Testament of Our Lord—edited in Syriac by the Patriarch Rahmani (1899), in English by Dr. Cooper and Dean Maclean (1902).

~ See a memorandum by Dr. Lee, Classical Journal, vol. xxiii, p. 248, where he states that he collated it (‘the Travancore MS”’) for his Syriac N.T. of 1816. He notes that it is “‘ a Jacobite copy,’ and remarks that it ‘‘could not have been brought into India earlier than 1663” (referring to Assemani, B.O., ὃ. 111, pt. ii, p. 463, for the arrival of the Jacobites in India in that year). See also Milne Rae’s Syrian Church in India, ch. xvii, p. 269.

INTRODUCTION xlv

near Mardin, which was then and still is the headquarters of the Jacobite Church—now a feeble remnant.*— However, it was not there, but in Malabar, that it came into the possession of Dr. Buchanan in 1806, a gift from Mar Dionysius [Thomas] VI, Metropolitan of the Syro-Indian Church, the “Christians of St. Thomas.” The donor believed it to be an immemorial heirloom of his Church, “near a thousand years old,”—that is, to belong to the ninth century. But as we have seen, its date is shown by the character of the writing to be probably three hundred years later. And inasmuch as the Church of Malabar was Nestorian until Mar Gregorius, the first Jacobite Metropolitan (whence this Mar Dionysius had his succession), was sent from Mesopotamia in 1663-5, it may be presumed that this MS, including as it does the Epistles which are unrecognized by Nes- torians, and written in a Tur‘abdinese hand, did not reach Malabar before that date.

Cod. 12. (The ‘‘ Crawford MS, No. II,” now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester.)

The late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres acquired this MS by purchase from a dealer, but its previous owners are unrecorded, except that it was written for one Gabriel, a priest, and that in 1534 it was sold to “Simeon of Hatacha, Patriarch.” {—It is unique,

* For Tur-‘Abdin and its scribes, see the Memoir in T.R.I.A. (cited in note ft, below), p. 356 et sqq.

+ That Cod. 9 is of Cent. x1 is further indicated by the occurrence in it, in two places, of notes naming the Patriarch Michael—presumably ‘“‘ Michael the Great,” who transferred his see from Amid [Diarbekr] to Mardin, and died in 1199.—See further in Cambridge Catalogue, as above.—See also Buchanan, Christian Re- searches (Foy’s edition, 1858), p. 40; and Pearson’s Memoir of Dr. Buchanan, vol. ii, pp. 70-115.—At first it was “ reputed to be as old as the Alexandrine MS”; another estimate was ‘‘as early as the fifth or sixth century,”—-which, however, Dr. Buchanan rejected as “ certainly too high.”—It was at Caudenate, a village near Diamper [Udiampur], both close to Cochin in Travancore, that Buchanan received it from the Metropolitan.—Had it been forthcoming in 1599, it would presumably have been produced at the ‘‘ Synod of Diamper” held in that year, at which the authorities of the Church of Rome severely censured the Churches of Malabar for (inter alia) the absence of these Epistles from their New Testament. See Geddes, History of the Church of Malabar (1694), p. 132 et sqq. (ch. xiv, Deer. 11).

t See for a full account of this MS, my Memoir in Transactions of Royal Irish Academy, vol. xxx, pp. 347 et sqq.; also, Preliminary Dissertation prefixed to The Apocalypse in Syriac, from the Crawford MS, ch. viii, pp. cvi et sqq.

xlvi INTRODUCTION

as being the only known Syriac MS (brought from the East, and not written in Europe, as Cod. 16 was—see below, p. lv) which contains the entire New Testament as recognized by all non-Syrian Churches ; for it not merely includes all seven Catholic Epistles in their normal order, but after the Fourth Gospel it places the Apocalypse,:in a version nowhere else extant. I have elsewhere* endeavoured to show that this Apocalypse, as well as our Four Epistles, is the work of Poly- carpus. If this be so, Cod. 12 may be described (as above, p. xxx) as the Peshitta N.T. supplemented by the Philoxenian, so as to conform to the Greek canon. It claims to have been written in ‘the monastery of Jacob the Egyptian Recluse and of Bar-Shabba,} beside Salach in Tir-‘Abdin in the Sultanate of Hesna d’ Kipha.” Its script is of the same well-marked character as that of Cod. 9, and it may be confidently assigned to the same period. As compared with Cod. 9 it is somewhat superior in text when measured by the standard of Cod. 1, with which it agrees closely,—in one case too closely, repeating the error of 2 Pet. iii. 7 (<az2.001). But in this comparison Cod. 9 is at a disadvantage, being damaged in many places, whereas the strong vellum of Cod. 12 is in sound preservation. This MS is one of the forty-two collated for Mr. Gwilliam’s standard edition of the Peshitta Gospels, Z’etraeuangelium Sanctum, where it is numbered 12, as here.

Cod. 14. (Paris, Biblioth. Nat., Suppl. 27, Catal. 29.)

Of this MS (which originally contained the entire New Testament, excepting, probably, the Apocalypse), many leaves are wanting from both ends. In it, as in 9, the Four Epistles are placed after the Three. It now gives no note of time or place, but it may be con- tidently set down as Tur‘abdinese of the twelfth century, like Codd. 9 and 12. Not only does its script show the same characteristics, but it is one of a large group of Biblical MSS (on vellum) in the same division (Supplément) of the great Library to which it belongs, all closely alike in script, evidently the work of one and the same school of caligraphy, nearly all of them dated shortly before or after a.p. 1200, and signed by scribes who call themselves monks of some monastery of Tar- ‘Abdin.—Its text for the most part agrees with that of the two

* See references in note t, p. xlv supr.; also Appendix ITI, p. 154 infr.

+ The colophon which contains this statement is given in full in Apoc. Syr. Crawford (cited in same note 1), pp. 32, 98.

INTRODUCTION xlvii

_ preceding, but conforms less closely to the A standard, and lapses not

infrequently into the errors of the B-text.

Thus it appears that the MSS of our A-group are all of Jacobite origin; that (possibly excepting Cod. 2) they represent the text as read in a region of Mesopotamia which had its ecclesiastical centre first at Amid and then (as now) at Mardin; and that none is later than A.D. 1200, one being as early as the ninth century.

(ii.) MSS of Intermediate Character. (a) Of Earlier Date.

After these I place two MSS, Codd. 4 and 5, possibly of the same period as Codd. 9, 12, 14, but written with less care, on paper, and in a cursive hand ; intermediate in text between the A- and B-groups, but tending mostly to the latter ; neither complete ; both without note of date or place. :

Cod. 4. (Br. M., Add. 14474, Catal. cxx1.)

, Eight leaves (now ff. 105-12), hardly earlier than the twelfth century, containing 1 Pet. of the Peshitta, followed by 2 and 3 John and Jude of our Version. These have been inserted (to make up a volume of Acts and Epistles) into a ninth century MS of singular construction, whose contents are—(1) The Pauline Epistles, (2) The Acts, (3) The Epistles 2 Peter, James, 1 John—(1l) and (2) being of the Peshitta Version, (3) of the Harklensian (the 6 of p. 146 infr.). Between James and 1 John the binder has interpolated our eight leaves.—It is noteworthy that the scribe of the original MS, in choosing his three Catholic Episties from the Harklensian, should have preferred 2 Peter to 1 Peter; and again, that the scribe of these supplemental leaves should go back to the older Version for 2 and 3 John and Jude.—The text of these is mainly of the B-type, but in a few instances agrees with that of the A-group.

Cod. 5.* (Br. M., Add. 14681, Catal. cxxt11.)

This appears to have been a complete Peshitta New Testament, but the earlier part is not forthcoming, and it now begins with the Acts (at ii. 42), to which Book it subjoins the Three Catholic Epistles. After them followed (as in Codd. 9 and 14, but arranged as in Cod. 1)

* T had at first reckoned this MS in group B (p. 96 infr.), but on re-considera- tion I now rank it as intermediate.

xlviii INTRODUCTION

our Four, beginning with 2 and 3 John; 2 Peter breaks off in ii. 4, and Jude is lost ; then (after a gap) come the Pauline Epistles. It is probably a century later than Cod. 4; but its text, though intermediate like that of Cod. 4, exhibits a larger proportion of A-readings, some of them important, as for example the {Sas for Tsoaks of 2 Pet. ii. 1. The MS is furnished all through with marginal variant readings, some from the Harklensian (see note *, p. 101 infr.).*

Neither of these MSS yields any note of place. Apart from them stands another group (Codd. 3, 11, 13, 20), likewise intermediate in textual character, all of the fifteenth century, and all tending more than 4 and 5 to the A-text.

(b) Of Fifteenth century.

Cod. 3. (Br. M., Add. 17226, Catal. cxxiv.)

This MS contained, when entire, the Acts and Catholic Epistles, the Four being subjoined to the Three, but has unfortunately lost most of the Acts, and the end of Jude, breaking off in ver. 20. No note of time or place is now forthcoming, but it is probably of the fourteenth century. Its text is appreciably nearer to the A-type than that of Cod. 5, and it shows in places a distinct affinity with Cod. 1 (as, 6.9.» in Jud. 7), repeating even its errors, as in 2 Pet. ili. 2 ( ovo), iil. 7 (—a;2.00]). But it follows the A-text in 2 Pet. ii. 1, 10, 11, 17, 18,— though not in omitting the negative in iii. 10.

Cod. 11. (The ‘‘ Williams MS.”) This MS (Acts and Epistles) is now in the possession of Mr. Robert 8. Williams, of Utica, New York. It was acquired by his brother, a missionary at Mardin ; and an Arabic note records that it was written at Hesna d’ Kipha, in Tar-‘Abdin, in A.Gr. 1782 (= a.p. 1471). It is thus locally connected with group A, especially with Cod. 12. It was copied for the owner, David of El-Homs (in the Lebanon country), from a MS acquired by himf at El-Keifa

* Also its corrections of 2 Pet. ii. 4, 2 Joh. 10 (see pp. 103, 121, infr.), may be Harklensian.

+ If Dr. Hall rightly interprets the words of this David, the original of this MS was a compilation by the unnamed writer of a poem which concludes it. He suggests that this writer may have been one of the Christians of the [Syro-Indian] Church of Malabar, but does not state what the “‘ indications” are which (as he says) ‘“‘favour this conjecture.” It seems improbable; and the fact that the compilation includes Prooemia taken from the Horrewm Mysteriorum of Gregory bar-Ebraya (ob. A.D. 1286), marks it as the work of a Jacobite, probably not earlier than the fourteenth century. I have not found El-Keifa elsewhere mentioned.

ν᾿»

INTRODUCTION xlix

(apparently a place visited by him in a journey from his home to Tar-‘Abdin). The Four Epistles were published from this MS in photographic facsimile by Dr. I. H. Hall, The Syrian Antilegomena Epistles (1886). From it were derived many corrections of the text of our Epistles in the New York edition (N) of 1886,—as (e.g.) © (for 3) prefix to 1Zo3Aa%o (2 Pet. i. 3), Ly0as (ib. 4), Tas (ii. 1),

(ib. 17), insertion of pay (iii. 5), and |Z, (ib. 13) ; also of S05) (2 Joh. 5), a0101,04 (2 Joh. 6), ota (3 Joh. 9); and of Ἰλφῃν (Jud. 10). But the editor has not followed its omission of the negative (2 Pet. iii. 10), nor its readings, Lb2s (2 Pet. iii. 1), sAco (3 Joh. 10).—In all these places, it agrees with the A-group; and on the whole, its text is about on a par with that of Cod. 3.

Cod. 13. (Wetstein’s MS, Amsterdam, Biblioth. des Remonstr. Ge- meente, No. 184.)

This MS now exhibits only the Acts and Epistles, but the num- bering of the quires (quinions) shows that it has lost the first 173 leaves (17 quinions and 3 leaves of an eighteenth), no doubt con- taining the Gospels.* It now begins with Acts i. 1 (on the fourth leaf of quinion 18, having evidently been intentionally divided at that point from the preceding quires). The order of the Epistles is, (1) the Three Catholic of the Peshitta, (2) the Pauline, (3) the Four. The scribe Cuphar (}2Q0) states in the colophon that he began it in a monastery of Gargar, and completed it in the monastery of the Theo- tokos at Mardin, A.Gr. 1781 (a.p. 1470). Gargar is a bishop’s see, suffragan to Melitene,t belonging therefore to the specially Jacobite region of N.E. Mesopotamia. Thus, in place as well as in date, it is closely akin to Cod. 11. In text, however, it leans less towards the A-type than either Cod. 11 or Cod. 3. Yet it agrees with the A-text in a few of the places above cited (under Codd. 3,11); scil., 2 Pet. ii. 17, iii. 10,13; 3Joh. 10; Jud. 10: and, moreover, it has the very important

A-readings δῶ, (2 Pet. ii. 18), © prefixed to « (Jud. 4),

ἾΔ.α..»»} (for Aas, ib. 7), none of which is given by 11, and only the first by 3. In the last-named place, however, it has evidently been

* As these 173 leaves would give room for other matter besides the Gospels, it may be that the Apocalypse followed them (as in Cod. 12).

+ Assemani, Biblioth, Orient., t. ii, p. 260.

] INTRODUCTION

corrected from the Harklensian (see Note, p. 130 infr.), as was noted by Wetstein (Prolegomena in Clem. R., p. v [ad cale. N.T., 1752)). From this MS he edited (eodem annv) the [pseudo- |Epistles of Clement of Rome Ad Virgines,* which it appends to the Biblical text, as Cod. 9 (see p. xliv) appends other documents bearing the name of Clement.

Cod. 20. (The Peckover ΜΆ.)

This MS, the property of Lord Peckover, is a complete Peshitta New Testament, with our Four Epistles subjoined to the Three, and followed by the Pauline. Prefixed to them is the superscription “Four Epistles of the Apostles which are not found in all copies.” A note at the end of the volume describes it as “the New Testament, the Peshitta Version, exceedingly accurate.” Apparently, therefore, the scribe regarded our Epistles as belonging to that Version, though not always included in all copies of it. He gives, further, the date and place of writing,—‘‘in the former Canun, A.Gr. 1787” (= Dec., 4.:. 1475), “in the monastery of Jacob the Egyptian Recluse, beside Salach in Tir-‘Abdin.”—Thus it was written under the same roof as Cod. 12, but some three hundred years later, its age being nearly the same as that of Codd. 11and13. Its text too is, on the whole, of the same intermediate character as theirs, but with much closer approach : to that of the A-group. Yet it lapses into B-readings at a few signal points (notably 2 Pet. ii. 1, and iii. 10); while in the opposite direction it transgresses (like 13) by deviating (in three places, 2 Pet. i. 15, li. 6, and Jud. 7)} after the Harklensian. But for these blemishes, it might almost rank as equal in excellence of text to Cod. 12, to which it adheres closely—even in the place where they both err with 1 in reading ono] for | (2 Pet. iii. 7)—Another peculiarity it exhibits in common with Codd. 1 and 2, but more frequently,—-the in- sertion of B-readings on its margin while the A-reading stands in the text,—as 2 Pet. ii. 17, 18 (see pp. 109, 142, infr. ; and cp. Sect. x1x, 4).f

It appears, then, that of these four MSS, alike in their intermediate textual character, three at least (11, 13, 20) were written contempo-

* Since edited by Beelen (1856). See also under Cod. 19 infr. t See Notes, pp. 101, 105, 130, infr.

t I have collated the text of our Epistles from photographs of this MS kindly given me by Dr. Rendel Harris, to whom I owe my knowledge of its existence.

Ce a a eae ee | ee ee a. ee ἢ oe νου τ νιν λον ἡ ‘ : ᾿ ’

INTRODUCTION li

raneously, in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and within the narrow region of Mesopotamia where the Jacobite Church at. that time most prevailed, with Mardin as its patriarchal centre, and the Tar-‘Abdin district as its stronghold. Comparing the subdivision thus formed with that which comprises the three earlier MSS, 9, 12, 14, we perceive that in that region the tradition of the A-text as we find it exhibited in these twelfth-century copies survived, though more or less impaired in purity, down to the fifteenth. The characteristic form of the estrangela script, and the vellum, which are noted in the earlier three, in the latter three disappear ; they are written on paper, in a cursive character,—as also is Cod. 3 (paper), a manuscript similar to them in script and in text, and probably of the same region, and not much earlier in date.

The affinities above noted between Codd. 12 and 20 are interesting evidence of the care with which, in the monastery where they were written, the tradition of the text was preserved.

(c) Of Recent Date.

Two other MSS of much later date may be here conveniently described, as being closely akin in textual character to the four last described ; they are Codd. 18 and 19.

Cod. 18. (Library of the Convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai, no. 5.*)

Of all the MSS used in the text of this edition, this is the only one which I have not seen, either directly or as reproduced by photography. I know it only through a collation of it made by the late Professor Bensly in 1893, for which I am indebted to his kindness. In it the Four Epistles are a supplement to a late copy (on paper) of the Acts and Three Catholic Epistles (Peshitta), which is itself a supplement to a much earlier manuscript (on vellum, probably of sixth century) of the Pauline Epistles. In the letter which contains his collation, Prof. Bensly writes, “The above Catholic Epistles [2 Pet., 2 and 3 Joh., and Jud.] have been added in a hand apparently of last [xvith|] century.” The text, however, is farther removed from the B-type than that of any other of our entire list of twenty, except Cod. 1, and it is free from the errors above noted (p. xlii) as blemishes in that

* In Catalogue (Mrs. Lewis’s), Studia Sinait., No. 1, pp. 2, 125.

lii INTRODUCTION

MS,—except the ισιδωα of 2 Pet. ii. 13 and Jud. 12. On the other hand, it has a few aberrations of its own, of which the most notable is recorded on p. 25 infr. (2 Joh. 10). Again, instead of omitting LajSo So from 2 Pet. ii. 11, it (with Cod. 19) substitutes \s9 for 0 ; and though it avoids the misreading of Cod. 8 in 3 Joh. 10 (:O1S), it has instead the similarly erroneous O9OLS of Cod. 9, which is found also in the Arabic. As to the original whence this copy was made, no informa- tion is forthcoming ; it must have been a MS of the highest value. The Convent has no ecclesiastical connexion with Mesopotamia or any part of the Antiochian Patriarchate, being subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem; but its connexion with the sister convent of the same dedication at Cairo points to Egypt as the region where the archetype of the MS is to be sought,—if so, presumably in the Syrian Convent of the Nitrian Desert, whence the Library of the British Museum and so many other libraries have drawn their most precious documents of Syriac literature and theology. However this may be, the isolation and remoteness of its abode enhances the value of the text of Cod. 18.

Cod. 19. (In the possession of Dr. Rendel Harris.)

This is the most recent MS of our list, being a transcript made within the last few years in the East. It is a MS (cursive, on paper) of the Commentaries of Bar Salibi on the New Testament, and gives the text of the Acts and Seven Catholic Epistles in full, Acts and the Three in Peshitta Version, followed by our Four, with a note prefixed describing them as “from Thomas of Harkel.”* To these it subjoins (like Cod. 13) the Epistles of [ps.] Clement To Virgins. Its text, in point of adherence to the A-type, stands next after Cod. 20; yet of the two notable B-errors recorded against 20, it falls into but one (δα of 2 Pet. ii. 1),— while, on the other hand, it follows the Harklensian, with Cod. 20 and also Cod. 13, in its interpolation in Jud. 7 (.»».....}}. About the exemplar whence this transcript was made, I have no information ; but a singular misreading (9:80) for (227b132, Jud. 24) indicates that it repre- sents, directly or indirectly, an estrangela predecessor, for in that script (though not in cursive) ¢\-s» might readily pass into ἐλ.

If these two MSS were not so recent, they would be entitled in point of text to take their places,—Cod. 18 in group A, Cod. 19 among

* This is a further instance of the tendency, above remarked on (p. xxxii), to confuse the two Versions.

INTRODUCTION liii

those of the intermediate MSS which approach nearest to group A and are most free from the corruptions of group B.

(d) An Unelassed Fragment.

Another MS may be conveniently mentioned here, a fragment so brief that it cannot be classed definitely, but may be set down as of intermediate text.

Cod. 6. (Br. M., Add. 17115.) A pair of leaves, assigned by Dr. Wright to the ninth or tenth century, subjoined to a vellum MS (fragmentary), of sixth century, of SS. Matthew and John. They are numbered ff. 87, 88; and on the verso of 87 is given the text of Jude 1-13 (with lacunae). A few verses of Hebr. i. are on the recto, and of Acts vii. on f, 88.— Even in this short space the text shows affinity with that of Codd. 1 and 2, by reading [9Q0 in ver. 2, tars] in 3,* Awl YduanZ in 7, and (wrongly) ooLdais in 12: but there are other points in which it sides with the B-group.

(iii.) MSS of Group B (Late).

The remaining six MSS, Codd. 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, form group B, and belong in date to the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries.

Cod. 7. (Br. M., Rich 7162, Catal. R.-F., xvu11.)

Alone of the British Museum MSS of our list, this does not come from the Nitrian Convent. There is no reason to question the judgment laid down in the Rosen-Forshall Catalogue (p. 25, no. xv111) that it is Maronite; but Dr. Wright (Catal., Appx. A, p. 1203) corrects the date there given, and substitutes “fifteenth” for “fourteenth” century. It is a copy (paper) of the Acts and Epistles, very carefully written, but in text exhibiting almost uniformly the corrupt readings of the later MSS of this group. Yet it (along with Cod. 10) avoids the grave blunder of Cod. 8 in reading O18 for 2018] (3 Joh. 10); also (again with Cod. 10) it escapes the snare into which not only Cod. 8 but even Cod. 1 and others of the better MSS have fallen in the parallel passages, 2 Pet. ii. 13 and Jud. 2.

Cod. 8. (Bodleian Library, Oxford, Or. 119, Catal. 35). This is the MS (Acts and Catholic Epistles, in Greek order; paper)

* Correct note on p. 31 accordingly.

liv INTRODUCTION

whose text of our Four Epistles Pococke reproduced, with some well- judged emendations, in his Editio Princeps (II). ‘It is one of a collec- tion of Oriental MSS presented to the Library by Paul Pindar in 1611 [the gift is entered in the Benefactors’ Book under the year 1612]. Pindar was consul at Aleppo from 1609 to 1611, and was requested by Bodley to get books there for the new Library..... It seems most probable that Pindar had the copy made, and that Fadhl-allah bar-Jacob” [who signs it as scribe] “ was employed on it about 1610. It cannot be earlier.”* Whether the scribe was Jacobite or Maronite does not appear. [Either would be easily found at Aleppo;f but Dr. Payne Smith’s judgment that he was Jacobite (Catal., col. 109) is probably right, as appears from the request at the end of the volume for the prayers of the Innes ὦ g232—the ὀρθόδοξοι, as the Jacobites styled themselves. Yet it is not certain that this title was assumed exclusively (as Ἰυλοῦσιλο, “the Faithful,” was) by them. Its text unquestionably agrees most closely with that of MSS known to be Maronite,—as Codd. 10, 15 (below), and the copies used by Etzel and by Gabriel Sionita. It is unfortunate that so admirable an editor as Pococke did not light upon a better MS; its text is, on the whole, the most corrupt of all that are forthcoming.

10. (Ussher’s MS, Trinity College Library, Dublin, B. 5. 16, Catal. 1509.)

The history of this MS is similar to that of Cod. 8, and its date is but little later (1625). Thomas Davies, a British merchant at Aleppo, procured it for Ussher with other transcripts, all on paper, most of them in the same hand, from the Lebanon region. The hand- writing identifies the scribe as being the Joseph bar David, of Van in Lebanon, who in 1627 wrote in the Maronite Convent of Kenobin the greater part of a Syriac Old Testament, formerly in Ussher’s collection,

* I quote these words from a memorandum kindly furnished by Mr. Cowley, Sub-Librarian of Bodley’s Library.

+ A few years later (1624-27), Thomas Davies, residing at Aleppo, was able to find scribes to make transcripts for Ussher of many Syriac MSS; among others, a Peshitta Old Testament (now in Bodl. Library, Or. 141), the joint work of ‘‘ Joseph of Van on Mount Lebanon” (a Maronite therefore) and ‘ Cyriacus, Jacobite Priest and Monk.” It was copied from a MS at the Convent of Kenobin on Lebanon, where the Maronite Patriarch resided. See below, under Cod. 10. See also Ussher’s Works, vol. xv, pp. 215, 876; and Bodl. Catal., coll. 10, 14.

INTRODUCTION lv

now in the Bodleian (Bod. Or. 161).* The contents of Cod. 10 are, in Ussher’s words, “ those parcels of the New Testament, viz. the History of the Adulterous Woman, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle of Jude, with the Book of the Revelation,” ἢ —that is, the portions of the New Testament which the Peshitta lacks. They are placed in the order as named above by Ussher; but the quire-signatures show that the Revelation originally stood first.—Its text of the Epistles is very closely in agreement with that of Cod. 7, and it also has points of coincidence with that of the Polyglots where they differ from Cod. 8.—From it the Syriac text of the passage, John vii. 53—viii. 12 (the “ Pericope de Adultera”), was first printed (1631), by De Dieu (in his Commentarius in Evangelia, p. 443), to whom Ussher lent this‘and other MSS ; and a few years later it was inserted in the Gospel text of Walton’s Polyglot (1657), whence it has passed into all subsequent printed editions. It is disfigured by an egregious blunder —the omission of the negative in ver. 11, so as to read “Go and sin’ more”! The J accordingly appears in brackets in the text as printed by De Dieu and by Walton.—This MS was long supposed to be lost, the account of it by Ussher (as above) having been misunderstood as describing a complete Syriac New Testament.

15. (Paris, Biblioth. Nat., Anc. F. 31, Catal. 60.)

This is a (paper) MS of earlier date than Codd. 8 and 10, but ranks in age with Cod. 7, being dated [.p.] 1482 ὃ (220/2)). It was written at Kuzhayé (Lan21Q0) in the Lebanon.|| It appears to have been origin- ally a copy of the Seven Catholic Epistles, on six small quires, or rather semi-quires (paper) ; but the first three are missing, and thus James and most of 1 Peter are lost. What remains of 1 Peter is Peshitta, and it and 2 Peter occupy quire 4. Quire 5 (presumably containing 1 John (Peshitta)) is also missing ; 2 and 3 John and Jude fill three leaves of quire 6, the fourth leaf being blank. After this is inserted a smaller leaf, containing the Pericope de Adultera. It seems clear that this

* Catal., coll. 1, 10. _ + Ussher’s Works, vol. xv, p. 342 (Letter cx).

1 For a full account of it, see my Memoir in Transactions of R.I.A., vol, xxvii, pp. 269 et sqq.

§ Zotenberg, Catal., p. 22, wrongly says 1582.

|| See Thes. Syr., s.v.

lvi INTRODUCTION

copy: has been intentionally mutilated, in order to separate (so far as the quire-arrangement would permit) the non-Peshitta portions from the rest.—Its text of 2 and 3 John and Jude is of the B-type. As regards 2 Peter, it is not available for our purposes, for it offers a translation distinct from Peshitta and Harklensian alike, otherwise unknown, and of no merit,—of interest only as showing how widely a really independent. version will deviate from previous ones. The Pericope of this MS also differs much from all other known texts (except one; see p. 45 in/r.).

17. (Bodl. Libr., Dawk. 23 (1), Catal. 34.)

This is a fragmentary copy of 2 and 3 John and Jude only; filling three mutilated paper leaves, probably of the seventeenth century (or later ;—“ haud ita antiquum” is Dr. Payne Smith’s judgment),* They are prefixed to a New Testament, perhaps as old as the fourteenth century, which appears to have come from Egypt, its leaves being num- bered in Coptic figures. Its text is of the B-type, yet not so uniformly as 7,8,and 10. Its mutilated condition, its late date, and the absence of indication of place, render it almost useless as a witness to the text.

[16. (Paris, Bibl. N., Suppl. 79, Catal. 5.)

This is vol. 5 of a Syriac Bible (paper), written in Paris 1675. Its text of our Epistles is of the same type as that of the preceding five, But as it dates thirty years after the printing of the Epistles in the Paris Polyglot, it cannot rank as an independent witness, and I have ποῦ included it among my authorities, except for the Pericope, which it inserts in its place after John vii. 52.]

Thus it appears (a) that all the four MSS which most constantly attest the B text are Maronite (7, 8, 10, 15), in date ranging from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century ; and (Ὁ) that no Maronite copy belongs to Group A, or to the Intermediate list. Hence, combining these results with those stated above (pp. xlvi, 1) as to the Earlier and Intermediate MSS, we find reason to believe that these witnesses to the text may be classified in place as well as in date,—that there is a group from N.E. Mesopotamia (Jacobite), and a group from the Lebanon ~ (Maronite) ; the latter closely coincident with group B, the former including group A and part of the Intermediate.

* Catal., no. 34, col. 106,

INTRODUCTION lvii

Section XITI.—Authorities for our Text: Eprrions.

Above (p. xx,—see also p. 4 infr.) I have related the main facts of the first printing of these Epistles (by Pococke (II), 1630), and of their first appearance in their place as part of a complete Syriac New Testa- ment (in the Paris Polyglot (P), 1645). On one or both of these editions all subsequent texts of these Epistles are founded. Some (as Gutbir’s Syriac N.T., 1664) give a text slightly amended—apparently by conjecture*: for two only, Dr. Lee’s (L, of 1816 and 1820), and Dr. Perkins’ (N, New York, 1886), has fresh MS authority been obtained (see pp. xliv, xlix, supr.). But Pococke’s text has not been borrowed by the Paris editor (Sionita) : a careful comparison of the two shows plainly that the latter represents an exemplar distinct from, and appreciably better than, Pococke’s cod. 8 ;—and thus avoids one or two of the worst errors of the Editio Princeps (e.g., (\90Q® for ja2008, 2 Pet. i. 4; 20S for 2018], 3 Joh. 10).—The London Polyglot (A), 1653, simply reproduces the Paris text, with variations so few and petty as to be probably due to inadvertence (as the omission of are in 2 Pet. iii. 10). The editor (Thorndike) seems to have neglected Pococke’s text altogether.—It is to be noted that Sionita was—and it may be assumed as certain that his MS. also, like Pococke’s must have been—Maronite.—For L, see Dr. Lee’s account in Classical Journal (cited above, p. xliv, note 1). It was issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society. To the American Bible Society is due the edition (N) of 1886, and its precursors—their Syriac Bible, printed (1841) at Urmi in Persia, and reprinted at New York (1874). As noted above (pp. xliv, xlviii), the MSS (11, 13) whence L and N have derived their emenda- tions of the text of our Epistles are Tur‘abdinese.

Section XIV.—Authorities for our Text: VERSIONS.

Under this head I deal only with the secondary Versions which are known to have been made from our Syriac and not from the Greek. There are but two such :—(a) the Latin of Etzel (“ etz,” printed in 1612), and the Arabic (“ arb,” printed in 1897 by Dr. Merx,t and in 1899 by Mrs. Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, No, vi).

* The useful Syriac N.T. of Schaaf (1708) gives in an Appendix a convenient summary of the variations of Pococke’s, the Polyglot, and Gutbir’s texts. + From a transcript made by Mrs, Burkitt (Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie, Dec. 1897). h

viii INTRODUCTION

(a) Of Etzel and his Latin translation, and the publication of it, a sufficient account has been briefly given above (p. xx.—see also p. 4 infr.). Here it is only necessary to repeat that the exemplar (not now forth- coming) whose text it represents was Maronite, and to add that it agrees in the main with the B-text,—though with some exceptions, of which the most considerable are,—o for 2 before 1Zo3Aa8k0 (καὶ ἀρετῇ, for καὶ ἀρετῆς, 2 Pet. i. 8), Ἰκαῷα (τίμια, for τιμάς, ib. 4), Ἰλαδια, (λαίλα- πος, for ἄνωθεν, 2 Pet. ii. 17), and POOLS] (ὑπομνήσω, for ὑπομνήσθητι, 3 Joh. 10). It thus avoids in all these places the errors of Cod. 8, in which (except the last) Codd. 7, 10, and P share ; and is to be classed perhaps (with 3) as intermediate, rather than with the B-group.

(b) Of the Arabic, there will be occasion to treat further in another Section (xvu1, p. lxvi): here a few facts only need be stated. The MS* no. 154 of the Library of St. Catharine’s Convent on Mt. Sinai (see p. 4 infr.) contains the only known copy of this Version. This MS includes (with other documents) the Acts and Catholic Epistles in Arabic, all seven in their Greek order. I have no knowledge of Arabic, and make no claim to judge of the Version as a whole. But it is pronounced by Professor Burkitt (to whom I owe my first knowledge of its evidence) and by other competent Arabic scholars to be translated from the Syriac as above stated. As regards our Four Epistles, the fact (of which I am assured) that it represents (2 Pet. ii. 13) the reading, on all hands admitted to be a blunder, Ootabnato (ΞΞ ἱματίοις), for ισιδιλ

(ΞΞ d-yazrais)—a blunder impossible in Greek but easy in Syriac—suflices to prove the Arabic translator to have worked on the Syriac as his | basis, not on the Greek.—The Acts (mutilated in the early parts) and the Three Epistles follow the Peshitta; the Four, our Version.| The text of these latter, as represented by it, is largely but not uniformly of the B-type. Thus, while it follows the B-readings which represent κόσμῳ, ἄνωθεν, καλήν (2 Pet. i. 3, 4; ii, 1, 17; iii. 1), the doubled καὶ χαίρειν (2 Joh. 10), ὑπὸ πῦρ (Jud. 7),—on the other hand it avoids many others, such as σπουδάσατε, γελοῖον, οὐχ (before εὑρεθήσεται) (2 Pet. i. 15, ii. 18, iii. 10), and the significant omission of καί before

* See Mrs. Gibson’s Catalogue of Arabic MSS in Convent of St. Catharine (Studia Simaitica, no. 111).

+ See Mrs. Gibson’s Introduction, p. viii, to her edition, as above (p. lvii); also her Appendix, pp. 52 et sqq.

INTRODUCTION lix

Κύριον (Jud. 4). On the whole, however, it leans decidedly to the B-side. If it is rightly assigned, as Mrs. Gibson with other authorities of the highest competence assign it on palaeographic grounds, to the ninth century, it is, as a witness in great measure to the B-text, coeval with our oldest witness to the A-text (Cod. 1). And thus it proves that many of the most serious corruptions of the B-text are not, as the MS evidence would otherwise lead us to conclude, recent in date and Maronite in origin.

Section XV.—The Text of the Earlier as against the Later MSS adopted in this Edition.

From the materials described in the foregoing Section the text of the present Edition has been formed, irrespective of all previous printed texts. All those texts are based ultimately, as we have seen, on two manuscripts—-one, our Cod. 8, the other not now forthcoming,—which are reproduced, the former in the Editio Princeps, the latter in the Paris Polyglot ;—the former being (see p. liv supr.) of the seventeenth century, the latter nearly identical with it in text, and probably little if at all earlier in date. One or other of these has been assumed as the Textus Receptus by subsequent editors ; two only of whom (both of the nineteenth century) have corrected it here and there—Dr. Lee in L after Cod. 9, and the American editor in N, after Cod. 11.* The text of all these, even of L and N, presents a considerable number of readings which diverge widely from the text of the original as attested by Greek authorities, most of these divergences being unconfirmed by any other evidence. Many, but not all, of these divergent readings have been made known to Biblical students in the Apparatus subjoined to Tischen- dorf’s Greek Testament (eighth edition).t—The text as now presented, based on the combined testimony of some twenty manuscripts, varying in date from the ninth century to the seventeenth or later (including every one which I have been able directly or indirectly to reach), and thus completely reconstructed, will be found to differ frequently—in not a few places materially—from the text as hitherto edited.—The

* See p. lvii supr.

+ Tischendorf cites the Syriac New Testament from Schaaf’s edition (or rather from the Latin version attached to its text) as “Syr*®’’—except in the Four Epistles, where he writes ‘‘Syr’"’’; assuming Schaaf to have uniformly repeated

Pococke’s text, which is not always the fact. See my article in Hermathena, vol. vii, pp. 281 et sqq.

Ix - INTRODUCTION

twofold result of this process has been that (chiefly on the authority of the older manuscripts)—

(1°) The weight of our Version as a textual authority, in many cases of dispute as to the reading of the Greek, is transferred from one side to the other :

(2°) The greater part of the readings which deviated most widely from the consensus of the Greek authorities disappear.

Connected with head (2°), another result appears :—that

(3°) The text of the Philoxenian is brought closer to that of the Harklensian.

Every instance of such approximation is to be accounted as a con- firmation, by the authority of the Harklensian, of the textual evidence on which our emendation of the Philoxenian has been made,—the evidence (that is) of our earlier group of Philoxenian manuscripts.— Or, to state the case more justly, in each such instance the Harklensian is to be recognised as the earliest witness to the true text of its Philo- xenian prototype—its testimony, which is that of a careful scholar, not of a mere transcriber, reaching back to a date (614) long prior to that of any extant copy, little more than a century later than the date (508) when the Philoxenian was given to the Syriac-speaking Church.

Section XVI.—The Text of the Later MSS upheld by Professor Mera.

Another view of the facts disclosed by the collation of our manu- scripts is, however, possible. It may be said that in these earlier manuscripts of the Philoxenian we have it, not in its genuine and original form, but as re-handled by some editor or editors in order to bring it into conformity with the Harklensian revision ; while the later manuscripts preserve the text as derived by them from copies that had escaped such meddling of correctors. Such a view has in fact been put forward by Professor Merx. This eminent scholar holds that the true text of the Philoxenian is on the whole correctly exhibited by our later manuscripts and the printed editions based on them. The read- ings of our earlier manuscripts he rejects as corruptions in the form of editorial corrections: the agreement of the Harklensian with these he sets down not as testimony in their favour but as indications that it is ; the source whence they have been derived.—In confirmation of this judgment, and to meet the prima facie improbability of the later copies

INTRODUCTION. Ixi

having preserved the original form of the text more truly than the earlier, he invokes the support of the Arabic Version, which (as above shown) was made not from the Greek but from the Philoxenian, of which Version the only known copy is supposed to be of the ninth century,— older therefore than any of our manuscripts except probably Cod. 1, which bears date A.Gr. 1134 (4.p. 823). This secondary Version, in many (yet not in all) instances, proves to agree with the readings of our later copies as embodied in the ordinary printed text ; and Dr. Merx accepts it as decisive in favour of that text against the evidence of our earlier copies.

In Professor Merx’s view, then, the readings in which the ordinary printed text, with the bulk of the later manuscripts of the Philoxenian, —as against the text now presented, amended after the earlier manu- scripts—diverges from the Greek as read by all other authorities, are not mere errors of transcription in the Syriac, but represent genuine (but otherwise unattested) variants in the Greek exemplar which the Philoxenian translator has faithfully reproduced. And on the other hand, our earlier manuscripts present a text which, though more nearly conformed to that of other witnesses, is not the Philoxenian as origin- ally issued, but as re-handled by editors who have corrected it into con- formity with the Harklensian, which adheres closely to the Greek.

These two opposite views of the facts presented by the manuscripts of Philoxenian text admit of an easy comparative test, addressed to the eye as well as to the understanding.

Section XVII.—Professor Merx’s Theory tested by Juxtaposition of Examples of rival Readings.

Let us write down, side by side, some leading examples of the read- ings in which the manuscripts of our later differ from those of our earlier group, placing under each the corresponding Greek, and judge in each case by inspection whether of the two hypotheses is more probable,—that the Syriac as exhibited by the later group is a scribes’ perversion of the earlier,—or, that it represents a variant which, though found in no extant Greek manuscript and supported by no other Version, really existed in the underlying Greek.

As above, in Section x1, we call the earlier group A ;—the later, B. It will be found that, in every case, the Syriac as given by printed texts and the B-group represents a reading of the Greek which is not known—and which resembles none that is known—to the Greek

Ixii INTRODUCTION

witnesses ;—whereas it is readily accounted for as a facile and obvious corruption of the Syriac as exhibited by the A-group and adopted thence into our emended text.

(i.) I place first a few examples chosen because they serve the purpose of this Section in the most convincing manner,—the Greek evidence being, in each and all of them, unanimous, with the A-text and against the B-text.*

(a) 2 Pet. i. 4 (τὰ μέγιστα καὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα).

With A, we read L0as : 1s2008 of B

= (all Greek) érayyéApara 2 ἐπιγνώσεις (unattested).

Here it seems impossible to doubt that B represents a Syriac scribe’s blunder, between two words which to eye and ear present but small and easily overlooked difference, though in sense widely remote. The other alternative is barely admissible,—that the Greek exemplar, which the Philoxenian represents, really read ἐπιγνώσεις or ἐπιστήματα (or any word equivalent), alien to the purport of the passage and unconfirmed by other evidence—that B has preserved this genuine Philoxenian reading, and that A has been tampered by a corrector so as to bring it into conformity with the current Greek text and the Harklensian.— This latter explanation perverts the facts; it accounts for the B- readings by a complicated hypothesis assuming the existence of an unsuitable and otherwise unknown Greek variant, and supposing an imaginary editor to have borrowed from the Harklensian the reading as now found in the A-text.—The former explanation is, on the con- trary, simple and natural ; it merely alleges a common and very minute error of transcription. I have therefore unhesitatingly adopted the A-reading into the reconstructed text of this Edition.

(b) 2 Pet. 11. 1 (ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ Aad). With A, we read aso Isokso of B =(all Greek) ἐν τῷ ea {a = ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ (unattested). Here the facts are similar to those of example (a): and the like alternative is set before us. The B-reading is unworthy of considera-

* The lists of passages set forth under this head and the following are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely to give a sufficient view of the facts. It is limited to examples in which the Greek authorities are unanimous or nearly so.

+ Or possibly (to suit the context), the neuter ἐπιστήματα (in the sense of σημεῖα).

INTRODUCTION Ixiii

tion, lacking all support and unsuited to the context. It cannot be accepted as representing a variant in the Greek, and is to be dismissed as an instance of a very common mistake into which Syriac scribes are notoriously apt to fall,* of writing \ after (or before, or for) S, to which it is so similar in form. (c) 2 Pet. 11. 17 (νεφέλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμεναι). With A, we read {ls\s το} fr ae «ὁ of B = (all Greek) ὑπὸ λαίλαπος = ἀπ᾽ ἄνωθεν (unattested).

[The resemblance between the Syr. words is still more marked in

estrangela, as mlsls eso for Lal pn.]

Of this example the same is to be said as of the previous ones ; and the error in the Syriac arises here, as in (b), from the similarity to the eye between Ν and S, leading here to the wrong omission of the latter as there to the wrong insertion of the former.

(d) 2 Pet. ii. 18 (ὑπέρογκα yap ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι).

With Aweread = faa Ἰϑωας of B = (all Greek) ὑπέρογκα for ie γελοῖον (unattested). This is an example exactly parallel to (a), (b), and (c).

(6) 2 Pet. ili. 1 (διεγείρω τὴν εἰλικρινῆ διάνοιαν). With A we read bas |ja2s of B = (all Greek) εἰλικρινῆ ee = καλήν (unattested), Another like example.

(4) 8 Job. 10, (Asyous xevypoie φλυάρῶν ἡμᾶδοὶ. With A we read Aco *S09 of B

= (all Greek) φλυαρῶν = ποιῶν (unattested).

[or ἐπισκεπτόμενος

A sixth example; all of these being cases in which the Greek evidence is unanimous, and all the MSS of A-group agree with it. |

To these may be added another, in which also the Greek evidence is unanimous, but the A-MSS, though unanimous as against B, are not fully agreed among themselves.

(g) Jud. 7 (πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρός). With A we read |3a39 es a bar AawZ

=(all Greek) δεῖγμα πυρός = ὑπὸ πῦρ (unattested).

* See e.g., Matth. i. 21, where the Curetonian makes, while Peshitta and Sinaitic avoid, the same mistake between these words,

Ixiv INTRODUCTION

Some of the A-group exhibit the (apparently conflate) Waal ΔΖ 13039 = ὑπὸ δεῖγμα πυρός. But whichever of the A-readings is right, the B-reading is equally due to the resemblance between Ἰδλαωξ and Aad, leading to the omission of the former.

It will be noticed that in each and all of the above examples, the B-text is not only uncorroborated but (with the exception of example (e) where the B-reading is merely commonplace and pointless) is in itself improbable as being unsuited to the context in which it is found. This fact would not, of course, disprove the possibility that such read- ings existed in the exemplar used by the Philoxenian translator, though they would lower its value as a textual witness.—But another feature, likewise found in common in all these examples without exception, cannot be thus dismissed from consideration. It is this, that (as above pointed out) in every case there is apparent to eye and ear a close resemblance between the Syriac words wherein A and B differ—words utterly remote from one another in meaning—which compels us to infer that one word has been written by mistake for the other; while the Greek words represented by them are quite dissimilar inter se. For this fact Professor Merx has not accounted ; on his theory it is a mere

accident that [$900 and Lcas look so much alike, λων and tsasa, Ws «Ὁ and TsXs =; faa, and bara, jaa» and Lae, s8 and ὅΔωο, AasZ and |AaanZ,—while there is no likeness between ἐπιγνώσεις (or ἐπιστήματα) and ἐπαγγέλματα, κόσμῳ and λαῷ, ἄνωθεν and λαίλαπος, γελοῖον and ὑπέρογκα, καλήν and εἰλικρινῆ, ποιῶν and φλυαρῶν, ὑπὸ πῦρ and δεῖγμα πυρός.---Τῦῇ indeed such likeness, how- » ever close, appeared in but one instance, it might be set down to chance, though it would justify us in suspecting a mistake in thatinstance. But recurring as it does in every instance, it warrants us in drawing con- fidently the general conclusion that the outward resemblance between two Syriac words, and not the existence of a Greek variant, has caused the B-text to deviate from the A-text and from the Greek. For it cannot be a mere accident that in every one of these examples two dissimilar Greek words should be represented by two Syriac words so nearly alike in written (or spoken) form that either might readily be by inadvertence substituted for the other. Then, as between the two Syriac words which in each case have by their similarity led to the disagreement of the texts, we are bound to accept the one which by

INTRODUCTION Ixv

its own fitness and by all Greek evidence is attested as right, and to reject the other as a mere error of transcription.

(ii.) The following examples are less conclusive only in that the B-reading is a possible variant in the Greek though not recorded as such,—or, as in example (7), an actual though weakly attested variant.

(h) 2 Pet. i. 4 (τὰ μέγιστα καὶ τίμια). With A we read ee? ἣν pease of B = (all Gr.) καὶ τίμια = καὶ τιμάς (unattested). (i) 2 Pet. 1. 15 (σπουδάσω ἔχειν ὑμᾶς). With Aweread Ὁ ‘ [5

=(nearly all Gr.) σπουδάσω =(3 Gr. mss only) σπουδάσατε.

(75) 2 Pet. i. 16 (οὐ yap ... ἐγνωρίσαμεν ὑμῖν). With A we read ἀσκῶν ὡς rye of B

= (all Gr.) ἐγνωρίσαμεν = ὅτι ἐγνώρισα (unattested).

(k) 2 Joh. 6 (va περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ).

With A we read ate Ἶ ae of B

=(all Gr.) τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ Ξε τὴν ἐντολήν (unattested),

(ἢ) 3 Joh. 9 (ὃ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν). With A we read ae} fe (3 δ.) of B

=(all Gr.) αὐτῶν = ὑμῶν (unattested).

(m) Jud. 2 (εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη). With A we read Sac @ ᾿ ΠΣ οὗ Β

= (all Gr.) καὶ ἀγάπη = ἐν ἀγάπῃ (unattested).

(iii.) A third class of examples (which might have been classed under i.) consists of passages where B, against A (and the Greek), omits or inserts letters (mostly prefixes) or small words, which might easily be overlooked or interpolated. Some of these are material to the meaning or connexion.—Such are— |

2 Pet. ii. 3, 9 for 20 before ts (λόγων for καὶ λόγοις) ; 11. 6, om Ο before {Ara ,S0 (καί before πόλεις) ; 11. 8, om OO! after hilo (6 before δίκαιος) ; iii. 5, om τα (γάρ after λανθάνει) ; ii. 10, ins ἢ] before woheZ (οὐχ before εὑρεθήσεται) ; 111. 13, om [ae after Is3lo (καινήν after γῆν) ; 2 Joh. 5, om yal before 1,002 (ὡς before ἐντολήν) ; Jud. 4, om O prefix

to «9.

lxvi INTRODUCTION

With these may be classed, 2 Joh. 10, the repetition of -ρο (καὶ χαίρειν) ; 3 Joh. 6, the omission (by homeoteleuton of Δι) of 20}809 As] (προπέμψας); also, Jud. 10, of [Aes after |Zais0(ddoya before ζῶα).

Most of these examples, though trivial to the eye, affect the text appreciably—some of them gravely. The reading of 2 Pet. iii. 10 is of great critical interest ; the omission from 3 Joh. 6 leaves the passage unmeaning ; that from Jud. 4 (of a single letter) appears to be an intentional tampering with the text in mistaken zeal, to compel it to attest the Godhead of Our Lord.

In all of them, the B-text is absolutely without Greek support, and its deviations can only be ascribed to inexactness on the part of the scribes. Under this head therefore we have further confirmation of our estimate of it as being untrustworthy where it is opposed to the A-text.

Section X VIII.—The Arabic Version and the B-tezxt.

Turning now to the Arabic Version and the support it lends to the B-text,—which is really the only fact of importance that has been adduced in favour of that text,—it is to be noted that its support is by no means given to all the B-readings. Thus under head 1., it sides with A against B in two (ὦ, f) of the seven examples there cited (representing with A, ὑπέρογκα of 2 Pet. ii. 18, φλυαρῶν of 3 Joh. 10). Likewise under head ii., in one out of six (σπουδάσω of 2 Pet. i. 15). Under iii. there are eleven examples, in but three of which the Arabic agrees with B ;—namely, 2 before {Is (=Adywv) in 2 Pet. ii. 3, the omission of ja. (= γάρ) in 2 Pet. iii. 5, and the insertion of a second oap0 (= καὶ χαίρειν) in 2 Joh. 10. Of the remaining eight, in which the Arabic supports the A-text, some are very important.

The evidence therefore of this secondary Version (under heads i. and ii.) merely proves that of those corruptions of the B-text which are due to mistake between words which look and sound alike, most are as early as the tenth or even the ninth century,—older than the manu- script evidence alone would have led us to suppose,—though probably later by three centuries than the time of Philoxenus. But its evidence under head iii. proves further that the B-text, where it errs in the matter of inconspicuous (yet, as the examples of 2 Pet. ui. 10, Jud. 7 prove, far from insignificant) insertions or omissions, has suffered ποῦ ἃ little from the carelessness of transcribers of much more recent date.

INTRODUCTION Ixvii

Section XIX.—The Harklensian Version and the A-tect.

1. As regards the coincidences between the A-text and the Harklen- sian, and the suggestion that they are due to editorial corrections made in the former to conform it to the latter, I have remarked (pp. 98, 99, 110, infr.) on the perversity of the criticism to which that sugges- tion belongs. I have now to point out that (as we have seen in last Section that the Arabic does not always corroborate the B-text, so likewise) the A-text is not uniformly in agreement with the Harklen- sian. As we there saw that A sometimes has the Arabic on its side, so we now meet the counter fact that B sometimes (though rarely) has erred in company with the Harklensian. A notable instance of this occurs 2 Pet. i. 15, where the Harklensian leads, and all the B-group (but not the Arabic) with most of the intermediate follow, in adopting against the A-group the plainly erroneous reading σπουδάσατε. So again, 2 Pet. ii. 10, the Harklensian with the B-text, not the A-text, reads ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις for ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ ; ib., 11, omits παρὰ Κυρίῳ ; and, 2 Joh. 5, omits ὡς before ἐντολήν. In these cases therefore Professor Merx’s theory of the A-text fails absolutely.

2. Further, even in the cases where the A-group agrees (as against the B-group) with the Harklensian as regards the Greek text repre- sented, it differs as regards the Syriac word employed.—Thus, (a) 2 Pet. i. 4, the Harklensian is with A against B in representing ἐπαγγέλ- ματα (see Sect. xvi, head i., a, p. lxii); but the Syriac equivalent used by Harklensian is haXkato ,—not (as Philoxenian, A-text) L20de ‘ Again, (8) Ib., Harkl. (head ii., h, p. lxv) renders τίμια by Ἰ3αλο-.- not (as Philox., A) by ἴωῷα (which is rather =ripyrd). Again, (γ) 3 Joh. 6, Harkl. (head iii., p. Ixv) renders προπέμψας by 1 not (as Philox., A) by 20}S0. Lastly, (5) Jud. 10, Harkl. (again head iii., Ῥ. lxvi) renders ἄλογα by WAXLASo ἢ], ποὺ (as Philox., A) by Aen. — It is obvious that if the A-readings in these places were corrections _ made by an editor of the Philoxenian to assimilate it to the Har- klensian, the assimilation would have extended to the Syriac equivalent employed, as well as to the Greek text followed.

3. Moreover, in one of the above examples, the Harklensian, in dis- carding the A-rendering, attests the A-reading against the B-reading,— namely, 3 Joh. 6. Here, its margin, though its text renders προπέμψας

]xvili INTRODUCTION

more exactly by JaXso, retains as an alternative the 20180 of the A-text which the B-text omits.—A like case occurs, 2 Pet. iii. 10, where the Harklensian, though in its text it adopts the rival reading of some Greek authorities (κατακαήσεται for the better attested εὑρεθήσεται which the Philoxenian follows), on its margin records the w»2hel of the latter,—but in so doing confirms our A-text by omitting the negative u (= οὐχ) which the B-group interpolates before it. Thus these two Harklensian notes prove not only (as pointed out in a pre- vious Section) that the translator had the Philoxenian before him, but that he had it in the form exhibited by group A, not by group B.—It is worth while in passing to remark that in the case of this last-cited passage, the facts are against Professor Merx’s theory in three respects. For the A-reading (εὑρεθήσεται without the οὐχ of B) (1) cannot be borrowed from the Harklensian, which in its text substitutes κατακαή- σεται for εὑρεθήσεται :—(2) is not contradicted, but supported, by the Arabic in omitting the negative :—(3) is actually attested by the Harklensian margin where it is placed as an alternative to the reading of the text.*

Finally, an examination of the MSS discloses other facts worthy of record as bearing on the matter in hand.

4, Where the MSS of the A-group show traces, as here and there happens, of the corrector’s hand, the corrections are in the direction not of the Harklensian, but of the B-text. Even the earliest and best of them, Cod. 1, has been so dealt with in two places, where a later hand has introduced B-readings :—2 Pet. i. 4, 12.) (= τιμάς) ; and so 2 Pet. iii. 1, |;a2@(=xadjv).¢ Similarly in Cod. 2, the B-interpo- lation ἢ (ΞΞ οὐχ) has been placed in the margin of 2 Pet. iii.10.t Also Cod. 20, which, though of fifteenth century, has a text largely coinciding with A, in three places where it exhibits A-readings inserts the B- readings in its margin ;—2 Pet. 11. 17 (text, tsXs ; arg., ΔΑΝ): ii. 18

(text, μας; marg., fanay): ili, 16 (text, ΤΕΥ ; Inarg., 1ds,).§

5. Where instances are detected, as admittedly happens now and

* Note that, e contra, the very recent Cod. 19 inserts on its margin the Syr. equivalent for the κατακαήσεται of Harkl.

t+ See pp. 10, 18, 98, 113 infr. t See pp. 20, 115 infr. § See pp. 142, 143 infr.

INTRODUCTION lxix

then, of tampering with the text of our MSS with the purpose of con- forming it to the Harklensian, they occur not in the A-group, but in some of the later MSS which are intermediate in text between it and the B-group, and give to the latter only a partial and intermittent support,—namely, Codd. 5, 11, 13, 19, 20.* Of these, 11, 13, 20 (good copies written with scholarly care) are of the later part of the fifteenth century ; 19 is a very recent transcript of unknown origin; 5 alone has a claim, though a doubtful one, to be assigned to the twelfth, and the Harklensian note found in it is by a later hand.

Section XX.—Summary.

On these grounds then (explained more fully in detail in the Supple- mental Notes) I submit that we are bound to reject the theory which attributes to editorial manipulation the large agreement of the A-text with the Harklensian. That agreement is due to the fidelity (1) of: the early caligraphers who produced the A-group of MSS, and (2) of the Harklensian reviser in reproducing all that he retained of the original Philoxenian,—so that in his Version we have the best, and (by two centuries) the earliest, witness to the authentic Philoxenian text.— And in confident reliance on the basis (confirmed by this attestation) furnished by our earlier codices, I present the text constructed on it, as a restoration, complete so far as the extant evidence warrants, of the text of these Epistles as it came, just fourteen centuries ago, from the translator’s hands.

Section XXI.—The Underlying Greek Text.

The Syriac Text, thus restored, is represented with the closest attainable exactness in the Greek Text subjoined to it. By reference to this, and to the appended foot-notes, which contain an ample Apparatus Criticus of the various readings of the Greek, a reader though unacquainted with Syriac may obtain an accurate knowledge of the textual evidence yielded by our Version, and of the relation which the Greek Text represented by it bears to that of the principal

* See pp. 101 and footnote, 103,130imfr. Other instances are found in Cod. 15, which is one (though the earliest) of the B-group, and exhibits Harklensian read- ings throughout, and moreover gives 2 Pet. in the Harkl. version.

Ixx INTRODUCTION

Greek witnesses severally —especially the seven available uncials (SNA BCKLP)—and to that of the Latin and other primary Versions.

For my own guidance in this part of my work, I have made a Table of the passages in which the seven vary appreciably inter se (neglecting variations of such nature as to be incapable of reproduction in Syriac), and have noted the agreements of each MS with the texts attested by the Philoxenian and the Harklensian severally. It is unnecessary to print this Table at length; but it is worth while to state the results it yields, which are as follows.

1. The passages it includes are in number 115. In these, the in- stances in which the Philoxenian text agrees with each several uncial are :—With N, 65; with A, 60; with B, 53; with C, 44; with K, 51; with L, 55; with P, 51.—It is to be borne in mind that C lacks 2 John, and that but for this defect its figure would presumably exceed 50. Setting it aside then as doubtful, we learn that, of the rest, δὲ and A support our text in rather more than half the 115 places; B and the three later MSS (K L P) in rather less than half,—the highest number of instances of agreement being markedly with δὲ, the lowest with K and P.

2. Moreover, the important result discloses itself (briefly stated by anticipation above in Section x1, a, p. xxxix), that the agreements of our Philoxenian with the Harklensian are more numerous than with any of these Greek texts,—being 76 in all, about two-thirds of the 115 passages recorded in my Table. Besides these, it has been pointed out above (x1, ὃ, p. xl) that there are some twenty places in which Philoxenian and Harklensian agree together against the consent of the semi-uncials and all other Greek authority.—These facts, taken together, demonstrate forcibly the closeness of the textual affinity that subsists between these Versions.

To estimate the comparative value of the texts followed by them severally, and to investigate the character of each, would be an interesting task ; but it lies outside the range of this Introduction.

December, 1908.

INTRODUCTION lxxi

Postscript.—The Pericope de Adultera.

Concerning the Syriac MSS in which the passage, John vii. 53—viii. 12, is to be found, sufficient particulars will be found on p. 3 infr. (see also pp. 41—49, 87-92). The facts may be summed up as follows :—

1. Its translation into Syriac, in the form in which it appears in Walton’s Polyglot and subsequent Syriac New Testaments (distinguished as I., p. 41 infr.), is ascribed in some copies, including the earliest, to “the Abbot Paul, who found it in Alexandria” (see pp. 41, 42 infr.), presumably the Paul of Tella of the early seventh century, to whom we owe the Syro-Hexaplar Old Testament (see Introduction to Part IT, infr.).* Of the eight copies of it (p. 3 infr.), cited in the Apparatus which accompanies the text (Codd. a, ὃ, c, d, e, f, 10, 16), one only (16) reads it in the Gospel text (Peshitta), one only (Ὁ) as part of a Lection from the Gospel (Peshitta), one only (e) in the Gospel text (Harklensian). The rest include it as an extract (as f, 10; 15), or (as c) append it to, or (as d) set it on the margin of, the Fourth Gospel (Harkl.), or finally (as a, the oldest) write it on a fly-leaf of an early MS of the Peshitta Gospels.t— Another recension of the narrative, infr., p. 45, differing only in wording, is found in Codd. g and 15; the former of which includes it in the Peshitta text of the Gospel, the latter inserts it on a separate leaf attached to a copy of the Catholic Epistles—Of the above, the two (Codd. g and 16), which alone treat it as part of the Peshitta Gospel text, are of the seventeenth century.

2. The story in a form substantially different, of which the Syriac text is preserved in the eighth Book (ch. vii.) of the Chronicle which bears - the name of Zacharias of Mitylene,{ is given (distinguished as II) at p- 46 infr., from Codd. h and i, of which the former is a copy of the Chronicle, the latter an extract from the same. In Cod. f also (a copy of Bar-Salibi’s Comm. on the Gospels), it is cited in extenso after the comments on Joh. vii., followed by the other (Paul-) form of the same.

* Or else his contemporary, the ‘‘ Abbot Paul,’ who in a.p. 624, in Cyprus, translated into Syriac the works of Gregory Nazianzen. See Assemani (B.O., t. i, p. 171), who calls him Bishop of Cyprus; Wright, Catal., p. 423; also his Syriac Lit., p. 135.

“+ For the history of its appearance in print, and of its admission into the printed Syriac New Testament, see under Cod. 10 (p. lv supr.).

t Printed by Land, Anecdota Syr., t. 11.—Dr. Hamilton and Mr. Brooks have published an English translation of the Chronicle (1899), to which the latter has prefixed an important Introduction.

lxxil INTRODUCTION

This eighth Book and those that follow are the work of a continuator, and were completed in a.p. 569. He tells us that it “ was found [i.e., apparently, the Greek of it] in the Gospel of Mara, Bishop of Amid ” [died circ. 527]. Whether Mara, or this continuator, or some other, translated it into Syriac, is uncertain. It seems to be extant neither in Greek nor any other language. This Syriac version of the story in — this form belongs (as the date of the eighth Book above given proves) to the sixth century,* and is earlier by nearly half a century than the better known version by Paul of the story in its familiar form. Both forms (it is to be noted) claim to have been “found” by Syrian ecclesiastics at Alexandria.

3. Below (p. 46) I have referred to a version of the Paul-form of the Pericope, appended to a very recent copy of the Gospels (Bodl. Or. 625) bearing date 1801, the work of a Malabar scribe,—which I have forborne to print, judging from internal evidence that it was merely a translation from the Latin Vulgate probably connected with the action of the Synod of Diamper. I have found, since p. 46 was written, that in Decr. 2, cap. x1v of Actio 11 of that Synod, a.p. 1599, after noting the defects of the Peshitta Bible, the Synod orders that they are to be supplied “‘ according to the Chaldee copies which are emended and the Vulgate Latin Edition” ; and that this is to be done by Fran- cisco Roz, a Jesuit, Professor of Syriac in the Jesuits’ College at Vai- picotta, founded a few years previously (see Geddes, Hist. of Malabar Church, as cited above, p. xlv, notet). To him, therefore, we may without hesitation attribute this translation of the Pericope. But there seems to be no evidence that he fulfilled the directions of the Synod by trans- lating also our Four Epistles.—Possibly the version of the Revelation, of which two copies are among Dr. Buchanan’s Malabar Syriac MSS in Cambridge University Library,t may be the work of the same translator.

* The MS h (Br. M., Add. 17202), which contains the Chronicle, is probably to be dated not later than a.p. 600.

+ For Zacharias, see Land, Anecdota Syr., t. 111, Introduction; also that of Mr. Brooks (above mentioned): for Mara, Land (as before), pp. 245, 250 (v. and vii. of Chronicle, Book vi11): for both, Assemani, B.O., t. ii, pp. 52, 54.

t Catal., Oo. 1, 11 (7) ; Oo. 1, 21.—Whether the Syriac version of the Revelation (with Commentary), of the same Library, Add. 1970, is identical with the above, IT have not ascertained. It professes to be translated from an Arabic translation from the Latin. All these MSS are Nestorian, of the eighteenth century.

THE FOUR SHORTER CATHOLIC EPISTLES 2 PETER, 2 JOHN, 3 JOHN, JUDE

AND

THE SYNTAXIS DE ADULTERA (Sr. JOHN VII. 583—VIII. 12)

SYRIACG TEXT

MANUSCRIPTS CITED... ..

THe Manuscripts on which the following texts are based, and to which ᾿ the Apparatus Criticus refers, are as follows :—

(A.) For THe Four Episrizs.

1, London, British Museum, Add. 14623 (Catal. pcctxxx1). No. 7 of a Miscellany of Extracts. It contains the Seven Catholic Epistles. Order: 1, 2, 3 John; James; 1, 2 Peter; Jude.—2, 3 John begin fol. 260°; 2 Pet., fol. 28r°; Jude, fol. 300°. Dated a.a. 1134 (=a.p. 823).

2. Ib., 1b., Add. 14473 (Catal. cxxx11). The Four shorter Cath. Epp., appended by a later hand (ff. 140-148) to an early MS of Acts with the Three longer Epp. (Catal. cxxv). Estrangela. Cent. x1 [or x17].

3. Ib., ib., Add. 17226 (Catal. cxxiv). Acts and Seven Cath. Epp. ; the Four shorter following (fol. 33 υ et sqq.) the Three longer ; mutilated | at end (from Jude 20). Cent. xii or XIV.

4. Ib., ib., Add. 14474 (Catal. oxx1), [2 Pet. (Harkl.) (ff. 102-104), } 2, 3 John, Jude (ff. 109-112) ; part of insertion into a 1xth Cent. MS of Acts preceded by Pauline and followed by Cath. Epp. Cent. x1 or xu.

5. Ib., ib., Add. 14681 (Catal. cxxi1). Acts and Epp.; the Four (originally) following the Three, but preceding the Pauline. Order: 2, 3 John (beginning fol. 68 r°); 2 Pet. (f. 69°, breaking off in ii. 5) ; Jude lost. Cent. ΧΙ or XIII.

6. Ib., ib, Add. 17115 (Catal. xcv1). One of two leaves appended to a vith cent. MS of SS. Matth. and John. It contains (fol. 87 v°) only Jude 1-13. Of Cent. 1x or x.

7. Ib., ib.. Rich 7162 (Catal. R.-F. xvi). Acts and Epp.; Cath. before Paul., in usual Gr. order (2 Pet., fol. 123; 2, 3 John, Jude, fol. 137). The Seven complete. Cent. xiv.

8. Oxford, Bodleian Libr., Or. 119 (Catal. 35). Acts and the Seven Cath. Epp. in Gr. order (2 Pet., fol. 123; 2, 3 John, Jude, fol. 137). Complete. Probably of early xvuth Cent. Edited by Pococke (see below (II) under “ Editions ἢ).

9, Cambridge, University Libr., Oo. i. (vol. 2 of Syr. Bible known as “ Buchanan’s”). New Test.; Cath. Epp. following Acts (the Four placed (after the Three), fol. 309 r°). Complete, but in places illegible. Estrangela. Late xuth or early ΧΙ Cent. Used by Lee for his edition (L: see below).

L

A

bo

MANUSCRIPTS, ETC.

10. Dublin, Trin. Coll. Libr., B. 5.16 (Catal. 1509). The Four Epp. (ff. 2-14), preceded (fol. 1) by Pericope de Adultera, and followed by Apocalypse. . Complete. Known as “ Ussher’s.” Dated a.p. 1625.

πὶ Utica (New York State, U.S.A.), Library of Mr. Williams. Gospels, Acts, Epp. (Cath. in Gr. order (2 Pet., fol. 58r°; 2, 3 John, Jude, fol. 640°), followed by Paul.). Complete. Dated a.qa. 1782 (=a.D. 1471). Used by editor of (N) New York Syr. N.T. (see below).

_ 12. Manchester, John Rylands Libr. [formerly Earl of Crawford’s, Haigh Hall, Wigan, no. 1]. New Test. ; Apoc. following Gospels and preceding Acts; then Epp. (Cath. in Gr. order (2 Pet., quire 17, fol. 4v°; 2, 3 John, Jude, ἐδ... fol. 107°), followed by Paul.). Complete. Estrangela. Cent. x11 (late) or x11 (early).

13. Amsterdam, Libr. of Seminary of Remonstrants, no. 184. Acts and Epp. (Three Cath., Paul., followed by the Four (fol. 145 v°)). Complete. Known as “ Wetstein’s.” Dated a.a. 1781 (= a.p. 1470).

14. Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Supplément 27 (Catal. 29). Gos- pels, Acts, Epp. (the Three, followed by the Four (fol. 124 r°), and then Paul.). Complete. Estrangela. Cent. x1 (late) or x11 (early).

15. Ib., ib., Ancien Fonds 31 (Catal. 60). The Cath. Epp. ; but only 2, 3 John, Jude (fol. 5) are of our version ;—followed (fol. 9 r°) by Perie. de Adult. (see under MS g, p. 3). Dated a.p. 1482.*

16. Ib., ib., Suppl. 79 (Catal. 5). New Test., being tom. 5 of a Bible. —Peric. de Adult. in text of St. John vii, viii; Cath. Epp. in Gr., Lat. order (after Pauline). Dated a.p. 1675. [Used in the present work only for the Pericope. |

17. Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Dawk. 23 (1) (Catal. 34). A fragment of three leaves, containing 2, 3 John, Jude (mutilated here and there). Cent. XVII or XVIII.

18. Mount Sinai, Libr. of Convent of St. Catherine (Catal. 5). A supplement (Acts and Cath. Epp. in Gr. order) to an early Estrangela MS of Paul. Cent. xvi or xvii.

19. (Belongs to Dr. Rendel Harris.) A recent transcript by an Eastern scribe, from a Tiir-‘-Abdin MS, unknown. Contains the Seven Epp. in Gr. order, following Acts.

All the above I have myself collated and re-collated (no. 11 from Dr. Isaac Hall’s phototypes); except 8, for which I have trusted

* Catal. wrongly says 1582.

MANUSCRIPTS, ETC. 3

Pococke, and 18, which is known to me only by a collation kindly given to me by the late Professor Bensly (who also allowed me to use his collations of nos. 9, 14). Moreover, 9, 14, 15, 16 have been re- collated for me by Rev. Professor Hugh Jackson Lawler, D.D., and 2, 7 by Rev. Arthur Aston Luce.

(B.) For tHe Pericope de Adultera.

a. London, Brit. Mus., Add. 14470 (Catal. tx111). A note in a later hand (probably of Cent. 1x) on fol. 1v° of a MS of the Gospels (of Cent. ΚΥ or v1).

b. Paris, Biblioth. Nat., Anc. Fonds 37 (Catal. 59). Gospel Lectionary (Pesh. mixed with Harkl.): Pericope stands as part of Gospel text on fol. 105v°. Estrangela. Cent. x11.

ce. Ib., ib., Anc. F.12 (Catal. 56). Harkl. Gospels: Pericope appended to St. John, fol. 190v°. Dated a.a. 1575 (= a.p. 1264).

d. Ib., ib., Anc. F. 25 (Catal. 54). Harkl. Gospels, Estrangela (dated ἡ A.G. 1503 = a.p. 1192): Pericope on margin of St. John viii., fol. 206 v°, in a hand probably of Cent. xv.

e. Oxford, Library of New College, no. 334. Harkl. Gospels : Pericope in its place in text of St. John. (See White’s edition, t. i, pp. 559, 628, 640). Of Cent. x11.

f. Dublin, Library of Trinity College, B. 2.9 (Catal. 1512). Bar Salibi’s Commentary on the Gospels: Pericope cited in extenso ; in its ordinary (Paul) form, fol. 544b, preceded by the other (Mara) form, p. 543b. Dated a.c. 1508 (=a.p. 1197). See infr., p. 46 sqq.

4. Florence, Bibliot. Medic. Laurent. (Catal. i, p. 56). Printed by Bernstein, Syrische Stud. fiir Zeitschr. der Deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch., t. ili, p. 197. A complete N.T. (Pesh.): Pericope (with deviations*) in its place in text of St. John. Dated a.p. 1611.

h. London, Brit. Mus., Add. 17202 (Catal. pccccxix). Ecclesiast. Hist. of Zacharias Rhetor (edited by Land, Anecdota Syr., t. 111). In libr. viii. 7 (fol. 144°) the Pericope is cited from Mara. Estrangela. Cent. vi (late) or vit.

i. Ib., ib., Add. 17193, 3 (Catal. pcccrix1). Catena. Pericope (Mara), fol. 2v°. Estrangela. Dated a.c. 1185 (= 4.D. 874).

MSS 10, 15, 16, supr., also exhibit the Pericope.

* The Pericope in MSS 15, g is of a divergent type; see p. 45 infr.

4 MANUSCRIPTS, ETC.

Note that all these MSS follow (with variations, see especially 15 and g) the Paul-form of the Pericope, except h and i, which give the Mara-form, while f gives both. Presumably the copies of Bar Nalibi’s Commentary in the Brit. Mus. (Catal., R.-F., xuu1, Wright, pocxx11) and in the Biblioth. Nat. (Catal., 67, 68) also include both forms.

All the above I have myself collated, except g, for which I have followed Bernstein. The Rev. George Margoliouth, of the Brit. Mus., has kindly re-collated for me MSS ἡ and 2.

VERSIONS CITED (FOR THE EPISTLES ONLY).

hkl. The N.T. (Syr.) of Thomas of Harkel (4.c. 927 = a.p. 616), which contains the Four Epp. placed as usually in Gr. MSS. Edited by White (vol. ii, 1778), Oxford. (See also Appendix A.)

arb. An Arabic version of our Syr. text, contained in a MS of Acts and Cath. Epp. (all seven in Gr. order), Library of St. Catharine’s on’ Mt. Sinai. Edited by Mrs. Gibson, Studia Sinait., no. vir. No. 154 in Catal.

etz. A Latin version of the Four Epp. only, from our Syr. text, by Balthasar Etzel, printed by Nicolaus Serarius in his Comment. in Epp. Canonicas, pp. 53... Mainz, 1612.

Epitions Cirep (II, P, ror tHe EPIstLEs ONLY).

II. Pococke’s Editio Princeps of the Four Epistles, Leiden, 1630. From MS 8.*

P. Paris Polyglot, 1645. The Four Epistles in this work are edited by Gabriel Sionita from an unknown MS distinct from all the above.

A. London Polyglot (Walton’s), 1657. Hardly to be counted as independent of P. Contains the Pericope de Adultera (derived from 10), as well as the Four Epistles ; as do also the two following :—

L. Lee’s Syriac New Test., London, 1816. Text of the Four Epp. emended after MS 9.

ΟΝ, American Edition, New York, 1886. Text of the Four Epp. emended after MS 11.

For a fuller account of the above MSS, versions, and editions, see Introduction.

* In the Apparatus Criticus I designate the text of the Bodleian MS by ‘‘8”; by ‘‘Tl,’’ the text as Pococke gives it in his marginal column in Hebrew character.

CATA τό

ei ctwaer ..5 elwass . 5 wotlas

. RAIA

SUPERSCRIPTIONS, &C.

Of our MSS, 1 alone prefixes a general superscription to all Seven Catholic Epistles, which it arranges in the usual Greek order (only placing St. John’s Epp. before St. Peter’s), making no distinction among them as to canonicity ; as follows :—

» p2dZ fords) Lin!

(“ The Epistles of the blessed Apostles.”)

13 alone prefixes to the Four shorter Epp., which it separates from the others by interposing the Pauline Epp., a distinct heading ; thus :—

el . Δ 2) Lil do . coa-\am Lill culaXto + bane oosa outs |}

(‘We join to the Epistles of Paul, these Epistles of the Apostles, which are not found in all copies.”’)

2 Peter is introduced by 1 thus :— Ἰοος tors oosiar ou» oil» Lil (‘‘ The Second Epistle of the same blessed Peter.”) By 9, and similarly by 3 (but it omits σιδ 9) :- «Δ 25) Lead «Οὐ; ΔΩ» ou? «οΖ5}) Und

(“The Second Epistle of [the same] Peter Chief of the Apostles.”)

Of 2 John the heading in 4 is :—

Lew uolo tes.o bards no» o/5/) Un

(“The Second Epistle of John the holy Apostle and Evangelist.”)

Of Jue, in 4:— loaamsa}o Lauds 200%) ucien) buds }0ou Zea! . δα 930]» ἰμϑο,ο

(“The Epistle of Jude the Apostle brother of James the Apostle and first Bishop of Jerusalem.”)

δ SUPERSCRIPTIONS, ETC.

So 7 and 8, but end with loaam.2}, omitting © boards before it; also 13, for the first five words only; similarly 10, but omits

Similarly 19 prefixes to the-simple heading (which is merely inl Pardes }200L2) :- aos LjJo . aco! tay MO 32 oon La

. $aX850]}2 loaam.a}

(‘This Jude is the son of Joseph the carpenter, and brother of James Bishop of Jerusalem.”)

6 differs from all in prefixing to the simple heading the word

(acashoc [sic] (= “ Catholicon ”).

None of the other headings in the several MSS is noteworthy.

WAT τ -τλν warlar padhtds |

2 Per. I, 1-3]

aS

1 casi » boaedo Soma αν φὸ as “ρον δ ais! Ἴων

(rho? Ἰ2α 8.5} : αλοΔοὶ «ὦ.Ὁ Ἰ:2.]9 sacs Voisoaor\ 14, 18, 1 22,a2% yous Lsa\so Ἰ2α 5... . aaaeto So@a <20;-20 PR aS: SS yal ῶλο wads Sy Ἰδῥοαλο

μῷ σι las AN.30 Vass ZaX : Laat Has otdaly

- [LosAatoo Osa? |dvadeio i 1;-29 oon LS2009

I. Superscription: 37 11 write wo0;Z}o.

(1) 371119, o0;Z1a :—the rest, hkl, edd, as text. | 8 alone om taadso, Π (and edd which repeat its text) follow :—all else ins (hkl arb etz; also PALIN). | [Zas&aaorX9] 14 18 subst 59 for X; and so arb etz:—all else, hkl, edd, as text. | 3 writes Qaie]. | All MSS have 12Ze0.912 ; and so arb etz, and edd :—P A (but not ΠῚ) wrongly render “per iustitiam.” | (2) 5 writes ls:0@0 (one 0,—as also Ὁ 19 in v3); 19 has la2008D here. | 5 om Ὁ), but suppl in mg. | Tom SQm@a.[{ (3) SO wal] 12578131418, TLN:—31011 125 19. PA, «:Ω9] {see Note on Greek text]. | 5 writes OOIN2. | 3 writes Ola. | 10 om oon. | ἸΖολδαϊοοΊ] 12911 12 1418 19,

hkl arb οὐχ, LN -—$78 10 13, 11 P A, ins > (5 ius S) after prefix O. | B

10 BS wathar wht [2 Per. I. 4-9

Ἐ; eNO] 29) . .20L (2 5 Ἰμῶλο 19505 ἴζϑαωφ .οδι.,.12)" 4 a . - π' Υ͂ - ᾿

μι. «ὦ Ghd (δ ῥὶ LEAS, μὴ Leds ode chub oh Tsao ὦ Tid κοῦ dot «ood Wages 12o3Aaso ea MSs Vo5Aaso oaLaiton WS aco} : ouul Ἰαϊδοοιοιλλο, 4? YS . Ylaiimtosto JAsya ua We . Jas 6 a? “a7 .JorX ΔΝ Uaoioamto τ» ὌΧ, Jlo}aacto7 iad Wat) Mons οὗ Wat ang 16S, the με] WLS Vier Ds Gullo AS Gite ῥ μὴ have οσιϑ. . joao Saar (80? σιλγοαδ 3,aa\ soidto Ble He 9

(4) 1ag0Q@] 1 2 11 12 14 18 19, to like effect hkl (lunXaws), PAN: —3 5781013, arb etz, II L, [$2009(92). | Ἰ:ι3.οἹ 9 12 1419, to like effect hkl (];Qa800) etz (‘et praetiosas”):—2 8 ὅ 7 8 10 11 13, arb, edd, {;Qalo. 1 seems to have written {;Qa0 [sic,—» for 5], but corr by ins | before a: 18 gives 1; (without γί θεῖ), but ins a over 3 [see Suppl. Note]. | 3 writes 20k. | 35 subjoin 1a}. | 35 19 pref Ο (for 2) to pas. | 10, with P A, writes Ohno ; and they use like contraction infr., vv. 10,12, 19, 20, et passim. | 8 om oO ; followed by II, also by L;. but the idiom requires «ἕο. | 7 10 13 write TA? without « (Ὁ): 18 ins initial | (see on ii. 18). | (5) 30m Ο before «ΟἹ. | 2 pref 2 to LaspXos. | 14 om OIND ; hkl ins, but with x prefixed [see Suppl. N.]. | 1 writes sw. | 2 om final © of aasoo}. | 5 om (LodAako™, but corr inmg. | (6) 9 om <2. | 1 writes 1As,a] (also at 111.18). | 5 om (but corr in mg) ZarsrmsosS0 —a? As. | 19 om {Zas;Qa0n0 <2? Ws. | (7) 5 om Tor ΔΝ...» <? Ws. | 5 om (but cory in mg) {Zasu} Ὁ. | For {Zan}, 19 has 1Zaas} (bis). | (8) 9 pref © to tle} ; | also writes twaas (no suffix, with one 0). |

2 Par. I. 9-15] .5 wotlar dtr 11 1. ISZ> εἾμο We : σιοδα! Lisa i ado oN ans Ἰ); ἊΝ Io? Dea ww! ΔΊΩΔΣ ac λοι ~ Lasoyo σιοσιδ; 1.90) » orasZ 125,80 (orhaayo (erhazo av) (0528 ao? - ola} casitiato Sool So Ι : ols] ros eso ~Y 2 11s $aN8N> JZaadso» JAK oak LBound Δυῖμδὰ jay hoa 1 12 «ὦ b} (Psato ᾿ ba λοι . borato δα δἱ <20;20 (0? ae 2] «οὐ 2 ado Ns Δα}... 50] yaad bh} POLSLO9 13 2;2/co a? bh) ba "» Ns oll <2nasam0 » ods] 14S 2 . Dorado (ad;a5] : Lo Tins wha} json» toad Sams {πὸ 29 hoa] . loo Wyse sy? b208) LI τις ΔΙΊ Ἰόσι Aupisto{ «οἷ»; +4? Bb Deals . a0] Loralo (9) [543] 125 12 14 18 19, arb:—3 7 8 9(?) 10 11 18, οὐχ, edd, pref © for ». | 10 writes σΙαβ». | ((ο) (orhaa\o] 123910 12 14 18 19; (cp. Rom. xi. 5, &e.—psh and hkl):—5 7 8 11 13 (so hkl), edd, (e2tanny0. | 18 reads 123;a0. | wor ay) } 25912 14 18 19:—3 7 8 10 11 13, hkl, edd, transp. | 10, P A, δ ον. | (11) 1 writes Aa} ads ; 2 leaves » without point. | 5 9 give Asso for JAAsSo (but both corr). | [ZaaXso»] For 9, 12 has δ; 19, XX); 11 adds Lana. | 1 writes (acr2. | (12) 18 19 write (kolto. | 9 (defaced) seems to om Δα] "ΟἿ. | 13 om «ΟἿ. | (13) 18 pref 2 (for 3) to bio; and | for tsa09 writes 1sa0}>. Ι (14) 35(?)

read Ἰυ)σιαλ» for Lytay». | 2 writes Nays. Fo X¥5) .] Dea] So 12918 (and similarly 12 1419, b] aga), arb, L:—3578

12 > wathan whtXK το, [2 Per I. 15-19 I.

coool Sor ᾿γσιαλ «δὰ» fidato ΔΩ «Ὁ 2)? ΩΝ 1a1s00}5 ros? HAs Na "3 a Ἰόσι Hes + ays 16 nN . boaato Sam (02 oLal}_soo oan (aais70] ὁ dahl] 6] TAS, cats μὰ Bo Made cen Tid ῥ natal os κῆρ σὰ ἸῈ WS bs hnando Ye + baOZe} OS) οσι 2.2... ΟΟἹ Ὁ alo? : σιζαῶς halo : ra rad 12 Loe «ὦ isthe Uo Pod od Gy .6}15 τ WSS οἱ Yaa τὰ ANB" TED To a do) cle

10 11 13, bkl etz, IP AN, QMga. [See Suppl, N.] | After aad, 19 ins po. | (16) 18 writes Joo! for Joa; and | om my for which 9 subst ear. | 1 2 5(corr) 11 12 14 18 19; similarly hkl, N, ins .9 before 942 (as text):—the rest, and IPAL, om. | Ail] 12357891013 14, arb, WP AL, (s0 too 18, N, etn eS} — 11 12 19, «ΑΔ }}; and similarly hkl. | ,aars,0}] 12911 12 1419; similarly hkl; also etz, but with 9 pref (‘‘ ut vos scire faciamus”’); 5 has Q2As70] : — the rest (18 ὃ), (a2s70]2; also edd (but N om prefix). | olalLsoo] 1791011 12 xs 14 18 19, hkl, PALN:—2 3 5 8,

Il, om |. | For 11, 18 has Lor; also | writes 2001 for —a0Ol. | (17) 781011 13 19 ins 5A after «Ὁ ©), also arb etz (“de post”), edd : —1 2 3 5 (corr) 12 14 18, hkl, as text;—(5 om from flo "Ὁ to AnanseZ (incl.), but suppl in mg) ;—[9 illegible, vv. 17, 18, and part of 19]. | 10 om point from διζαώ;ῷ. | 12 has hot for ax019 (cp. Mt. iii. 17 (psh)), | O61 (before LQasus)] 1 2, similarly hkl :— the rest om, also edd, | Aaog,}] 1210, hkl;—3 ὅ 7 8 11 12 18 18 19, edd, ins Lb] before verb ; ae 14, after verb (but marked for transposition). | (18) 12 am oN 4). also 5 (but suppl) :—all else, hkl, edd, ins. [See Suppl. N.] ] (19) 5 om «ΟἿ. | 019] 123571118

2 Per. 1.19-11.38] 5 watlas πόδιν τό 13 I. al = oll ον σι ,9 ou} as pas? aot . [2αλ2.»»

Ἰαίοφϑο jou) [τὸ 10.]; Kos : ats 5215 soto; yao? 20S) + oh] ais Sofood Hor κόρος αὀδών τ οὐ ἢ 21 Pao. gay Ἰόσι 115. hoo 1] oka) Joho) bye ora:

Jas Lacs ὦ εὖ Ἰὴ . Wards soodto > 22] Taka IL. # TAXG Jatiic Jaro ΝΟ + opis τ οῦσιϑ (aan 2) al : Wass he hai 2} «» ooo!

ON Ἰκδεός. Hol) emacdion Astey aL] Ty inky ὁ Waysoo? . Jeorento 11,0] «οὐδιαειῦ WS lato 9 «29 ail

159) Lo} (ootbNhso» asa i (Oot? oars sho ΟΝ

sqahor . (085 wiglAi LS) Mkaad YadaXind: . op Ud 19, edd :—8 10 12 14, σι (without point). See Poc.’s note im loc. | 3.5 8 om 2 before 5oLiS0, also Tl. | (20) [See note on Gr. text, and Suppl. N.j | 10 writes 5. Δλο». | (21) After L), 5 om Jom, but suppl interl. | 2514 write 149] (bis). | SooASo So] 123518 :— 789101112 13 19, edd, SooASato :—14, hkl, SooASo merely.

II. (x) fSeso] 1 2 8 ὅ 9 (2) 11 12 1418, hkl, N:—5 (corr) 7 8 10 13 19, arb etz (‘‘in saeculo”), I PAL, toks9 ; (9 shows [We .., With barely room for more than SQ), | 0203901] So (but without ribb.) 1 2 18 :—12, .oaco}5) :—the rest, edd, «ρολϑοϑδῇ (ribb. doubtful in 9): —hkl, saacmon}. | (2) 21112 14 write (Zaarg with ribd.; and similarly hkl (|Zojaia), but not arb. | 2ryll) 12357121819, N :—the rest (MSS and edd) add final w. | (3) 3 om prefix 9 from Zasaks20 ; 18 om the © after \, 19 has 12Zan5,\s20. |

14 > warhar hide = [2 Por 11. 3-7

: IL ~\ lt . Sof 0 (Oot, 20 “δ λο Ἰ $aa0 0 (OOL-ta2? +

«τὸ Hitter MNase WM rms I α Δι Bile WG Tah ἄλλου : σα» ἴζωςν orbahse 3] Sais]o : Wadd a] ΩΣ Ἰ2οῦ]3, oz Tassol, οὐοἷν }}} - διοαῦ, ἢ) hs, Bods soja WLI, or ate] Tashy LEMS NE Tina Bo

fails. Wass ]AaanZ τ re] in Ἰοαῶσιῶο : 00} Pakarvo

σι

<2 Ἰόσι ωκσιώλτο» Ἰδωδ) «(αν 2]? Sam οὐσιῶν pals 7

UWsa50] 1 2, arb:—12, [sem (without © or ribb.), also 19 (with ribb.) :-—9, {so (but prefix effaced) :—all else, etz, edd, Uso» :— but hkl reads with 19, ἸἸ (without 0). | For L,23, 3 subst b,2}). | 13 om ana. | dor] 1 2 12:—all else, hkl, edd, (301 ;--- to which 13 pref 0. | For 20.20 «Ὁ, 5 has Sools0o (suppl «Ὁ in mg). | 1 om Ue) (but corr). | (4) [Note that in this and six ensuing vv., 9 is often illegible.} For dl, 12 has <2 (so perhaps 1, which writes (on an erasure). | 2 om lo. | After 1, 5 ims (Ὁ) 2). | 3579101213 14 19 write JAXesas, also PAL:—128 11 18, ΠΝ as text [see Suppl. N.]. | 5 om [AaALAS, but suppl in mg [see Suppl. N.]. | All MSS and edd have lasae); and so hkl, but with x | (5) For bat8oZy, 3 writes Lata8oZ); hkl has LatatoZ (no prefix or ribb.). | 7 writes 3. [N.B., 5 breaks off in this v. after Q.| | (6) -20] 1 2 9.14 18 19 (also 9 probably), hkl arb :—12, 2 only :—7 8 10 11 13, etz, edd, om. | 10 om }Aaa,S0N. | 2 writes 50,0). | 9 14 read al for I. | 11 ins «σι; before Trae, and pref 2 to the latter. | 11 also reads 001) «Οὐδ; 80 as by these two alterations to conform to hkl;—N follows 11 in the former, but (inconsistently) not in the latter [seeSuppl. N.]. | (7) 21] So most MSS (14 Qo); also hkl arb etz, edd:—1 2 read ro: | 10 om

2 Per. Π. 7-1}] wathan “dtr 15

II. Suge. 0001 ood] Ieoasas tx? UXor 1laaria) aaon

8 Soaa : ooas οσι 115 Ἰόσι S08 (2 [Maaco μιὰ Wins Joa ciate maths ἢν Ἰ;δλώ Masi ciaaiS soar ὦ 96S dade aL Lido} ὦ colak Lise od 672° 10 ca Sall <a? AdTpaAa 2503 ashe’ ὁ Tiny BoasS u) Pah ἐμοῦ Plopso ὅλο + Ny] ols?) Wie Tien 3h0 Ta aay B cali ἢ Unadal cp Takis Vi CONS se Ws φδαν atic} Haan’ Wate} Blk 12 0001 ἸΔφῃ» ars wal? a? ado” Tora Ἰὼ; Lixo 0 + ADO oie Ἰ) ouls a - Yano ἸθὼΝ Lisa.

«Ὁ Ἰοσι. | 3 om 22 from Yaar)». | For S01, 11 14 have ,QI017. | 10 writes Ἰοὺ δῶν; also hkl. | (8) 3 writes λον | ΟΟἹ [319] 1 2 3, arb:—7 8 10 11 12 13 14 19, etz, edd, om on: hkl has 1Qa9] 061. | 10, P A, write tos before .OaSa); and | after it, 12 repeats olaaaX\. | (9) For oon, 12 18 read Joon. | 7 om <a Ἶ1.᾽» moan. | 1 2, “Aj :—the rest, edd, 3Q)3; arb(?) etz, fut. [see Suppl.N.]. 1 (x0) 18 0m cap. | Wyo] 12 8 12 18:—7 (oma) 8 10 11 13 14 19, hkl, edd, } ;2; (arb etz also plural). | 9 12 13 write JZatolg»; 14, ἸΖοΐο ὁ». | 19 has «απο for Aj]. | 13 om © from }Zo;k0. | 121319 om © from tlaaso. Ι (11) 2 writes faoa}. 1 14 0m > from flasa9. | bySo So] 1 2 8 9 (pref 0) 12; also hkl with * :—18, LazSo \\s9 (placed after bia [sic|); also 19 (but after la» 5; no ribb,):—the rest, arb etz, edd, om. | 18 writes Ἰβοᾶνν.} (12) 18 ins \\so before ol. (Thus 18 reads, La;-So Na [res <? Sol so 1200.2) | 12 om 5 from yaa. | 9 pref O for 2

16 > wathar KhtK~ = [2 Per IL. 12-16

ToAaso . $a%Qa15 Joo james : (oo1s aan {lorion Hass

»qeaahto » (OotAanaid atamolso (2? » [S080 Ἄλλο

Ν Il. Tay] : Was οσῖο Joo Xa] 58 . aXasAi ook; ono !

>

o

(2 + azote Hl, Jardso - Bay cans? ood Au] fas 14

ba] Ἰδαδαδίο 25,0) JSS0 . Aatod ἢν Ἰλάδιδ, Spat rays + Wgsi2 Ἰκβο] cade 52 . gary Lid . oor : 2] Hass Tile Oo} $3085 35 SasXo» 1.50] aXio Wao) Wd Wp 12) . orlaizasasad aX Loo «οὐ Vaimatox

o «αἱ 1 (13) Ἰοῦι» ὦ] 129 12 1419:—3(?) 78101113 18 (?), etz (hkl and arb indecisive), edd, Joo. | {Zasso1] 1 2:—the rest, hkl (with ribb.), edd, ins | between α and 0. | oor, )] So all MSS (except 19, Joon), hkl with * [see Suppl. N.], and edd. | From 592, 3.19 om prefix. | ~OOIAsaid] 27 9 (txt) 10 11 12 13 14 19, etz, II (see Poc.’s note in loc.) PALN :—1 8 8 9(mg) 18, arb, ιοσιδσ (=in vestimentis suis) ; hkl ie and mg’) deviates. Lees note on Gr. text. | | (14) 3 om 9 before {1a8. | —2ato {Ξε 20%), 1 2 write ea Dakso = 2200), —to agree with [as [see note on Gr. text]. | For enasio, 19 has eas. | For }ZasaXss, 2 writes Loa\aso; 3, Laasto; 18, JZaaXse (but corr). | (15) ἸΖς.52] 1 (over erasure) 23781011 18 19, hkl etz (arb om), edd :—12, |Zoasg>; also 9 (but prefix doubtful), and 14 (with prefix 2); 18, (Zaxmgp. | For , 19 has Qmys. | 18 writes αἰ (16) {Zarenato] 1239 (pref 0) 12 (ins 1 after So) 14 (over erasure) 18, etz (‘ cor- reptio”), L:—7 810111319, hkl arb (= “‘correptor”), II PAN, {Aasmat0o. | Loon] 1 2 :—all else, hkl, edd, om prefix. | 2 writes σιὰ (seil, b2Z}). | orlaras Aso\} 1 2:—the rest, hkl (with different

15

2 Per. 11.16-20] 25 watlhan whtXX 17 I

17 Bidto ai] Sor” . LAs oracaS AXo + ANNS δύο eee ooo φρο ας ee Us ee 18 ταν λοι + aS Podazm} Joday py 9. ocAS jade eT τὸ «αὐ sho sade —Sull tHe, Thelen 19 ict 2. «οἰολαλ oa Udi}i0” . adodMd Vaiss} Lak + ow 15] wai}? $0,S0 > οσιὰ : Yon» (ooudul [eas 20 OW,00a5 ἴδον; orlaaiZ 4 aojs ,9 amyl” . asato 2]

noun) etz, edd, pref » for X. | {las»] 1 2 12 18:—the rest, hkl etz, edd, have ,52 for 2 (hkl om 5, but White suppl). | 18 pref © to ASo. | (27) at) 1 2 11 12 14 18:—the rest, (similarly hkl), edd, I. | For his, 8 has tias; but Π corr. | For «Ὁ», 14 has Yo. 1 UWsXs] 1 (with ridd.) 8 9.11 12 18 14 18 19, hkl etz (“turbine”), LN:—7 8 10, arb, WPA, ὍΝ, 2 writes δὶ | 3 18 write —arihso. | (18) bard 12391213141819 (cp. Jude 16, Vari), hkl arb, Τῷ (no ribb.) :—7 8 10 11, etz (“‘derisionem”), ΠΡΑΝ, Panay. [See Suppl. N. on ev. 17, 18.] | 1 writes Ayavle (as iii. 3; Jud. 16, 18). | For JA@igZ, 2 11 read ἸΖ)κοξ. | PA, tsa», not MSS. | (49) 18 has Jesu) for aug 217 1 2 12 write 15). —10, }91;—18, 1o1;—9 13 19, hkl, }o1;—3 8 11, 151; 714, (?). | σιδ 1 1 2 12 18:—the rest, hkl, O1Lo, arb similarly, —etz, ‘‘a qua vincitur.” These last therefore make [2] the ptep. pass; whereas the reading OWN admits of ptep. act.—I1 print 19) as the sense requires ; but with ΟΝ, as 1 2 12 18 [see Suppl. N.]. | 12 write ,QSe%o [but on their usage in pointing such ptep. see Suppl. N.]. | (20 ) QO 2] 12912131418 (without final 0), hkl arb :—37 8 10 11, etz, edd, om 2. | olanig] 9 om ribd.; 18 has }ZaX£ (mg, 1Zaarg). | Cc

18 = wathar watX eS [2 Per. II. 20-H1.1

TI. «ΑΔ Δίο (9. padtcId GOLD + .00;20 jarato Sam Or

. WAaso,o 0 tard £ OO ja ot Loo + 259180 202

οἷ : Vlada Lijof)’ (asrohei ts = ool Joo! wao% 21

Sa\/s}) ἴω f,00m © (Qa2o ADS αλροδοὶ ,2) γνῶσι; 1aX2, « Tis WAsop Sor 7 cd .opy” . oath 22

+ [aco» ease Anco Ylpajuo + σιϑοὰδ Ws | j : IIL. ee ddl : ΤΙΝ by «9 Δο oily Ἰδι 222 0,9 So [ott

914 write OLS?Qm@5 (one 0); 2 reads O1-OsQa5. | «Θός ΘΟ; 1 2 12 14 18 place as in text: —10 11, P A, om:—3 7 8 9 18 19, arb, II LN, after 5 also hkl (but reads }00;2). Ι 9 om ΟΊ, and | pref © (for 2) to ado. | oS] 12378 10121418 19, 1 P A L:—9 11 13, hkl, N, (OOLS ; (arb either reads OLN, or om). | For ιϑσιΖρ», 1 has ooios bu. | 12 om 2 from 6.9». | (2x) 18 om 2 from ,O9. | 2 writes WoAe}. | For 3A94, 14 has Amas. Ι 2 has 6. Ὁ b,002. |] 11 has 20LZ}> for saX\As}p. | (22) For pq, 7 writes al aC 13, <P (similarly hkl, 251): 19, le, :—the rest as text (or <9, ), except 9 (om this and o)? (Old, but suppl in mg). | 12 transp ea? (OTIS ; as does hkl. | S01] 12 (pref \) 31113 14 18 19, hkl οὐχ, N:—781012, 1 PAL, om. | 7 (but corr) 10, P A, om prefix from Aso». | 12 14 write 127-2 DAXo». | ~201)| 1 2 19, hkl :—the rest (except 10, neutral), etz, edd, D019. i om prefix from Z-ahud, ales WP εν, Ὁ οἱ Τῶν, hkl ab ghee ins ; 7 writes ἤμυο.

Ill. (1) 8, WP AL, om o:—all else, hkl, N, ins. | 18 writes ead; hkl, loads. | 1.4.9] 121112141819, hkl :".--8 78 10 13, arb οὐχ, edd, jaa» (9 hiat, and great part of vv. 1, 2, 3 is lost) ;—

ha

2 Per 111-5] 5 wathars τεὸνιν τὸ | 19

III. 2 Ysa copomsZl» 2 . has (aatas;S Loss ἢ past wor?

pa? <20}20 (0? σι Οοῶνόο . Jaro Lai Lo x12] $0.09 t aa\orto (oot Na? Wad γα] (D+ τὐὐμῶϑο; Tuas wo . obalL%o> aXeto ὡσιολι] Luly + «αἰλο]ό

3 Wkodry Uno ΟΣ] s OAs] Ss Sojoa8 Yor 59 . LasXs

[8

4 Hy - + Wao? oLias 0 Shao σι Σοῦ : ante εδι5] 5 «ἕο 0001 σαι] Ἰ. 1099 gay 2 pa μὰ eo LsZ5 Jay 1AAsas : Asas fas p20 Ls «ὦ « LSilo $02.0

_ 1 seems to corr by interlining 5. [see Suppl. N.]. | (2) co2ro1s 225] 1212, hkl:—3 781011131418 19, edd, (o7a1s 23. | 012] $0.09) 12713 1418, arb:—3 19 (pl. masc) :—7 (corr) 8 10 11 12, also hkl (so etz), edd, (pl. fem). | 2 writes σιλολαωδο. | After (0? 123 ins oro. | From r-2?, 19 om 3. | (3) To ro, 2 pref 2. | After $0,00\, 13 ins gay. | 3 writes (Ὁ) Lujato. | ταν 3 ΟΣ] 8 1112 13 14 point as paél, and so edd ;—the rest give no point; except 1, which places point over So [see Suppl. N.onii. 1D. PIs write | 3} (see on ἢ. 18).}] (4) For Joa}, 13 has Jol; 18, aaa}. | σιΔα Ζ}κ10)] 1312131819, (similarly hkl), PA LN:—2789 1011 14, II, om ᾿ | For 2 «Ὁ, 9 18 have Ο,9 «Ὁ; 14, «Ὁ (om r>): | 9 writes «αὐτο ]. | 1 ins ,2 before $0,809. | 12 have 2Asso:—for 5/280 of all else, hkl arb οἶα, edd. | (5) 18 reads aaX for ou. | pay] 129 11 12 14 18, hkl (before yOOUS) οὐχ, LN:—8 7 8 10 13 19, arb, ΠΡ A, om. | 20m r2; 10 (with P A, not Il LN) subst prefix 2. | οΟΟΙ ιϑσιαΔ.}} 1 29 12 18 (eorr) 14 18 19, hkl, LN :--- 7 8 10 11 18, arb etz, 1 P A, Loot ouhal. | 18 writes 50,0 Ι The MSS which here give plur. verb, write LaSas (no ribb.), exc. 14; also (incl. 14) in vv. 7, 10, 12. |

20 > wothan ChtXR = [2 Per. III. 6-10

11.

«2 fos? . 210 he «οὐ τορι» Hos (οὔτ.,}}2) wia® : Panbiht> Paid -d . iad) oy) Udo : [510 lade

(adasdd I Tow «οὐ Teor? . ads Ἰλήττοῦ Bictio Lib KoalS 8 ANS .aorola] ais aX yu] LEGS foal gap sales

yal ωσιαϊολᾶζο 30 μοῦλαῖο is ἐν» λλοαΣ να] «Ὁ 9 [ὃς Ho τ αϑαδ outed iyo I]. apamio Ἰρίοα <adil [ip ool «οὐ WZ] . WH Wolds wi WM. ST sails οὐ noah) . jad as Sb Litas od) 001 Jiy yl

μι

Ο

(6) (OoLapal 22] 1 2 (corr, pr.m.) 9 11 12 13 14 18 19, (hkl similarly, (OTT pal 22) 237 8 10, etz (ἢ), edd, «στα Δ)». | 310, 0,50. | (7) 10, etz, om ea. | eatacol] 7891011 13 19, hkl arb etz, edd: —123 12, expaco]:—14 subst ΟΟΟΙ͂ ; 18, etassco] (Ὁ). | 10 18 14, fas} 152. | (8) From oaasgZ, 2 om a; 3 writes sel. | (9) From wo1a1a\aks, 8 om ἃ (but II corr). | 9 10 om second Ὁ from };s0Q® (9 subjoins 001 (?)). | ea;asno] So (aph) 18 11 12 13 19, edd:—7 10, Kapamo (pa.); 14, eaj-OAmnto; the rest neutral. | Ay] 12378911 18, hkl, DUN:—12, χε 8o:— 10 18 1419, PA, ἈΝ το. | 2 writes corbSabso ; 12, (aaAbs0. | 1,2] 123111214 18:—7 891013 19, hkl arb (Ὁ) etz (ἢ), edd, ἢ] 2.4 For e109, 14 has «φῇ 2. | (10) 9 pref © to 121. | 2 writes διῶ. | wd» 0] 1289 12 18, edd (some in one word) :—3 7 11 13 14 19 (in one word), Noe 0; 10 (corr), wa Samio, | tearahso}] 789 (pref 0) 10 11 12 18 14 19, edd:—1 18, hkl, Loads :—2 3, Jonrafso. | 2 om ,2, and writes καρ, Ὁ. | woke] 1271112 13 18 19, (and so hkl mg; hkl txt reads ,0}2 ay, as also 19 mg, without ara \ ay, arb :—2 (corr) 389 10 14 (final ea), etz, edd, pref u

-

2 Per. TIL. 10-15] τ watlas πδνεν τό 21 Nad 5% . ὡλϑλοζ O15) 23. Lilo . obAai ane Ὁ «ϑόσιξν (eas 291 cl yal? Ὁ wilato σιν. 5 ar. 12 oA} ΒΡΕΥ Ἐν, po stor ANx,50 Las.o (oaan2dcin 2 Ἰλοο oa) oof Ja. oso» 1AuZ}soh ol —a0cD0 : ance aoa μῷ Ἰωοϑαλ]ό : οὐδαξ Bais wimalto 13 + qtaamio ou? faai yu}: ps 1.310 Ἰὼ ὦ Lak 14 CASAS (9. adidas for Who. . 7608 Yad. oma? Aor enaiel ad [oat Tho Liolas Tp ames ols} wamo 15 Uda]. ahanl Ἰβόρα ἃ Lp, σιῶο» 2 sahou .1o%e5

[see note on Gr. text, and Suppl. N.]. Ε΄, (tx) (qadAko ) (σι 9] 129111418, hkl:—3 7 8 10:12 18 19, edd, (~ad aso) eid ;

8 writes «ὐλδαϑο, but II corr. | 91319, L, read la2oma (no suffix). | (12) 9 om OAs]. | 2 wam0] 13789 (mg) 1113 14, 0 LN, (so too 10, P A, but in contraction with ,oA.s| following) :—2 12 13 (corr) 18 19, easvamsoo. | ἸΔΑΖΊΔΟΝΊ 1 8 79 1112 18 14 1819, hkl, PAL N:—2 8 10, I, om ]©. | 9 transp, writing σιΔαΖ]ο» Boaa\. | For Jos, 14 (but corr), etz (““ Domini”’), have ΟΣ. | Ἰοοοοβλ)ο] 1 (om with three following words, but ins in mg) 2 3 7 ὃ 10 11 18 14 19, edd:—9 18, hkl, Lapafsdo (12, abso) [see Suppl. N.]. | For ἰῷ δ, see II, note in loc. [also Suppl. Nfs 1 01. Lsoe\) 1, hkl, N:—all else om δ. | Wp. (after 1310)] 1239 11 12 18 14 18 19 (pref 3), hkl arb, ue :—7 810, ΠΡ, etz, om. | For otXa9, 18 has σιὰ» Toro. | 1 writes clams ; and in next », caamio [see Suppl. N.onii.19]. | (14) 3 writes φως; 18, A@ εἰ. | From Lo, 1 om first » (but corr). | For ancheZ, 2 18, hkl, aoe anne. ἶ (15) 11 15 write 2; \HsoSo. | 1 writes hrosae. | 2 writes wnXaa : ;

22 S wathas τδν τ΄ [2 Per. II. 15-18 oho oN Asou2)> Ἰλεοσν, yal : paha2 lasan (onl 22 a -caiar Ss uct fly σι; ἢ «ὐσιλδο; Lia} . aah τό GM Sa ad cxcis} 5033 Gate A OM «ΟἿΣ yal «aod —Saarto . 2Aatoo Ho . ai} Hadas ty» \a501 coda}? + (OIL? hs] ZaX : 12;9) 19.5 casos 17 31h «ghee of ait oh) aos J slant ehol .i] oot Th} ALI Vaid 86 ot GS TAs;aso ἸΖαϑ. Δ mailto 2? (olson 8, 35.) lator Ὁ 18 Wxadel oti) . 12] Jojo . Jarato Gams 00:20 «πῶ» ato] . PONS vodrdo ὀγλδοό Joo 2] + τέσ, watlas wdtha τιν, dale

ἡ 1, woaXola ; also hkl. | 12 pref 9 to yal. | (x6) For 9 (prefix to eaotsa5), 9 12 give 212; also hkl. | For κασι Δα», 9 has «ἀσιαΔα]». | For Gams», 9 1219 write amnsy. | Before {2, 8, hkl (arb etz, ambiguous), Π LN, om oul? [see Suppl. N.]. | baXes] 129121418, (hkl to like effect): —3 7 8 101113 19, arb etz, edd, |AS,a. | 1 writes «στο [see Suppl. N. on 0.19]. | 18 ins 2 ray ΡΤ pal. 1 (47) 18 om 9. | For καϑο,Ο, 3 12 have καἱορῶλο. | To ol, 7 ὃ 10 pref a second 2; II follows. | (18) In ]As,a20, 1 2 18 [see on i. 6] ins 1 before a; 3 subst Wu, 20. | Ἰσιΐδ.»01] 12 11 12 1418 19, ΒΚ], Νι---3 7.89 10 18, 1PAL, om». | For «Ατοῦλδο, 8 has LSoGaX\o; 12, «αἱοᾶλνο; hkl, Ἰδλοῦνδο. | 1so\s] 12391213 14 19 :—7 8 10 11 18, hkl, edd, om ribb.

2 Jou. 1-4] 23

CATA τό + msaale -redes eS

CB] an Bp aX] .ouidSe Bod Ἰλιῶ ἃ asad wordy aS] oad M+ 3083 TH] οὐ Ἰόσι ἢ. Ἰ5αδ 2 SASS υσιοδι] Sado ὁ ἸδώτοΣ 1] Bie Who? : Bia

5, 7; 8, 9;

10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.

5 M0 « 12] TAN 1 Ἰκῶδ οὸ Ἰτῶμδο Wadd Gad Jools

ἀχὸ Aapas! . 0220 )»45 . 12]» σι καῖ Sass (0

(1) [17 hiat, vv. 1, 2, 3 to (Zan.f]. | 2 om bL3ao (but sec. m. suppl in mg); 18 writes L309 (but corr; see on ὕ. 5). | Qaado] 1234591415 18, hkl, LN:—7 81011121319, MPA, auf. | After [31] «aaSo, Pp A, with 10, ins (Ools. | 4 om after 13;m2 to end of ver. | 2 om loo. | 18 19 om «αν. | «2QaX0] 1:—all else, hkl, edd, om suffix. | 19 writes σιν. | 010S,22] 19 12 14 18, bkl (without suffix):—2 3457810111315 19, arb etz, edd, CaS,ap. | (2) [On 15;@ N\A, see Suppl. N.] | 2 writes Jaako» [see Suppl. N. on 2 Pet.ii.19]. | 9 om «σιοΔαὶ soso. | (3) -S08] All MSS, arb etz, IN:—PAL, an%os; (similarly bk, (225). | yo] 1234 5 (corr) 9 12 17 18, (and so hkl, La;S0) arb, L:—7 8 10 11 18 14 15 19, etz, IIPAN, om; (5 om 40), suppl in mg). | For to}> O1;2, 18 has lolo . oa. | For (9Qn90, 1 has ὦ... | (4) 4 om oO, | For w2aid, 1 has συλ; 3 5 (but corr), wid; 18,

24, SS plwdet SATA [2 Jon. 4-8

a] lon 1 » L3ao aS fi] «orato 1 Φσιοῦ - Lo} WO 5

«ὦ τὸ loo Δι]; οσι n + i} .5Δ.2 Vyas b,ca2 yal psou? + oan soto} Lio10® «aS pas andy . Lias 6 eo olstas? Lo yal σιολι] 1,002 for . wo1at,dam LEN Ἰὼ Whe? . aASLO ολιόσι σιῶν ξ 13. 7 12] banaso Sama 220.80 2 ol . Lsakso σιῶ aaa) οσι;»"] 5 . “ραβον; 5. μη]ο Laaspto worl] lint . mas 8

Poss. | 22001] ὅ 811, hkl, edd, write Aen); 18 subst ts -9;03(?),| (5) 5 om (but suppl in mg) ἢ snaato, | For alts (bis), 3 has (oad. τ} 1.3.9 (mg, not txt; see on v. 1). | yal loo a 159121418, L; 8011, N, S09] Joo Ἰὶ ----2 8.4 710 18 151719, etz (not arb), PA, om yal :—8, Π, om yal lon ; hkl writes oe aX only. | 18 om Ἰ2,... | After 11}, 14 ins yal. | For L45a9, 1 has Aassa; | 18 om $0 before it. | 37] 1234591418, hkl, N:—78 1011 1213151719, TPAL, Quah. | (6) aolas,0G9] 1 9 11 12 14 18 19, (and so hkl), N:—8 5 (with ribb.) 7 8 10 13 15 17, arb etz, WPATL, h,002. | 2 4 om after loon from στ» ἴο h,002 ho (inclusive) ; 4 om also wotodal®. | To ἸὩΟ ὦ), 3 pref ο. | Ἶλο yal] 12378141718 (with 0 for So), hkl, 1 LN:—15, ya} (only) :-— 4591011121319, PA, Soo}. | 2 writes adoro (1 gives no point). | (7) 17 writes AQ). | PA, hkl, om O12. | 13 18 (corr) 19 write 1208 [> tua}. | 1 om boredo, | x90] 131518, PA (cp. 1 Joh. iv. 2, psh):—2 4578910111213 1419, hkl, MLN, οὔ. | 2 18 write wolsnaraahso (no © in last syll.); 14 subst © for a®); 18, Ο fora. | (8) 1 om 9 before U. | ἸλοΝ δ᾽ ΟἽ So

2 Jon. &-12] > piwder CATR 25

a Ὗ

Lisok ao Ἰνὼ n : δα; $0,So (0,202 Ἰ) + aneais 9% beasator ouatais Jaco flo ;a% Iu] Noe . asjolZ Ἰξωδο tollo Lo : ouaSas5 Janis oa +019 Aas JaS 10) + Yat ἢ PiaXad Licto + adlaS 12] wai] «1.0. σιὰ δι II ἊΝ oot . ois (οἈ ΟἿΣ ἢ ἀν uno , YAano somia\aol 12 918 - lao oro, 28 ool 2laao ἐδ aps OLS So} γῶν ὸ fash a ἢ νὰν obs αν Teer δῇ Ἰδτζώ L&am aX Lado -a2aX 12]; hh} -am% }}} . Ἰαλγό

most MSS, and apparently arb etz (‘‘ perfectam”) :—but 2 3 4 18 (mg) 19, hkl, read LaX\so@’o. | (9) 4 pref o to Na. | 8, hkl, (not ΠῚ), drop suffix of oumX\aro ©). Ι For oto, 14 17, hkl, have ou. | oot] 1281011 13 151718 19, hkl etz, TPAN;—34579 12 14, L, pref 0:—A add —a?, also arb. | From lollo, };aX0, 18 om prefix prep. | (10) 4 pref © to dl. | 5 transp 12] .23}. | For 121, 1 writes 121. | yd asd] 12345 (corr) 9 12, hkl (with ow), LN:—5 781011 1814 16 1719, 0 PA, add sa,s0 :—18 subst pSos SaNe ὦν Sadso; (arb repeats verb, but varies rendering; and so etz, “ave et vale non dicetis”’). | (11) After up, | alone ins ps ; 18 for aps subst SaXs. | 001 2Zoeso} 1 alone:—all else, 2Lohao [see Suppl. N.]. | (12) 10, P A, om loo. | For 0), 1 writes 11, but interl |) after it. Ι lom 2 before ,aS, against all else, hkl, edd. Cp. (for construction) 3 Joh. 9,13. | 10 writes W]2, and ;aen%o». | ;Aen0] All (exc. 14, -2008 (aph.)) apparently write pael ; also hkl, edd,—here, and 3 Joh. 14. [For

aph., see 2 Pet. iii. 9 and note (supr.); also Suppl. N. on 2 Pet. ii. 19.] | D

26 > pwc aI [2 Jon. 12, 18 iS wato\s Δ) οι, L\soato Ἰόσιξ Ay) ors? ΟΣ 13 5. ako} [. aasas Ἰζαῶ. ἐδ]. Wady adhe

edths τόν τ dole > τὶς, pi et

For 12), 17 19 write 12)2. | 8 writes S03, but Π corr. | (13) 1 writes νέον (as in ver. 4); 18, wtoXe, | 18 writes aa woh. | At the close, 15 9 12 14 18 19, arb, have only «ΑΞ οὶ :— 2345 (mg) 7 8 10 11 18 15 17, hkl (but with +) etz, edd, pref to it, caasas Ἰ2ασ ἡ.

a ae ΨΥ ΟὟ ΨΥ ἋἹ

9 Jou. 1-4] 27

τόδ τί .ταλυ preas rida

1 Bad Le] ant By ond «cade aS lareot (0958

sabe Woe «οὐδ οὖν yas Bl Wyo »οξαλβον ¢ uc

3 apoio 1] al} aye py Aas? + ai ΛΝ εἱο) fo

4 ha «(ὦ Sins Aa} pSovo a5 A}, Bo yu] τ pipe ὃ λ adoro μα ada? Lid) Los}p sad ASN Yon

(1) Ὅλ] 1 2, hkl (loro 001) arb :—all else, etz, edd, suff a. | For bl», 4 has b] als. | maxed] 123459 1415 18, hkl, LN:—7 8 101112131719, TPA, auf. ] (2) 12 has ..5.λ..».. | 1 writes 11.0 [see Suppl. N. on 2 Pet. 11. 191. | wad 22] 7815, IL L, subst Ο for »;—8, II LN, write the verb wd i all else that supply vowel write —-; so hkl, PA. | For oct 4 has JoorZ 90; also hkl. | Po yal] 12715171819, hkl:—34589 10 11 12 13 14, edd, (sa5}. | (3) 1 points Aas under final letter. | 9 subst ea? for pay. | Before σίου, 12 subst » for O as prefix; 14 gives neither. | [30 yal] 12781517 19, hkl, TLN:—3 459 10 11 12 13 14 18, PA, {8a9} (cp. v. 2, and note that 8 and 18 change sides). | 18 writes Δα» for Asta. | (4) 1932] 1 9 12141819, hkl: —2 3457810111315 17, arb οὐχ, edd, 19570. | For Uae}, 9 has’ ἢ Woe. | For λυ; 18 has sah BA Ι 10 and PA transp

28 XL pewter CATA [3 Jou. 5-9 .1.] 2oS δὴ Sco, Ho οι As} a8 YUeltaame oon 5 $0.0 χαθοῦν Ss ογσιρο) cl? + faicad} . oousdal? Aa}zabao 6 1 μὴ τ ead δῇ poise} A} δίς pend glad UA os ann ᾿ $0,S0 2 . ρος σιδῶφ py aa? - Jord! Lo» 7 vad wali αδδιόκον. Gadi, Wasor ant . aed 8 ΟΟΙ͂ nN » 2s 20/9) Asoo 4x09 » ied loou 133 ,Sto9 9 rod “Neato 1 amaifary oor? 0,0 Joort sani»

andro a2. Ι (5) For Ost, 4 has Da ον; hkl writes Jorn. | Bo 0017] 1 2 ὃ 4 78 10 11] 18 14 1ὅ 171819, 0 PAN: —5 912, L, $080 oo. | (6) 8 reads yaa} for «αν α]. | 0701009) 1 alone :—all else, hkl, ογσιῖροῖ». | pms] 191218:-234578 10 11 18 14151719, hkl, edd, pref 2. | 3.0m ,as. | As} 201809] 12345911 12 13 14 18 19, hkl (mg; in txt, eaing equivalent verb, 3} JaXso») arb, N :—7 810 15 17, etz, WPA, om, [See Suppl. N.] | Wo yua}] 1 2, bk] :—all else, edd, $09}, (except 14, κω). } (7) aX] 1 9 12 13 (mg) 14 18 19, hkl, L:—2 34578101113 1517, arb etz (“post”), I PAN, 349. | 7 drops © from QQQ3, | and so 5 from onm). | (8) 4 writes Ue oan. | 3 has a\de@ON for ano. | For SO, 18 has διδοῖ. | For loou, 9 has (OOoL, (4, how, but corr). (9) To oho}, 49 12 19, pref » :—against all else, and hkl. | «Οσιδ 2] 9 11 12 1418, hkl, LN:—2 34578 1013 15 17 19, arb etz, IPA, (onda, (1 alone, (ood). | .oaa;faoa] 1 3, hkl (with ΟἹ after 5) :—the rest, and edd, vary ;—-some ins 1 once only (after ©, or +, or @,—or subst for ©, or for second a); some twice (after Ο and }, or Ὁ and 2, or αὶ and 2); 4 om second a. MSS and

edd vary also in vowels; 129121819 are unpointed. | 1 writes

3 Jou. 10-12] XL pewaes τόνδ τό 29 10 isa) + QS? «οἷσι 010,05 2015] 1212 on ἢ Lica “so 19 “nat οὖν Ws Sor oS .cam 1] 50 . S 5h Weis i Babb WS coesbo «1B dais} lle stl 1S, Mad Air οὐν ako Nando Heil ἢ 12 paashator Ws oN wou. ἢ] head AS? O01 - aciohu] » ze? σιῖζοο [12,82 ousoo] ww ii5 Ὁ ἸΖο;σιώῶ οσι Δι

N20 here and in v. 10 [but see Suppl. N. on 2 Pet. ii. 19]. | 5 om «ἃ (but ins in mg). | (10) 9 has Ἰ)ΟἹ (as hkl) for Lov. | 121} (22 or 12i2)] 23457910 11 12 13141518, hkl (om 9) etz (« venero”), PA LN:—1 8 17 19, arb, II (‘‘venerit”), 12}2 (Ξ-- 2} [ see Suppl. Ν.1. | 2ous]] 1 2(mg) 5 71011 1213 141517 19, hkl simi- larly (L] γσιλιο) οὐχ, PA LN :—8, II, 2018; 9 18, arb, Ο»Οῖδ : (2 3 4 om this and three following words). | 2 (mg) has oo for (O01. | 18 has "255 for Qs. | From {kaa», 2 (but corr) 12, om prefix. > | shoo] 12359 11 12 18 14 17 18 19, hkl arb :—4 7 8 10 15, etz, edd, yam. | m0] 1 2 10 12:13 17 19, bkl, N:—4, 14, I, am. (9 writes Qa; 11, Gaon (similarly PAL); 8, am; 357 15 18 uncertain). Cp. Prov. xxx. 15 (Syr-Hxp.). | 5 writes SOLA for <2 S01 OI (but corr). | 12 om ΟΟΙ͂ (after f]). | For Nato, see under υ. 9. | 0] 159 12, arb:—2347 81011 13 14 15 17 18 19, hkl (but om © before A2%o) etz, edd, pref «οἷ. | (11) 2 reads ons ; hkl om suffix. | 2 has Yea. for [Assn (but sec. m. supplies pref. S). | For QS» (bis), 2 has A837. | 1 19, hkl, write oo (2) without prefix ; sito 18 (but with τ subjoined) :—all else, arb etz, edd, Οσιῖο. | 2 3 write Jou, (without prefix). | (12) 0Qa;-hato9] 1245:—39 11121319, hkl, ins a after » and after So:—7 8 10

14 15 17, edd, after » only (also 18, but drops 0). MSS point the

30 AC phwaes SATA [3 Jon. 12-15

O27

201 Yazs Lup ἸΖο;σιῶ; As] Ga0 . am «ὦ» de «οἷ per bE het ἍΤ. pols Se ee paleo] κῶς car LY pamtot . »S cols] fico Wow pole Sle . μερὶ Ἰόσιῇ Hoke . Wear oad LoS joado

Ὁ Mad iS) . ans, [Xe Vo . 15

ada waATAK διΞαλς. + τές plavden

word variously ; 1 2 12 18 leave it unpointed. | oof] 13457

8 9 11 12 18 14 18 19, TL N:—2 1017, PA, lom; 15, 0001. | 18 writes «ἡ \\o. | 1 alone om 12,39 OUs0O; all else ins (18, 12s 00), ), and so arb etz, edd :—hkl om from text, but in mg writes Ws 011800. | 14 om |5;@) oMsoo; 5 writes «00 for » OLLSO. | 14 om glx; 3 writes it twice. | Aa} S20] 19 12 14 19, arb, L :— 234578101113 15 17, hkletz, IPAN, plural; (5 om coAsl, but corr; 18 is doubtful). | For Xo? }ZozoLen», 2 8 4 ὅ 19 have —? 2ογσι.ο.». Ι For jase, 2 writes 15729; 5, hkl, 1227-0. | (13) es 1, 10 om U; | and after 1s9, om b] (but corr). | 18 places the stop before yr, | (14) san] See on 2 Joh. 12. | 1 om ea?; 23 4 subst pay. | For δα, 2 5 write | (15) 14 has JaQs for foou. | 2 pref Ὡ to ΚΌΨΕ | After le, 2 om 1SoXs, and writes 1Sas052 twice, but (sec. m.) suppl TsaXe\ in mg. | «Φ1Ν 95] 1 2 8 ὅ (2 interl) 11 12 14 18 19, hkl:—4789 10 13 15,17, arb οὐχ, edd, om prefix.

{sr

Jup. 1+] 31

“ὄντ τό

oss ly «το.

τ JOSGN . D0G%) οὐ by] « berato Gam 1,08 }ocu! odd.

1, 2, 3, 4

6, 7, 8, 9

2 Won3? + cajahs Lermto Waaine ¢ ans 15] Jol? Ly 13 τὸ τὲ 17, 18, 19

3 ἸΖαξως os 2 . nin » aah hess 1San0 Ha\s0

ON «9.552 hay! ~b nto wo / aad ohasas

2

«οὐλὴ μὰ cot 1ASAN AAs] «ὧι Vad Ip) Valsad

(1) After Tatas , 2 om Lazo, and ins a word, partly erased, so that ἢ. κὰκ alone is legible, no doubt Lb&,. In mg appears also another erasure, in which ὃ can be discerned, probably of }.;:ο. | Before SQa.5, 8 om 0; also ILL N (but not arb etz, nor PA). | (2) 1500] 12346, bkl:—789 1012131415 18 19, arb etz, edd, foana; (11 doubtful; 17 hiat.). | (3) 1 writes oXao. | For ahate\~, 3 has 20A9}9; also 4, for QAaso\), | For Lass, 2 has Lo] (but corr). | 2 om —? (but sec. m. ins in mg); 4 subst (anu. | To lag, 346 pref ο. | Jass}] 12, N:—all else subst final w for }; also hkl, 1 P A L. But 15 writes «νου; hkl, 2a3}3]. [See Suppl. N.] | To ἸΖαιίουσι, 18 adds [Lv ew) (probably also 9, as space indicates). | For AsaSAs}, 18 writes ΔιοΝ 2]. | (4) For aro, 3 writes Qio1. | For aN 3.46 subst a>. | For 1Zas\sso, 19 has YaaXto. | For aodody,

32 AV NAMT SAT [Jup. 4-7 bo lasans acho} ας bias «ὦ» <ul : (aiksto ocind « Wasips cadoons iQ} olodat’s : ass Tail » banato Cae (eto la js 5 wines aes worl) aod (ols) ks ὁ «TY 1S, «οὐ «αὐοϊσικῶν ες ayes 5 elidel + ie. «ει So Lass oi ἢ ΘΝ sedis ον Te aS TASES «So exten Ue call fap ᾿ Ἰ»αὼ)ο - 155 Tkoau» tus . (oot? }:s008 anne n ὁ aGusfnrp WL Palaio Sooo) WAI? «:L5 Lipa’ ΔιῶΣ 7 oi : Pia) Vind $43 GME 1] φασιν 0,5 ody

3 6 write AZ] (retaining a80,0). | For Lon, 19 reads 1.6. | For 1.4.1], 10 writes oe]. [| 10 writes JLadab\» (no saffix). | or] 1 2 12 18 (corr); so hkl (Nap JouXy):—3 4678 1011 13 14.15 17 19 (9 doubtful), arb etz, edd, Jory. | For 14S, 2 (cor) 12, P A, have basSo. | 6 pref © to Ion. | (Roo | 1212 13 141819, hkl (Sa? L800) arb:—3 4 6 78 10 11 15 17 (9 hiut.), eta, edd, om ©. [See Suppl. N.] | (5) 2 15 write (aoloo1ssaS without S; 12, without σι. | gato] 1 2, ἈΚ :---8 4 6 τ 8 910 11 1213 14 15 17 18 19, arb etz, edd, (9239. | Before Jot, 2 om 5. (but sec.m, corr). | For 20], 18 has ;S0}. | (6) 9 pref \ to };Soas. | 08 (= 7)4)] 123 12 14:—7 8 11 18 15 17 19, bkl eta, edd, pha (= 105); (6 doubtful; 9 10 unpointed); 18, ofa. | (7) akaso $00,009] 129 121419, L:—3467 81011 18 15 17, hkl, WPAN, $asXo oO? :—18, $asxx0 Ὁ). | 11 15, hkl, N, for Ἰδω ζρο, have Jdaa