The Criticism of the New Testament. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Greek-Latin copy of St. Paul's Epistles, one of the most ancient and important in existence. Like the Cod. Ephraemi in the same Library it has been fortunate in such an editor as Tischendorf, who published it in 1852 with complete Prolegomena, and a facsimile traced by Tregelles. This noble volume is in small quarto, written on 533 leaves of the thinnest and finest vellum: indeed its extraordinary delicacy has caused the writing at the back of every page to be rather too visible on the other side. The words, both Greek and Latin, are written continuously (except the Latin titles and subscriptions), but in a stichometrical form (see p. 52): the Greek, as in Cod. Bezae, stands on the left or first page of the opened book, not on the right, as in the Cod. Laudianus. Each page has but one column of about twenty-one lines, so that in this copy, as in the Codex Bezae, the Greek and Latin are in parallel lines, but on separate pages. The ink is dark and clear, and otherwise the book is in good condition. It contains all St. Paul's Epistles (the Hebrews after Philemon), except Rom. i. 1–7; 27–30, both Greek and Latin: Rom. i. 24–27 in the Latin is supplied in a later but very old hand, as also are Rom. i. 27–30 and 1 Cor. xiv. 13–22 in the Greek: the Latin of 1 Cor. xiv. 8–18; Heb. xiii. 21–23 is lost. The Epistle to the Hebrews has been erroneously imputed by some to a later scribe, inasmuch as it is not included in the list of the sacred books and in the number of their στίχοι or versus, which stand immediately before the Hebrews in this codex208: but the same list overlooks the Epistle to the Philippians, which has never been doubted to be St. Paul's: in this manuscript, however, the Epistle to the Colossians precedes that to the Philippians. Our earliest notice of it is derived from the Preface to Beza's third edition of the N. T. (Feb. 20, 1582): he there describes it as of equal antiquity with his copy of the Gospels (D), and states that it had been found “in Claromontano apud Bellovacos coenobio,” at Clermont near Beauvais. Although Beza sometimes through inadvertence calls his codex of the Gospels Claromontanus, there seems no reason for disputing with Wetstein the correctness of his account (see p. 125, note 2), though it throws no light on the manuscript's early history. From Beza it passed into the possession of Claude Dupuy, Councillor of Paris, probably on Beza's death [1605]: thence to his sons Jacques and Pierre Dupuy: before the death of Jacques (who was the King's Librarian) in 1656, it had been bought by Louis XIV for the Royal Library at Paris. In 1707, John Aymont, an apostate priest, stole thirty-five leaves; one, which he disposed of in Holland, was restored in 1720 by its possessor Stosch; the rest were sold to that great collector, Harley, Earl of Oxford, but sent back in 1729 by his son, who had learnt their shameful story. Beza made some, but not a considerable, use of this document; it was amongst the authorities consulted for Walton's Polyglott; Wetstein collated it twice in early life (1715–16); Tregelles examined it in 1849, and compared his results with the then unpublished transcript of Tischendorf, which proved on its appearance (1852) the most difficult, as well as one of the most important, of his critical works; so hard it had been found at times to determine satisfactorily the original readings of a manuscript which had been corrected by nine different hands, ancient and modern. The date of the codex is doubtless the sixth century, in the middle or towards the end of it. The Latin letters, especially d, are the latest in form (facsimile No. 41, 1 Cor. xiii. 5–8), and are much like those in the Cod. Bezae (No. 42), which in many points Cod. Claromontanus strongly resembles. Leaves 162, 163 are palimpsest, and contain part of the Phaethon, a lost play of Euripides. We have already noticed many of its peculiarities (pp. 33–40), and need not here repeat them. Delta and pi look more ancient even than in Cod. A: the uncials are simple, square, regular and beautiful, of about the size of those in Codd. CD, and larger than in Cod. B. The stichometry forbids our assigning it to a period earlier than the end of the fifth century while other circumstances connected with the Latin version tend to put it a little lower still. The apostrophus is frequent, but there are few stops or abridgements; no breathings or accents are primâ manu. Initial letters, placed at the beginning of books or sections, are plain, and not much larger than the rest. The comparative correctness of the Greek text, and its Alexandrian forms, have caused certain critics to refer us as usual to Egypt for its country: the Latin text is more faulty, and shows comparative ignorance of the language: yet of what use a Latin version could be except in Africa or western Europe it were hard to imagine. This Latin is more independent of the Greek, and less altered from it than in Codd. Bezae or Laudian., wherein it has little critical value: that of Cod. Claromont. better represents the African type of the Old Latin. Of the corrections, a few were made by the original scribe when revising; a hand of the seventh century went through the whole (D**); two others follow; then in sharp black uncials of the ninth or tenth century another made more than two thousand critical changes in the text, and added stops and all the breathings and accents (D***); another D**** (among other changes) added to the Latin subscriptions. Db supplied Rom. i. 27–30 very early; Dc, a later hand, 1 Cor. xiv. 13–22. Tischendorf distinguishes several others besides these.
E. Cod. Sangermanensis is another Greek-Latin manuscript and takes its name from the Abbey of St. Germain des Prez near Paris. Towards the end of the last century the Abbey (which at the Revolution had been turned into a saltpetre manufactory) was burnt down, and many of its books were lost. In 1805 Matthaei found this copy, as might almost have been anticipated, at St. Petersburg, where it is now deposited. The volume is a large quarto, the Latin and Greek in parallel columns on the same page, the Greek standing on the left; its uncials are coarse, large, and thick, not unlike those in Cod. E of the Acts, but of later shape, with breathings and accents primâ manu, of about the tenth, or late in the ninth, century209. It was used for the Oxford New Testament of 1675: Mill obtained some extracts from it, and noted its obvious connexion with Cod. Claromontanus: Wetstein thoroughly collated it; and not only he but Sabatier and Griesbach perceived that it was, at least in the Greek, nothing better than a mere transcript of Cod. Claromontanus, made by some ignorant person later than the corrector indicated by D****. Muralt's endeavours to shake this conclusion have not satisfied better judges; indeed the facts are too numerous and too plain to be resisted. Thus, while in Rom. iv. 25 Cod. D reads δικαιωσιν (accentuated δικαίωσιν by D***), in which D*** changes ν into νην, the writer of Cod. E adopts δικαίωσινην with its monstrous accent: in 1 Cor. xv. 5 Cod. D reads μετα ταυτα τοις ενδεκα, D*** εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα (again observe the accents), out of which Cod. E makes up μετα ταυεἶτα τοῖς δώενδεκα. In Gal. iv. 31 Cod. D has διο, which is changed by D*** into ἆρα: Cod. E mixes up the two into διἆραο. Compare Tischendorf's notes on Eph. ii. 19; Heb. x. 17, 33, and Dr. Hort's longer specimen, Rom. xv. 31–3 (Introd. p. 254). The Latin version also is borrowed from Cod. D, but is more mixed, and may be of some critical use: the Greek is manifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the list of authorities. This copy is defective, Rom. viii. 21–33; ix. 15–25; 1 Tim. i. 1-vi. 15; Heb. xii. 8-xiii. 25.
Fa Cod. Coislin. I.
F. Cod. Augiensis in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. xvii. 1), is another Greek-Latin manuscript on 136 leaves of good vellum 4to (the signatures proving that seven more are lost, see p. 28), 9 inches by 7-¼, with the two languages in parallel columns of twenty-eight lines on each page, the Greek being always inside, the Latin next the edge of the book. It is called from the monastery of Augia Dives or Major (Reichenau, or rich meadow ), on a fertile island in the lower part of Lake Constance, to which it long appertained, and where it may even have been written, a thousand years since. By notices at the beginning and end we can trace it through the hands of G. M. Wepfer of Schaffhausen and of L. Ch. Mieg, who covered many of its pages with Latin notes wretchedly scrawled, but allowed Wetstein to examine it. In 1718 Bentley was induced by Wetstein to buy it at Heidelberg for 250 Dutch florins, and both he and Wetstein collated the Greek portion, the latter carelessly, but Bentley somewhat more fully in the margin of a Greek Testament (Oxon. 1675) still preserved in Trinity College (B. xvii. 8). Tischendorf in 1842, Tregelles in 1845, re-examined the book (which had been placed where it now is on the death of Bentley's nephew in 1787), and drew attention to the Latin version: in 1859 Scrivener published an edition of the Codex in common type, with Prolegomena and a photograph of one page (1 Tim. iii. 14-iv. 5)210. The Epistles of St. Paul are defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; and the Greek only in 1 Cor. iii. 8–16; vi. 7–14; Col. ii. 1–8; Philem. 21–25; in which four places the Latin stands in its own column with no Greek over against it. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Greek being quite lost,