BMe wen rey fans Var. THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN, A SYRIAC VERSION HITHERTO UNKNOWN; EDITED, (FROM A MS. IN THE LIBRARY OF THE BARL OF CRAWFORD AND BALCARRES), CRITICAL NOTES ON THE SYRIAC TEXT, ANNOTATED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERLYING GREEK TEXT, BY, JOHN GWYNN, D.D., D.C.L., Regius Professor of Divinity, and sometime Fellow of Trinity College, tn the University of Dublin: To WHICH 18 PREFIXED AN INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE, BY THE EDITOR. DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS, AND CO. (Lunes), GRAFTON STREET. LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1897.t “4 \ { j ri yee ke Boge ga. Habart cbptatee? 3 EE Br Th i “fh f M fh y BR t TW ith Ht the ARE ree ohTo THE PROVOST AND SENIOR FELLOWS TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, THIS EDITION OF THE APOCALYPSE IN SYRIAC, THE FIRST S¥RIAC BOOK ISSUED FROM THE DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PRESS, Hs Bevicaten, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR LIBERALITY IN UNDERTAKING ‘THE COST OF ITS PUBLICATION, THE EDITOR.PREFACE. In preparing for publication this edition of a Syriac version of the Apocalypse distinct from that which has hitherto been the only one known, I have judged it best’ to reproduce the text paginatim et lineatim as it stands in the manuscript from which I derive it. I have merely restored a few letters and points which were illegible or doubtful in the original, usually marking such restorations with square brackets, and in every cas indicating them in the Notes which I have added after the text. The Ms. has happily reached us in euch good preservation, that the instances in which this has been needful are very few. The Syriae text, and following Notes, form Part II of this volume. My aim has been to place any Syriac scholar who may consult it, as nearly as may be in tho same position as if he had the Ms, itself before him. ‘This I believe has been substantially effected, so far as is practicable in a typographical reproduction; though here and there, in the placing of points, slight variations have occurred,—probably immaterial, for in this respect the usage of the scribe seems to have been arbitrary. The prefixed autotype Plato gives a perfect representation of two columns of the Ms.; and a comparison of these with the corresponding columns of the printed text will show exactly the degree of faithfulness which has been attained in the latter. In Part I, I have given a reconstruction of the Greek text on which the translator may be supposed to have worked. From it, a student ofiv a PREFACE. the New Testament who is unacquainted with Syriac, will be able to ascertain the textual evidence of this version less indirectly, and more surely, than through the medium of a rendering into Latin or English. ‘At the points where doubt exists as to the underlying Greek, I have added such footnotes as may enable the reader of it to judge for himself; but, thanks to the fidelity and clearness of the translator's work, such points are not many, and none of them is material. I may safely affirm that on every textual question of interest or importance, this version bears its testimony without ambiguity, and my Greck text conveys that testimony with precision. At p. exlv will be found an exact statement of the limits within which it may be relied on as a textual authority. ‘To this text I have prefixed @ Dissertation, in which I have fully discussed the Syriac text, and its underlying Greek. I have endeavoured to lead to the conclusion that this Apocalypse is a portion of the original “Philoxenian” New Testament, as translated a.p. 508, for Philoxenus of Mabug, by Polycarpus “the Chorepiscopus.” I have endeavoured to show, farther, that the other version of the Apocalypse, first printed by De Dieu in 1627, is a revision of this, and belongs probably to the Syriac New Testament of Thomas of Harkel, of 4.p. 616, ‘Whether I am right or not in these views, I think it will be admitted by competent critics that the version now printed is older than the other, is superior to it in linguistic purity and in textual value, and is therefore more worthy of being printed in future Syriac New Testaments as a supplement to the Peshitto, in company with the text of the four non- Peshitto Catholic Epistles, first edited in 1630 by Pococke. ‘The affinity between that text of the Epistles and this of the ‘Apocalypse is evident; whereas the De Dieu Apocalypse, alike in diction and in method, is Harkleian, harmonizing neither with the Pococke Epistles nor with thé Peshitto.PREFACE. v In the Chapters of the Dissertation which relate to the Greck text, I have judged it most fitting to treat of the authorities—manuscripts or versions—apart from all textual theories, and simply in view of the facta presented by them when independently studied. I have therefore refrained from using the terms “Neutral,” “Western,” “ Alexandrian,” “Syrian,” and soforth, as designating types of text. I gladly take this opportunity of acknowledging the great liberality of the Earl of Crawford in giving me permission to borrow from his Library and to retain for many months this unique Ms. I have also to express my thanks to the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, for the information which led me to the discovery of this version, and for much valuable advice and assistance in the course of the present work,—especially for his efficient help in deciphering the defaced colophon: to Mr. J. P. Edmond, Librarian to Lord Crawford, for many verifications of the readings of the Ms.: to Dr. Karl Hémning, late of the Ms. Department of the British Musoum, for collation with the original of my transcript of the extract from Ms. Add. 17193, page 35, Part II: to the Rev. H. Jackson Lawlor, B.D., Senior Chaplain of St. Mary’s, Edinburgh, and to the Rev. A. Edward Johnston, B.D., Assistant Lecturer in Divinity, Dublin, for careful reading and correction of the proofs of the Syriac text and matter pertaining to it, and for helpful suggestions, some of which are specially acknowledged in the Notes: to Mr. John I. Beare, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, for similar services in the revision of the Greek text and appended Notes: to the Rev. John H. Bernard, D.D., Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity and Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, for useful criticisms and advice on the investigations contained in Chapters III and IV of the Diseertation: and to Mr. John B. Bury, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, for valuable help in the topographical and historical inquiries, of which the results are summed up in Chapter VIII. ‘ .vi PREFACE. I desire to record, farther, the advice and encouragement which, in the progress of this work, I received from two eminent scholars whose loss, within the last few years, all who are concerned in Semitic studies have to deplore—Dr. William Wright, Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, whose judgment guided me in the paleographic questions discussed in Chapter VII of the Dissertation; and the Very Rev. Dr. R. Payne Smith, Dean of Canterbury, to whom I frequently had recourse —and never without a satisfying response from his ready kindness and great learning—in doubtful points of Syriac scholarship. At his request I placed in his’ hands the sheets containing the Syriac text when first printed (in 1892), and references to them will be found in the latter part of his Thesaurus. It only remaine that I should express my obligations to Mr. Weldrick, of the Dublin University Press, and to his staff, for the care they have bestowed on the printing of the work, especially of the Syriae text. JOHN GWYNN. November, 1896.CONTENTS. PART I. INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. ‘THE SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE. CHAPTER I. PREFATORY. I.—Plan and Contents of the present Work, . oe U1 —The Syriae Versions of the extra-Peshitto Books of the N.T.y | CHAPTER II. ‘THE PRESENT VERSION. [Its Character and Merits, =. 6 eee —Its general Afinity tothe Peshitto, . - . - ee ULL—Its special Afinity to the O.T. Peshitto,. . 6 6 2s Instances illustrative of the foregoing Sections, ‘Contrast betooen its Dition and that of the Harbleian Version of NT ‘Vi.—General Contrast between this Version (8) and the rival Version (3) ‘As to grammar and grammatical forms, . . . Astoidiom and vocabulary, =». 7. ewe Astogenorl method. =... ee 7 we As to accuracy, oe VIL—Afinity aswell as Diversity between the Versions Inveristions of rendering, =. 0. ss eee In grammatical variations, 5 ooo VIML.—Afinity etween 8 and the Pocooke” Bpiate, a sil xix xvi xxixvill CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. —Tha Authorities for the Text, . oo Inferiority of the text of 8 in Apoealypae (note), T.—Method adopted, and Objects pursued, in this Chapter, . . LL—Character of the MSS. severally, as regards clerical Accuracy, . —Character of the MSS. severally, as regards textual Value, . Divergence of each M3. from the rest, - ; ‘Tendency ofeach MS. towards, or away from, the cursive text, | ‘Value atiached to each MS. by critical Editors, ca Summary of results as to the MSS. sovorally, NOTE PREFATORY TO CHAPTER IV. Probable corrections of figures relating to tezt of O, CHAPTER IV. ‘THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. L—Numerical Expression of Amount of Agreement between 8 and cack MS., . M—Varition of ths Amount according to Growpdiatrbution ofthe MSS. TUL—Analysia of the Figures arrived at in I... : Interpretation of numerical Results BS with Q, toalimited extent, ©... aa SwithP,inthemin, . . . . ee ee 8 with C, most closely, . 5 0 a S with Ay in important readings, | 8 with N, in eccentric readings, Y—Furter Bzainaion ofthe comparatic Relations as with Greek Teste: With 8, A,and Py. : toe Relations of 8 with the Latin Versions severally: 8 with Latin and MS. support, boo Gc 8 with Latin support agsinst all MSS., : 8 with each several combination of MS. with Latin v . VIL—Lypotheses to account for the Facts of the S-tezt, . 6. ws VIII.— Relation between the S-tezt and the 3-tezt ‘Their extensive agreement, ‘Their differences, . ; Comparative extent of agreement of and 3 severally with each MB., Probable method by which one text was formed from the other, + IX.—The Divergencies of 8 from all other Tests Its substitutions, omissions, and insertions, Its apparent singular readings, due to corruptions in the Syrise, Iexii exit Ixy. laxvi IexixCONTENTS. CHAPTER V. REASONS FOR ACCEPTING 8 AS THE PRIOR VERSION. analogy of the “Poca and Haron Versions of th Four Epi, W—Traces of B betrayed by 3, . se ; —Forecast fulfilled by 8, . Ce Traces of Bin the Apparatus attached 0% 2 5 ss V.—Like traces in Barsalibie Commentary on... 7s .—Renderings borrowed from 8, and Spee ein ty x ‘VILL—Teztual Affinities of each Version, CHAPTER VI. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. Irs Dare: Direct Evidence of Brit. Mus. Ms. Add.1198, 9... Indirect Evidence of Crauferd Me. Syr. 5 rma frm Oomporin af Tae fw 1-8, given in above Mss. - Internal Boidence of the Version, oe Inference from probable Date of 3,» IL—Irs Avro: Not Jacob of Edesta, oa Presumably identical with Translator of « Pococke” Epistles, This presumption confirmed by Internal Evidence, . Also by analogous Case of and Harkleian, . . 0. Also by Afinity between 8 and Philozenian Esaiaa, . , Objections answered, an CHAPTER VII. ‘THE APOCALYPSE IN THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. ‘The Apocalypse known to certain Members of Syrian Churches: Of the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries, 5 Of the twelfth, eleventh, and ninth centuries, (Of the seventh and sixth centuries, . Of the fourth century, aoa oa IL—Its Circulation very limited, . - - se Value of the Versions Sand3, eex CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. ACCOUNT OP THE CRAWFORD Ms. (SYR. 2). L—Desoription of the Ms, - 6. ew es W—Ies Contents, © ee WL—lis Place of Origin, 6 Wo-Is History Valts Age: 4. Arguments for and against an early date, Pa 8, Reasons for asigning Ms, to close of twelfth contary: Evidence of handwriting, - 9. 0. se ee ‘Mention of Tur'sbdin in Colophon, . . 9. 5 s+ Structure and wording of Colophon, . . . Political situation impliod in Colophon, Personal statements of Colophon as to the sorb, and his unclos Contents and arrangement of theMs, =. . . + + APPENDIX T0 DISSERTATION. Parunmany Mnwomsxpu to ArEND, © et Last or Anmarviavions, fen, . L.—Readings of 8, which are attested by oe of more, but not all of the MSS., Readings of 8 which have no MS. support: ‘Supported by mss. and Latin, against MBS, . . Supported by mes., against MSS. andLatin, . . . ‘Supported by Latin against MSS. and m: oe Supported by only, 600000 Nove PanvuronyroGuemxTe, = 5 0 se ee GREEK TEXT asp Nor. ss eee PART Il. BYRIAO TEXT OF APOCALYPSE,. . . . . - - +e ‘Texr op Svsscurrriox axp Couoruox artacmep ro me Ms, ©. Avvexprx: Text or Avoo. vii, 1—8, from Add. 17198 (Brit. Mus.), Laer oy Assazvurions, fe. ss ee xxii oxiv oxy cali xiii exliv ely 149 1-29 81, 92 85 86 NOTES ox Srauo Taxr or Arooatxrsx, axp ow Susscarrtion ax Coxornox, . 87-100THE APOCALYPSE. PART I, INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION, “AND GREEK TEXT WITH FOOTNOTES.INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. THE SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE. CHAPTER I. PREFATORY. I.—Plan and Contents of the present Work. Tu Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which I now introduce to the knowledge of Biblical scholars, forms part of a Ms. of the New Testament in Syriac belonging to the Library of the Earl of Crawford. This Ms. was purchased in London by the late Earl in or about the year 1860, but no record has been preserved of the seller's name, nor is it known how or at what time it was brought to Europe. In a Memoir published by the Royal Irish Academy, in vol. xxx of their Transactions (pp. 347 399.), I have already given a full account of it and of its contents, and an investigation into its date and history; and have also discussed the character, and endeavoured to determine the authorship, of the version of the Apocalypse which it contains. In the present Dissertation my principal object is to enter more fully than I have done in that Memoir into the consideration of this version: at its close I propose to give a summary of the results I have arrived at with regard to the Ms. itself. For the present it suffices to say of it that, among Syriac Mas. of non- Enropean origin, it is unique, as being the only one that exhibits the entire New Testament—the Peshitto text supplemented not only by the four minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude), but by the Apocalypse,—that it was written in a Jacobite monastery of north- eastern Mesopotamia, and that its age has been variously estimated at from seven to eleven hundred years.xiv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. Immediately after the present Dissertation, forming with it Part I of the present volume, I have given (pp. 1-48) for the convenience of students of the New Testament who do not read Syriac, in lieu of the usual Latin translation, a reconstruction of the Greck text of the Apocalypse which may be presumed to underlie the Syriac, with footnotes appended dealing with the relations of agreement and disagreement that subsist between that text and the other chief authorities. In Part II (pp. 1-29), I have printed the Syriac text complete, reproducing it page for page and line for line, exactly as it stands in the Ms.; followed (pp. 87 299.) by a body of Notes, in which I have indicated the chief points of interest in it, and the emendations required by it here and there. II.—The Syriac Versions of the extra-Peshitto Books of the N. T. It is gonerally known that the Apocalypse and the Four Epistles above specified are not acknowledged as part of the Peshitto Canon; and that the Apocalypse is wanting from all, and the Four Epistles from all the earlier, and nearly all the later, Mss. hitherto described of the New ‘Testament in Syriac, as well as from all the earlier printed editions, beginning with the Bditio Princepe of Widmanstad (1555). These Books were for the first time edited as part of the Syriac New Testament by Sionita in the Paris Polyglot of 1633, in a form substantially identical with the Syriac texta which had been separately issued—of the Apocalypse, by De Dieu in 1627,* and of ‘the Four Epistles, by Pococke in 1630." Thence they passed ‘into the Syriac columns of Walton’s Polyglot (1657), and into all subsequent Syriac New Testaments. This text of the Four Epistles (“Pococke’s,” as it ie commonly called) is the one exhibited in our Ms.; but of it I do not propose to treat except incidentally, my prosent business being with the Apocalypse. As regards the commonly printed text of the Apocalypse (known as “De Dieu’s”), there is no room to question that it is the work of an age much later than that of the Peshitto, and is formed on different principles. Its date and authorship are undetermined, but its affinity to the New Testament version of Thomas of Harkel is unmistakable. Of the few Mas. which contain it, however, * From the Layden University Ma., Cod. Sealig. 18 (Syr.). » From the Bodleian Ms., Bod. Or. 119.PREFATORY. xv not one exhibits it as part either of the Harkleian version or of the Peshitto. Yet if not actually the work of Thomas of Harkel, it is wrought so strictly on the lines of the rigid and peculiar method intro- duced by him, that it cannot be placed earlier—or (probably) much if at all later—than his time; and it may be provisionally assigned to the first half of the seventh century. It may naturally be—and in point of fact has been*—questioned whether Sionita, and (after him) Walton and subsequent editors, have not judged amiss in thus deviating from the practice of the Mfse., and using as a supplement to the Peshitto, a version s0 widely remote from it in method and diction, as well as in probable age. In reply it may be fairly urged, that the object of these editors being to present a Syriac New Testament in all parts corresponding to the Greek and the Latin, they were justified in adopting the only version of the Apocalypse that was forthcoming, 60 as to give completeness to their publication even though homogeneity was unattainable.” Nor was there any reason to apprehend that students of the Syriac New Testament might be misled by this arrangement ; for even a superficial knowledge of the language would make it impossible for a reader to mistake this supplement for an integral part of the version to which it is appended. Nor again (it may be added with hardly less confidence) could any competent scholar suppose it to come from the same translation a8 the other portion of extraneous matter above referred to— that which comprises the four non-Peshitto Epistles. ‘These two supple- ments, though together included in the printed editions, were derived, as above stated, by two different editors, from two independent sources, and are associated in no known Syriac Ms. of the New Testament* of Eastern » by Serivener, Introduction, Chap. IIT, § 8, p. 815 (3nd edition). » Im like manner, but with somo (though very recent) Ms, authority, Walton includes with ‘the Peshitto Old Testament, 3 Esdras and part of Tobit in a version evidently Hexaplar. ‘The Paris Me, Biblioth. Nat, Supplément 79 (No. 6 of Zotenberg’s Catalogue), though it {incorporates the supplementary Books with the Peshitto, is no exception to what has been stated bore, It was written in Pars, in 1696, sisty-two yoars after the printing of the Paris Polyglot. ‘These Books are found together in one Ms. of Oriental origin only—the Dublin Ma, B. 5.16 (Trinity Coll). But this Ms. (6e0 Transactions, Royal Irish Academy, vol. xxvii, pp. 271, 283), isa transcript made in 1625 by a monk of the Lebanon for Archbishop Usther; and it is not a Syriae Now Testament, but a supplement to the Syriac New Testament. ‘The combination of ita contents (Apocalypse, Pericope de Adulters, Four Rpistlee) is but the reflex of Ussher’ desire to o8xvi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. origin. They have nothing in common save the negative fact that they do not belong to the Peshitto. ‘The Syriac of the Apocalypse of the Printed editions is unsparingly graecized, and its method is severely (even servilely) literal. The Syriac of the Four Epistles is idiomatic, and its method combines faithfulness with freedom. In both respects— diction and method—the former portion (as has been above said) bears the artificial character of the Harkleian; while the latter follows the lines of the Peshitto and makes a near approach to the excellence of that admirable version. Critics of experience and acuteness may perhaps detect short- comings on the part of the translator of these Epistles, and may fix on points in which he falls short of the Peshitto standard: but the ordinary Syrine student is conscious of no marked change of style when he passes in reading from 1 Peter to 2 Peter, from 1 John to2 and 3 John, In the Ms. from which Pococke’s Editio Princeps of the Four Epistles was printed, they stand, not as in most earlier copies postponed to the Three Epistles of the Peshitto, but in their usual Greck order. I suspect that if the first editor of the Syriac New Testament in 1555 had had in his hands this or a similar Ms., theso Epistles would have been unhesitatingly included by him, and accepted by Biblical scholars without question, as an integral part of the Peshitto. Or if questioned, they would have been questioned ‘on grounds of external evidence—for, from the time of Cosmas Indico- pleustes* (sixth century), it has beon known that the Peshitto Canon lacks these Epistles—not of internal discrepancy of style and language, or of inferiority of execution, procure the Syriac text of the portions of the New Tostament that were wanting from ‘Widmanstad’s edition; and it gives no sure ground for presuming that the soribe found them in ‘one and tho same Me, * In his Topographia Christiana, lib. vn, p.292D.THE PRESENT VERSION. xvii CHAPTER IL ‘THE PRESENT VERSION. I—Its Character and Merits. Waar has been said, in the previous Chapter, of the resemblance to the Peshitto borne by the “ Pococke” Epistles, may be affirmed, with at least equal confidence, of the Apocalypye in the version which I now publish. Lord Crawford’s Ms., whence I derive it, was (see pp. ox, xi, in/r.) in the possession of an Eastern—probably Jacobite—Patriarch in 1534. ‘The Ms. on which Widmanstad’s Editio Princeps of the Syriae New Testa- ment was mainly based, was sent from Marde, in Mesopotamia, in or before 1549, by the then Jacobite Patriarch, through the hands of Moses, ‘one of his priests, who became Widmanstad’s helper in preparing that edition.t This Ms. is not now forthcoming, but is known to have con- tained the whole Peshitto New Testament, and no more.’ Had that Patriarch, instead of this copy, possessed, like the Patriarch of fifteen years earlier, and sent to Europe, the Crawford Ms., or one of equivalent contents, it may safely be presumed that Widmanstad would have, on its authority, given to the world, without doubt and in all good faith, a Syriac New ‘Testament complete in all parts and commensurate with the Greek canon as commonly received. Thus the Editio Princepe would have exhibited, with the Peshitto and distinguished from it by no external indications, not only the Four Epistles, but the Apocalypse, in a version * For the history of Widmanstad’s edition, ae the prefixed Dedicetio ad Dic. Fordinandem Imporat. Design. (a * * *, fo. 8 ¢, et ag.); and for tho dato of the mission of Moses soo the Ssrine Noto appended tothe Goepos (fo. 131 e), which states that ho was sent to Pope Paul [III], ‘who diod, November, 1549 —S0o also Wright's Catalogue of Syriae Ma. in Brith Museum, P. 218, 216, for evidence that he reached Romo before Popo Paul's death. * 00 the prefatory Note to tho Catholio Bpistlee (Widmanstai'sodition), BB. fo. 1, ¢); and ‘the appended Epists to Gimgor (KK. fo, 8, ¢).xviii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. s0 closely akin in style and language to the Books of the Peshitto proper, that even an accomplished Semitic scholar might readily fail to discover in the supplementary matter the traces of a later hand Widmanstad seems to have been unaware that the Canon of the Peshitto fell short of the completeness of the Greek, and to have supposed that the absence of the Apocalypse and Four Epistles from the copy brought by Moses was a mere defect of that Ma." Better-informed critics would, no doubt, have challenged the Four Epistles on the grounds of external evidence above referred to; but as regards the Apocalypse no such evidence was then forthcoming, and the supplementary character of the version of that Book might readily have escaped detection. For, in point of internal evidence, it might well pass muster. The merits which I have above attributed to the version of the Four Epistles, distinguish—as it seems to me, in degree even higher—tho version of the Apocalypse which the Crawford Ms. associates with it. ‘The Greek of the Apocalypse, above all other New Testament writings, has a Semitic cast, and therefore is capable of idiomatic, while exact, reproduction in a Semitic tongue, euch as no effort of a translator could attain in rendering the Epistles in question, or any other pert of the New Testament. Compared with the Peshitto proper, it will be found to rival it in vernacular propriety, while giving 6 closer rendering of the Greck: compared with the Apocalypse of the printed texts, its superiority in purity of idiom, maintained without sacrifice of fidelity to its original, will be apparent. ‘That the present version deserves the twofold praise I claim for it— of faithfulness at once to the Greek original and to the Syriac idiom—will, I believe, be agreed by all competent critics who examine its text av printed at the close of the second Part of the present volume. It is s0 exact, that in comparing it with the original, no difficulty will be found in determining what reading of the Greek the translator had before him, except in cases where the deficiencies of the Syriac language—its want of case-endings, its poverty of verbal forms, or the like—make tho diserimi- nation between two or more rival readings impossible: while at the samo time it is 60 idiomatic, that no instance will be met with in which he has * Seo tho references cited in the notes to last page.‘THE PRESENT VERSION. xix sacrificed vernacular propriety for the sake of preciso literalness of rendering. His scrupulous fidelity to the substance of the Greck has nowhere betrayed pim into the adoption or imitation of Greck construc- tions, by which the Syriac of the other version of the Apocalypse (in common with the Harkleian) is systematically debased. With him, every word, as well as every phrase, is, with rare exceptions, represented by a purely Syriae equivalent; and the expedient of naturalizing Grock words, adapted or transliterated, is resorted to ouly in the two extreme cases—of words which have absolutely no Syriac equivalent, such as xpvedmpacos (xxi. 20)-and of words which, by the usage of good writers, have been admitted into the Syriac vocabulary, such as Siabrjxn, ordSiv, orody (xi. 19, xiv. 20, vi. 11); to which are, perhaps, to be added some words of doubtfully Greek origin, such a8 duos, xBords (viii, 11, xi. 9) and some names of precious stones in xxi. 19, 20, and elsewhere, But this practice is with him less frequent than even in the Peshitto New Testament* It ia to be added, that he steadfastly avoids the fault of most Syriac translators—the only one justly chargeable as habitual against the Peshitto, of a tendency to amplification and paraphrase. ‘The result is, that it would be difficult for a reader unacquainted with the Greek of the Apocalypse to discover that he had here before him a translation, and not an original document. This is so partly, no doubt, in consequence of the character, already noticed, of the Greek, which being of Semitic rather than Hellenic cast, passes naturally, and without reluctance, into Syriac. But any scholar who compares this with the other Syriac version of the Apocalypse, marked as the latter is by a perpetual graecizing of diction and construction, will soon satisfy himself that the purity and idiomatic propriety which, in this version, are combined with close fidelity of rendering, are largely due to the happy method and skill of the translator, and not by any means altogether to the character of the Book with which he had to deal. I1.—Iis general Affinity to the Peshitto, Although, as I have said, even a practised Syriac scholar might well have been misled into accepting this version as belonging to the Peshitto, * See below, p. xxx.x INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. if the Syriac New Testament had first reached him in a Ms. like Lord Crawiord’s, in which this is incorporated with the acknowledged Peshitto Books, I do not suggest it even as a possible hypothesis that it may be an integral part of that great version. Its affinity to the Peshitto is far from being so close as that of the other version to the Harkleian:: it is such an affinity as bespeaks a translator not identical, or even contemporaneous, with the person (or any of the persons, if there were more than one) to whom we owe the Peshitto; but rather one who had made that version his study, and so imbued himself with its manner and spirit, that, in this his work supplemental to it, he naturally and without effort reproduces in the main its diction and idiom, and in great measure follows its method, though aiming at stricter adherence to his original. ILI.—Its special Afinity to the 0. T. Peshitto, Careful scrutiny discloses a further characteristic of this version. Among the Books of the New Testament, the Apocalypse is not only the most Semitic in’ form, phrase, and spirit, but it is the one in which, though by indirect citation, the language of the Old Testament is most freely appropriated. No reader can fail to observe how it reproduces the imagery and the visions—often almost in the words—of the Hebrew Prophets, especially of Daniel and of Ezekiel. For adequately rendering such a Book into Syriac, therefore, an intimate knowledge of the Peshitto Old Testament would be invaluable—almost indispensable. This qualifi- cation our translator proves to have possessed in an eminent degree. His work has some closer affinities, bespeaking a more habitual familiarity, with the Peshitto of the Old Testament than of the New. This is not the place to discuss, the question whether the Old Testament Peshitto is, in whole or part, an earlier work than the New (carlier even, as some Syriac writers claimed, than the Christian era),—or a lator work, as J. D. Michaclis and other critics of the last contury held ;—or whether they were contemporaneous and in fact parts of one great work of one translator, or company or series of translators, which opinion Gregory Barhebraeus, the great scholar of the Jacobite Church of the thirteenth century, was disposed to adopt;—following (as it seems) the still higher authority of Jacob of Edessa, six centuries earlier, and followed by‘THE PRESENT VERSION. wai (I believe) the majority of Biblical scholars who have studied the matter. For my present purpose it suffices to note the fact, which is beyond question, that, while the diction of the Peshitto Bible as a whole is fairly homogeneous, it is more purely Aramaic in the Old Testament than in the New. Some may sev in this a mark of higher antiquity; others (as it seems to me, with better judgment) may regard it rather as a nocossary result of the fact that in the Old Testament the basis on which the Peshitto rests is Hebrew, while in the New Testament it is Greck. Hence the task of translation, in case of the Old, was simpler and eusior than in that of tho New. ‘The former passed readily and without effort into in the latter, the translator (whether we are or tor to have dealt with both), however stead- fast in his adherence to the Syriac idiom, could hardly avoid occasionally introducing Greek words,—such as, in point of fact, are not infrequent in his work.” Now in this respect, as I have said, the Crawford Apocalypse follows a stricter usage than that of the Peshitto New Testament; it con- forms more nearly to that of the Old, now and then even adopting from the Old a Syriac equivalent for a word (as evayyédvov, Opévos, xvBepyifrns, xMapxos) which, in the New, is (at least sometimes) represented by a transliteration. And, more generally, whenever its vocabulary passos outside the range of the Peshitto New Testament, it proves in most cases to have borrowed from the vocabulary of the Old, In the instances, not of frequent occurrence, where it uses words that are not to be met with at all in the Peshitto, Old or New Testament, it will be found usually to have the authority of one or more good Syriac writers of the best period of the language. ‘The very few words employed in it which are unknown to Syriac literature and lexicography, are correctly formed, and from known roots. * See the passages citod from Barhebrasus on Ps. x, and from the Preface to his orroum Hysterioram, by Walton, Proliomena, § 18, par 16 ;—alao by Wiseman, Horas Syriaess, 1, § i, p-87, 103. Sco also the citation from Soaded [Jeeudad] in the Praafatio ad Libr. Paalmorum of Bionita (4d Lectorom, p-3)- For J. D. Michasis, 0 his Jntroducton to tho H-Z, vol I, pt. 1 cb. vii. § 2 [Marsh's ‘Translation]- * See below, p. xxx.xxii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. IV.—Instuncea illustrative of the foregoing Sections, I proceed to offer examples in illustration of the above statements; referring for fuller details to the Notes appended to the Syriac text. i. The following words, 80 far as I know, are peculiar to this version (8) etorea = morpés (xvi. 2; for the usual erorea,—but see note in he.); eenasrse = povorrd (xviii. 22; from as1,—probably a coined word, ingeniously conformed to the sound of the Greck); milyass = Sedoi (xxi. 8); duressize = rerpaydvus (xxi. 16). Also etal in etal ez = xadnohsBards (i. 15). With these are to be reckoned, as uses or combinations elsewhere unknown of familiar words: eeabas i> = ovyxowards (i, 9); to = dBuxotpar (ii. 11); saene = Set (iv. 1, and thenceforward) ; padre = clot (v. 6, xvi. 14). i, The following lie outside the Peshitto vocabulary, whether of Old or of New Testament, but are otherwise sufficiently authenticated. Those marked *, here and under head iii., occur (some in slightly different forms) in 3. lepés, leparixds (i. 6; see note there); iaza® = xdapés iii, 18); durcrinawe = cvedéder (iv. 8); (vii.17); eesbumaned, pdimare® = dijurfos (viii.11); ara (4.2); tmNS = pndpas (x. 8); 2AX = ope ( pévos (xvii 4); etase® = prior (xviii. 18); eetalee = vasrys (xviii. 17); cesarean = eSdpnows (xxi 18); ehamucse = ASAvype (xxi. 27); erésa\ (= "DR?); and the representation of the adjective Sows (as if Suotoma, or ds Spoiana), by the construct noun dasas (iv. 8), or by a ethaser nur’ (i. 13), or the like, (M17, MD73). In like manner, it is observable that S adheres to the usage of the Peshitto Old Testament as against that of the New (if the existing text may be trusted) and of &, in its frequent retention of the absolute forms of nouns usually met with only in their emphatic state ; also, of the characteristically Semitic mode of expressing the genitive-relation between two nouns by changing the primary noun (as in Hebrew) into the construct state, instead of prefixing 3 to the secondary noun. Thus, in place of the emphatic forms used in the Peshitto N. 'T., and in %, it borrows from the Peshitto O.'T. the absolute forme— qeeada (16); Want (iv.6); eaas (iv. 8); cuarchse (vii. 1); hare (i5.); azote (vii.9); Loxanso (ix. 18); pedir (xi. 4); eas (xi. 10); esd (xii. 14); Castote (xv. 8); cried, (xvii. 9); (xvii. 12); stone (xviii, 12); Lees (id.); cazeee (xxi. 17), ‘The same is to be said of the use of the construct form in the expres-‘THE PRESENT VERSION. co sions—reing naa (ii, 28, xxii. 16); eeamios in (iv. 4); msec etzoas (vii, xvi, 12); Locnsngd aa (ix. 20); wsae atin (xi. 18); rented (xiv, 6); cals ee (xvii. 14). Other phrases may be added, derived from the same source, such as the frequent resiréa dasiasen. (for of karocxotvres ent ris is, passim); few, even, which are actual citations of it:—as aalr aliva Lani as’ (v. 11; from Psh. Dan, vii. 10); as doxdae cased oa (xii. 14; Poh. Dan. vii. 25). Nay, in one or two places, the close following of the Peshitto Old Testament has drawn our translator aside from his usual path of literal exactness :—as vi. 11, where ér (usually = sod) is expanded into as 2s (= dus eaipod), after Peh. Dan. vii. 12; and xviii. 22, where for atdyrai (isin) he substitutes wiser wat (= yéq povrwdy [or atdnrixév]),—a rendering so wide of the mark that it would be un- accountable, were it not an evident reminiscence of Psb. Dan. iii. 5; all the more notable, therefore, as an indication of the model on which his diction was shaped. ‘To show fully the extent to which the manner and language of the Peshitto Old Testament, as distinguished from the manner and-language of the New, have influenced the version of the Apocalypse now before us, it would be necessary to make a more detailed and systematic comparison than present conditions of time and space allow. But any student of tho Peshitto, by a single careful reading of certain chapters of Ezckiel (such as i. and x.), or of Daniel (such as vii.), side by side with the parallel passages of the Apocalypse (in chapters i., iv. xiii.), as they appear in this version, may sufficiently satisfy himself that those Books, in their Peshitto form, were familiar to our translator, and are repro- duced in the words, the grammatical forms, and the phrases, of his work. But though the points, such as I have indicated above, are not few, in which the version § follows the precedents of the Old rather than of the Now Testament Peshitto, there remains, after allowing for these, a residuum of general and intimate affinity between it and the latter, in degree and extent far exceeding the diversity. The instances of the diversity do not strike one at a single reading, but are detected by * Found once or twice in Peshitto N. ., but only in O. T. citations.xxv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. painstaking examination ; it is diversity limited,—I may say exceptional : the affinity is habitual ; it exists throughout; it is so obvious that no reader could fail to notice it from the first. Or rather, it is so close that (as I have already said) none but @ careful reader and experienced Syriac scholar would be likely to discover from internal evidence that this Apocalypse ‘was not part of the Peshitto, if it had chanced to be incorporated with the Peshitto in the copies of the Syriac New ‘Testament which first reached Europe, as it has been in the Crawford Ms, ‘V.—Contrast between its Diction and that of the Harkleian Version of N.T. We shall most readily satisfy ourselves how fow and unessential are the points wherein the Crawford Apocalypse deviates from the Peshitto New Testament model, if for the Peshitto we substitute the Harkleian (seventh-century) version as the standard of comparison, and note how distinct are the marks which prove our version to belong substantially to the earlior, as distinguished from the later, school of * translation. In the Notes appended (in Part II) to the Syriac text, I have gone into considerable detail in noting the instances of variation, whether in words, or in grammatical forms, or in idioms, betwoen it and the other version (%) of the Apocalypse, testing each by the two-fold standard ebove indicated,—of the Peshitto (Old and New Testament) on the one hand,— and of the Harkleian and its cognate Hexaplar on the other. ‘The result of this investigation proves to be, as © matter not of theory but of fact, that on the whole, and with but a few unimportant exceptions, our Apocalypse stands to the Harkleian in a relation of strong contrast, but to the Peshitto at large (putting aside the distinction between Old and New Testament) in a relation of no less strong resemblance: while the other version no less definitely (probably more definitely) parts company with the Peshitto, and sides with the Harkleian. And I venture to anticipate that the reader of those Notes will follow me in the conclusion I have been led to draw, that while the latter vorsion is cortainly Harkleianized, and may well be actually Harkleian,—the work of Thomas of Harkel himself, or at least of a disciple of his method,—the version I now present is the work of an able and industrious translator, trained in a different and earlier school;—as a Greck scholar, competent to represent the original withTHE PRESENT VERSION. xxvii faithful accuracy,—as a Syriac scholar, belonging indeod to an age later than that which produced the Peshitto, but deeply imbued with the spirit of the Peshitto, and with conscious and successful endeavour reproducing the idiomatic freedom of its diction. ‘VI—General Contrast between this Version (S) and the rival Version (2). ‘The Notes, in which I have indicated the successive instances as they occur of contrast between these rival versions, 8 and , will serve to bear out the comparison which I have above drawn between them; and they will, at the same timo, eupply the readiest illustrations of the character and method of the version §, its habitual conformity to Peshitto usage, and its exceptional deviations from the same. I proceed to summarize the main heads under which the points of contrast may be reduced. It will be seen that their nature may be briefly expressed by the statement, that thir version is idiomatic, following in the lines of the Peshitto, while that is graccized, identifying itself with the Harkleian. And this is s0, alike as regards their grammar and their vocabulary, und as regards their general method. 4. As to grammar and grammatical forms* :-— (1). In &, the simple staiue absolufue of nouns is elmost supplanted by the statue emphaticus which is used indiscriminately: in 8, the absolute forms are of frequent occurrence’, especially in representing anarthrous nouns;—seo the examples above given, p. xxiv, to which (over and above those which occur in Peshitto New Testament) many more may be added such as mao, giant, asa, wis, dire, osas, pions, inte, casts, azeed, Gri, oust, piases, oie, GARA, pss! So too gaat, 20, for reaaunt, eta. A fow of these, eg. ia>0, seam to be peculiar to 8. * Skat-Rérdam, in the Divertatio prefixed to hie Libri Judioum ot Buth, sec. Vora. Syr.-Hex., has given a very complete and valuable account of the grammatical chaructoristics of the Syr ‘Hexaplar version, which may be profitably compared with the above notes on those of 3. » A very fow instances of the reverse may be found; see, #., ii 1, xiv. 17, xix.9, and notes. + ven after a cardinal number, % employs stat. emph, against rule; S usually ste. abv, ‘except where the Greck has the article.xxviii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. (2). The place of the lacking definite article is filled in % by the personal or demonstrative pronoun (as om, ace, arc, aloo): in 8 by the legitimate use of the status emphaticus, (3). The use of the status constructus in & is limited for the most part to a few fixed expressions, such as exits, riréw 115, ehialy dus, and its renderings of compounds, such as , instead of the usual S (Apoo. xiii. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 12, Jude 10). It is to be added that, of the words above noted as common to the Pococke Epistles with 8, none is met with in 3, except edvw, by which (but not 8) renders dpacvs, iv. 8 (bis). * This interpolation in xix. 10, and the attempts to got rid of the dpa uj in that verse, and ‘again in xxii. 9, may indicate theological bias; and a like cause may possibly account for the twice-repeated omission (perhaps more probably duc to homaoteleuton) of the xQia iry of xx.3,5. The rendering of drofmjoeu (xiv. 18) above noted, and that of } piax) jadpa, 4. 10, may be instances of the language of later ecclesiastical usage.STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. xxix CHAPTER III. PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. I now proceed to consider our version in its relation to the original— in other words, to investigate the character of the Greek text on which it is based, which is, no doubt, the most important aspect in which it can be rogarded. L—The Authorities for the Text. ‘The materials for the critical determinetion of the text of the Apocalypse are, indeed, far from deficient in amount or in variety. Early versions are fortheoming—Latin, Ethiopie, Coptic, and (of perhaps questionable antiquity) Armenian ; besides early citations, considerable in number and extent, in writers Greck and Latin, Eastern and Western, ranging from Irenus to Augustine. Five uncial manuscripts are extant (known as 8, A, C, P,Q"), and about one hundred and eighty cursive— numbers far short (no doubt) of those by which the copies of other parte of the New Testament are reckoned, yet seemingly enough for adequate attestation. But of the cursives, though not a few (perhaps a larger proportion than in case of any other New Testament Book) give impor- tant textual evidence, the majority contribute little or nothing towards establishing the best text: and of the uncials, the total available is weaker, in evidential value as well as in number, than elsewhere in the New Testament. Of the five, Q (Cod. Basileonsis) is of the eighth contury ; but its text, as we shall see presently, is hardly to be distinguished from that of the average cursives of late date—inferior to not a few of them. P (Cod. Porphyrianus), though not earlier, but probably later, presents a + Designated B by Tischendort; B, by Westcott and Hort, I prefer, with Tregelles and ‘Weiss (seep. li) toavoid the confusion to which this designation tends, and to call it Q, as above. 2al INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. better text; yet in value falls somewhat short of the carlier three, Of these, however, C (Cod. Ephrem Syri) is very defective, nearly two-fifths of the text of the Apocalypee being lost; while 8 (Cod. Sinaiticus), though entire, exhibits a text of this Book of quality distinctly below the normal standard of the MS.* A (Cod. Alexandrinus), on the contrary, in this Book rises above its usual level so as largely to make amends for the deficiencies of the other two, and is thus to be accepted as the main authority for the text; taking in some measure tho place which, in the greater part of the New Testament, is by consent of most critics accorded to B (Cod. Vaticanus), and going far to compensate for the absence here of that great authority. Of the versions, I pass over the Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian, not in disparagement of their value, but merely because I am unacquainted with the languages in which they are writton, and I distrust the socond- hand knowledge of them which can be acquired through the medium of a Latin or other translation. Of the throe, the Ethiopic Apocalypse is the one of best attested antiquity ; on the age of the Coptic a doubt seems to rest. If the Armenian New Testament (ascribed to the fifth century) is rightly believed to be based, in the main, on the Peshitto, it follows ‘Some facts which have boon noted concerning Xm {nforior character of ita text of the Apocalypes. ‘Tiechendorfaerares us (Prolegomona to.N.T. Sineit, pp. xxi, xxiii; 4to edition of 1863) that no contemporary corrections, made by the diorthote whose hand appears in the emendations of the text of tho rest of the Now Testament, ae to bo found in the Apocalypse, In it, therefore, we Ihave, a it seems, the text copied by the soribe from a single exemplar; not revised, as in the preceding Books, by a second person using a second exemplar. Moreorer, there ia reason to ‘surmise that the single exemplar so used was not part of the same MS, as that from which the scribe derived his text of the previous Books of the New Testament. In tho very opening of it, ‘we are mot by the singular fact thet the heading and some part of the fret column (thirty-two lines) are waitten (;b.,p. xx, and note 1) by the person who in the rest of the Now Testament acted as diorthote, but who wrote some Books of the Old Tostament part of the MS. ‘This may ‘be accounted for by ruppoting that the Now Testament acribe came to a atandetll when he hed completed the Epistles (on recto of fo. 126), hie archetype (or archetypee—for he may have hed ‘three (1°) Gospels, (2°) Paul, (8°) Praxapost.) containing no more; that his colleague, the diorthote of the other New Testament Books, having « copy of the Apocalypse, bogan (on fo, 126 cere) to write it ana supplement to the work of the former which he was engaged in revising ;—but that, after writing theso thirty-two lines, ho transferred his exemplar and the tuk of transcribing it to the other. perhaps, sorve to account for theSTUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. ali that the Apocalypse is not to be accepted as an intogral part of it, but must have been added asa supplement. It will be interesting, therefore, to investigate whether any relation of dependence, or at least of textual affinity, can be traced between the Armenian and either of the Syriac versions of this Book. Textual affinity may also be looked for between the Coptic and Syriac versions, inasmuch as the Coptic Church, being Monophysite, was in close communion with the Monophysite Syrian Church, from which, as I hope to show, both the Syriac versions proceed. Under the head of Versions, therefore (apart from the Syriac 3, of which I have slready treated, and to which I shall revert further on), I confine myself to dealing with the Latin. It is © happy circumstance, and a partial compensation for the comparative paucity of Grock manuscript authority, that the Latin attestation is, for the text of the Apocalypse, stronger and more varied than for any other part of the Now Testament, except of course the Gospels. Besides the Vulgate, which gives valuable evidence, there is an almost complete text preserved in the Commentary of Primasius on the Apocalypse (pr), which, by comparison with the extensive citations of the Apocalypeo in the writings of Cyprian, is proved to be (in the main) an “African” Old Latin text not later than the third contury. Moreover, a large part of a text closely akin to, though not identical with, that of Primasius, has beon recovered from @ Paris Ms., the Codex Floriacensis, or Fleury palimpeest (A). Another version, quite distinct from these, and complete, has been found in the great Ms. (Vulgate, except as to Apocalypse and Acts) known as “ Gigas,” of Stockholm (g), which is presumably of the “ European” type. ‘These then are the authorities—the Greck manuscripts, the Latin versions, and the Syriac version 2, by comperison with which I seck to determine the affinities and estimate the value of the Greck text which underlies the version 8. Even a superficial inspection of the notes attached to the Greek text in Part I, infr., will suffico to prove that the text represented by S +f any euch relation exists it cannot be more than partial in extent; as is proved by the many instances in which the Armenian implies « Greck text diferent from that of § or of 3. Ey. the word Ts (iv. 8), which they render correctly, was read and rendered by the Armenina (and also by the Ethiopic) in the fale form tops (as by XA and two ms.)alii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. contains a large clement common to it with that which distinctively belongs to the better uncials, combined with an admixture, large, but not 0 large, of readings attested by less ancient authority. ‘The greater part of the textual criticism of the Apocalypse takes the form (aa every student of it knows) of the question, whether to accept, or to roject, the evidence of & ACP, or three, or two or oven one, of them, against that of Q and the bulk of the cursives. In this conflict of evidence it will be found that our translator—or the editor of the Greek text he used— though too often led aside to follow the many, adhered in the main to the tradition represented by the earlier and presumably more authentic few. IL —Method adopted, and Objects pursued, in this Chapter. ‘As a preparation for an inquiry into the character and composition of the text on which our translator worked, it is important that we should enter into a detailed examination of the uncials sevorally; in order to enable ourselves to measure (1) the value of each of them as a standard, and (2) the affinity subsisting between tho text of each and that of 8. ‘Vhis examination, though a digression from our immediate subject, ix really essential as preliminary to an investigation into the relations of the S-text; and it will moreover be found to possess some independent value as a study of the texts of the extant MSS. of the Apocalypse. I have, accordingly, judged it necessary (and I believe it will be sufficient), for a satisfactory comparison—(1°) of each MS. severally with the rest, (2°) of 8 with each of them, and with each combination of them (binary, ternary, or quaternary)—to form a full list of all the places having more or less divided MS. attestation, where the evidence of S is available. ‘This list contains over 850 words or sentences, in all of which one MS. (at least) varies from the rest: it excludes instances where all MSS. agree, as well as instances where § is indecisive (as in case of gram- matical or orthographical variation, ambiguity, conflation, or the like). But of the variants affecting these places, a large proportion are not only trivial in themselves, but are weakly attested—by a single MS. with little or no support. Such variants are plainly worthless as materials for the criticism of the text—the mistakes of a scribe writing carelessly, or following a damaged archetype which he was incompetent to decipher; they are of use only in so far as they serve to mark the character of the MS. in which they occur. For the purpose, therefore, of @ comparisonSTUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. sii of S* with the MSS., it is clearly needless to encumber our inquiry with a multitude of what are not in any proper sense to be counted as variants, but merely as blunders—instances not of divergency in the normal text, but of aberrancy from it. For that purpose, accordingly, I have reduced the list by striking out all such instances—where a MS. stands alone, or supported only by two or three mss, of no special authority, in a reading of no intrinsic interest or value; retaining, however, all readings that have the authority of one MS.—either if (1°) commehded by internal probability, or if (2°) confirmed by the approval of weighty critical authority, or by any appreciable support from mes., or by any of the Latin or either of the Syriac texts. In this reducod form I print the list in the Appendix to this Dissertation, below, pp. exxi, 277. I1.—Character of the MSS. severally, as regards clerical Accuracy. Before laying aside, however, the list in its longer or unredueed form, it is worth while to ascertain whet is to be learned from it that may be of service in a preliminary study of the individual character, and comparative accuracy, of each of the MSS. It will show us (1°)in how many readings each of them stands alone, thus giving a measure of the independence of each; und (2°) what proportion of euch readings, for each MS., is negligible or valueless, thereby testing the amount of error affecting each. ‘The total number of readings recorded in the long list must, of course, be more than double the number of passages entered on that list—there being always two, and often three (or more) readings for each passage ; they, in fact, amount to nearly eighteen hundred. Of these, about 790 are readings of single attestation. On examination, these prove to be very unequally distributed, as follows. Much the largest proportion belongs wo 8, over 300, Q comes next, though far behind, with more than 200. A follows, but not closely, with 150 or 160. P shows the comparatively small number of 60 or 70. stands last with between 40 and 50; but if the MS. were complete (see p. xl), its number would presumably be higher than that of P. Of the five MSS., therefore, is the one that diverges most inde- pendently. The divergency of Q is not much more than two-thirds, that + In thn Chapter, I shall uae 8 henceforth to denote the Grok lat that underlie the Crateforé Sprieeliv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. of A not much more than half, and that of P not much more than one-fifth, of the divergency of 8; while that of C is presumably about one-fourth of the same. Again:— Of the singular readings of ®: Over 190 prove to be negligible ; leaving 115 to be retained. Of thove of A: Nearly 80 piove to be negligible; leaving 81 to be retained. Of those of P: Nearly 20 prove to bo negligible ; leaving 46 to be retained, Of those of Q: About 85 prove to be negligible; leaving 178 to be retained. Of those of C [probably over 70, if the MS. were complete]: About 30 [50] prove to be negligible; leaving 17 [26] to be retained. The total of these noteworthy singular readings is therefore 437. ‘Thus the order of the MSS. in point of actual number of worthless singular readings to be neglected as blunders, is different from their order in point of divergoncy—excopt that & still heads the list. A now stands second to it, but very far off; C (probably) third; then Q; and P last. But when the number of these blunders for each MS. is compared with its total number of singular readings (which is the true test of the clerical accuracy of each), the result proves to be as follows :— OF the singular readings found in 8, nearly two-thirds (-62) are nogligible; of those in C, (probably) a slightly smaller proportion; and of those in A, rather less than one-half (49): while for P the proportion ix but -28; and for Q (lowest of all) but “17. It follows, therefore, that, as regards clerical accuracy, the two more recent MSS. stand higher—are more carefully executed and froer from errors of transcription—than the three older. More particularly :— X is, of all the five MSS., far the least worthy of regard as repre- senting a defensible form of the text; it is aberrant rather than divergent from the rest, to the point of eccentricity. Not only does the number of its singular readings far exceed that of any of its brethren, but of these the proportion of quite worthless readings, sot aside by consent of all critics (including even Tischendorf, notwithstanding his natural bias towards the MS. of his discovery,—see below, p. li), is much greater thanSTPDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. aly in any other MS. So many of its variants in fact are unquestionably mere seribe’s blunders, as to cast a doubt on some of the 115 which I retain; and I should hardly foel justified in retaining so many, even of those that seem possible readings, were it not that in each one of this latter class X has support, though scanty yet appreciable, from some one or two cursives of credit, or from a Latin version, or (as we shall find to happen in not a few notable cases) from 8. I conclude, therefore, (1) that the text of the Apocalypse presented by 8 is one executed by a seribe who, through haste or incompetence, was careless in his work ; and moreover, (2) that the exemplar which he followed contained a textual clement foreign to the normal uncial text, which element now finds only a rare and partial support in secondary authorities, mes. and versions. A also has a text seriously affected by inaccuracy. Yet the number of its singularities, though large, is little more than half of that which 8 shows; and of these the greater part (81) are worthy of consideration— many of them (see below, p. lii) being accepted as certainly right by the best crities, Even of the rejected ones, few are absurd or impossible; in fact, some of those which I exclude from consideration have beon more or less confidently approved by Lachmann (though by him alone)* I conelude (1) that the scribe of A was superior in carefulness, and still more in intelligence, to the scribe of 8; and (2) that he had before him an exemplar embodying a purer text. © shows a much smaller amount of divergency than either of the former. Even allowing for the lost portion of it, we cannot suppose it probable that the number of singular readings exhibited by its text, when entire, was half as large as for A. But though C, thus regarded, appears in strong contrast with 8 (which has, probably, not less than four times as many), in another aspect it comes very close to X—as regards the largo proportion of singular readings of the worthless sort, which for C as for 8 is, as we have seen, little short of two-thirds. ‘This MS., therefore, presents a text deviating less than that of 8, or A, from the presumable uncial standard ; yet, whore it deviates, deviating in such wise, and in so + It in to be borne in mind that when Lachmann constructed his toxt (fret published in 1831), A wan the only MS. fully accesible to him; 8 and P were as yet undiscovered; Q was unknown to him, and C but imperfectly known. It was inevitable therefore thet, resting as he did solely on uncial authority, he should follow A too implicitly.xlvi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. large @ proportion of cusos, as to bespeuk the hand of a scribe who was less intelligent than industrious, though careful and painstaking, and provided with a good exemplar. P stands well; both as to the fowness of ite singular readings (less than the probable corrected number for C, not nearly half of the number of that for A, and little over one-fifth of that for &), and as to the small proportion of them (much less than one-third) that consists of mere blunders or oversights. But here a new fact (to be considered more fully further on) is noticeable, that of the retained singular readings (46 in all), a large number prove to be singular only relatively to the uncial standard, nearly half being attested by ample cursive evidence; a thing which seldom occurs in case of 8, and more seldom in case of A, or C,—the singular readings of thoso MSS. having, for the most part, little support from mss. It thus appears (1°) that P is a carefully written MS.; and (2) that, though Inter by three or four centuries than 8, A, or C, it keeps close in the main (but not altogether), to the text represented by their consent. It represents, apparently, an archetype akin to them, but admits (though sparingly) an element akin to the common cursive text. Q on the contrary stands widely remote in text from all the other MSS. Its singular readings are more in gross number than those of P, or ©, or A, though not so many as those of 8. But the proportion of negligible ones among them is much less than even for P. And it is 60 much less than for 8 (for which the proportion has been shown to be exceptionally large), that the residue retained for consideration is much larger for Q than for 8 (178 against 115), very much largor (therefore) than for any other MS. For Q, as for P, I reserve these singular readings for subsequent examination, stating merely for the present that of the total 178, very few are truly singular, nearly all being supported by many, often a majority, of the mes. Q is thus shown (1°) to be a MS. more carefully executed even than P; but (2°) to tend much more strongly into deviation from the normal uncial towards the normal cursive text. To this tendency, which is the characteristic predominant in Q, and not to any want of skill or care on the scribe's part, the wide divergency of this MS. from its brethren is in the main due. ‘Thus our results are, that— (i) OF the three greater MSS., C is the most carefully, though not theSTUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. _xlvii most intelligently, written; and comes nearest to giving a true presentation of the normal uncial text. The other two are more extensively affocted by inaccuracy, to a degree which, in case of x, seriously impairs the authority of the MS. (as regards the Apocalypse), by reason of the nature 1s well as the number of the errors which disfigure its text. In caso of A, the errors are not only fewer but far less grave; and though it is not so free from blemishes as C, yet (and as we shall see further on) it exhibits other characteristics which more than redeem its eredit, and add to its readings a value beyond that which attaches to those of the rest. (ii) To the two Inter MSS. P and Q, two characteristics belong in common :—(1°) that compered with the clder group, they are little blemished by mere copyists’ blunders; (2°) that each, where it stands apart from its fellow-MSS.—but Q much more than P—tends towards the common cursive text. They belong to a later ago, when mere errors of transcription had (probably by a tacit and gradual process) been weeded out, and when, moreover, a second form of text, amounting to a distinct recension, originated we know not how, or how early, had asserted its place beside the presumably older text, which in process of time it in great measure superseded. To that older text P, in the main, adheres: the extent to which it was affected by the later toxt is measured by the number of readings (some 30) where in separating from the MSS. it is supported by many mss., together with more (some 15) where the com- Dination P Q is so supported. Q, on the other hand, in its singular or quasi-singular readings, is (not, like P, exceptionally, but) habitually on the side of the cursives, showing in all only some 85 (barely one-sixth of its total) that can be reckoned even as subsingular. IV.—Character of the MSS. severally, as regards textual Value. Dismissing now the long list, with its encumbering detail of readings which attest hardly anything except the shortcomings of the several scribes, I proceed to consider our reduced list, as printed below, pp. exxv, 699. ‘This list, though it still includes many readings of no avail towards the determination of the true text, exhibits (I believe) none that will not serve in this inquiry, as indicating the affinities of the attesting MSS., inter se, or with the mss., or the versions, whose readings I have compared. ‘The passages entered in it, as reduced, are 538 in number, and the MS. variants recorded exceed 1100. aINTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. 1. Divergence of each MS. from the reat. Our first inquiry must be, What does this list show to be the amount, numerically stated, of Jona fide textual divergence (as distinguished from mero clerical inaccuracy) of each MS. from the consont of the rest? For Q it is large—markedly larger than for any ofthe others; tho number of variants in which it stands apart from them being (as above) 178. Its contemporary (or perhaps junior) P, shows in strong contrast to it in this respect, standing apart in but 46 variants, For C the amount is less than for any othor—but 17. If, however, the MS. were entire, the total would probably amount to 26 or even 30; but, even then, it would be the least divergent of the MSS. For A the amount is 81; largely in excess of that recorded for its contemporary C, and considerably above the record for P. Yot higher than A, but still below Q, ranks X in this comparison; the amount recorded for it being 115. To bring out yet more definitely the character of Q through tho contrast between it and P, we may assume that the consent of 8 AC, the three oldest MSS., represents the consent of the uncials, and uso it as our standard by which to compare P with Q. This combination, 8 AC, occurs 122 times in our list. ‘The result proves to be that P is with RAC 87 times; Q but 26 times; while P is opposed to 8 AC but 34 timest; Q, 96 times. Or, again, to avoid the uncertainty attaching to the combination & AC by reason of the imperfect state of C, we may take as our standard of reference the consent of 8 and A, which will be a fairly true standard, inasmuch as these two MSS., though each of them deviates largely from the normal text, deviate usually in different directions; so that the readings in which they agree form a text nearly free from the divergent element of each. This combination occurs 239 times; and on comparison + Not, an might hare been expectad, 85 (= 122 ~ 87); for in ono place wharo A.C concur, P dgfeit. So again, P deft in leven places where NA concur, and therefore opposes thent not 79 (= 259 ~ 160) times, but 68 (a next page).STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. _xlix we find that P agrees with it 160 times; Q but 58: while P opposes it but 68 times;* Q, 181 times. ‘Thus the isolation of Q among the MSS., already indicated in the earlier stage of our inquiry, becomes more pronounced as we study it farther. For we find (1) the Jona fide variants in which it stands alone are helf as many again as those recorded for 8, eccentric though the text of that MS. is; they are much more than double the number for A; not far from four times the number for P; and probably six times that for C.. And (2) it turns out that when we compare Q with P, taking the combination 8 AC as standard of reference, the deviation of Q is over 78 per cent., while that of P is under 28. Or, if we prefer 8 A as standard, the deviation of Q is still over 75 por cont.; that of P barely excvods 28. 2. Tendency of each MS. towards, or away from, the cursive text. ‘Yet these numerical results, striking as they are, give but an inadequate representation of the character that belongs to Q relatively to its brethren. In order to appreciate that character, we must recall the fact, above touched on, that, far from being truly singular in the 178 places where it stands apart from the other MSS., it has in most of these places the support of some cursives,—usually of many, sometimes of nearly all, of them. Even if we tun back to our original unreduced list, which shows over 200 places where Q so stands (including the rejected readings), the total number of variants of Q in which it has little or no cursive support is but 40,—less than one-fifth; whereas for P it is 85 out of some 65, more than half—a proportion largely exceeded in case of each of the older uncials, The characteristic fact disclosed by a study of the readings of Q is, then, that the position of standing as sole uncial at the head of a train of cursive authorities for a variant—a position not frequently held by P, very rarely by C, A, or 8,—is usual, indeed habitual, in case of Q. The quality, as well as the quantity, of theso instances, compels us to regard them as a transition on the part of Q (appearing * See note last page. » The readings where one MS. deviates from ite brothren with largo cursive confirmation aro —for Q, 178 out of a gross total exceeding 200 (see p. alii); for P, 80 out of between 60 and 70: while for the older MSS. such instances are so rare as to be bardly worth notice or rockoning— {for ©, 2 out of 40 oF 50; for A, 14 out of about 150; for X, but 22 out of over 300.1 INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. in P only as a tendency) towards a type of text distinct from that of its elder brethren—the text of the ordinary cursives. It is hardly an exaggeration to say of the isolation attributable to Q, that it is not merely a distance removing it from the other MSS. in degree, but a difference separating it from them in kind, such that Q (if considered irrespectively of age) is to be classed in text with cursives, in script alone with uncials. Whatever value attaches to it lies mainly in the fact that it is, by some two hundred years, the earliest manuscript witness to the normal cursive text of the Apocalypse as a whole, Of P it may be affirmed, in view of the contrast between it and Q, that it presents, in the main, a substantially ancient text, far though the MS. itself fall short of RAC in age. Its late date, no doubt, makes itself felt in the tendency (above noted) of its singular readings towards the cursive type, to which nearly half of them approach. But the total number of such readings is not great, and the tendency so manifested does not appreciably affect the general cheracter of the text; which, considering the late date of the MS,, is surprisingly true to the uncial consent. Of the singular readings of C, there is little to be said. ‘They aro fewer than for any other MS.; they show no appreciable leaning towards the cursive text; they present no character of special interost. Neither of the two remaining MSS. is so free as C, though both are more free than P, from traces which may be due to the influence of the rival text. A, and in a less degree &, deviates now and then in directions whither meny cursives go with it. But of the singular readings of 8 on our reduced list, some few are worthy of notice; while those of A are very seldom such as may safely be let pass without consideration. Indeed, the question not seldom arises, whether, in some at least of the cases where X, and (still more) where A, has for its singular readings extensive cursive support, it may not be concluded—not that the sole uncial errs in company with many cursives; but rather, that some (now and then, most) cursives have retained a right reading in common with the sole uncial It is also noteworthy that now and then 8, and A perhaps more frequently, is corroborated in a singular reading by two or three only— sometimes but one—of the exceptional cursives whose text is found else- * Seo ag. ¥. 11, where 8 with most mes. reads ds before dumiv: and again, xx. 6, where A ‘with most mas, omits rd beforo xiua—in each case, without farther uncial authority.STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. i where to tend against the rest, from the cursive to the uncial type, such ‘as the remarkable mss., 36, 38, 79, 87." Moreover, Latin attestation in many instances confirms the singular readings of 8, A, C, and P, even where cursive confirmation is scanty: in case of 8 or A more frequently than of C or B* 8. Value attacked to each MS. by critical Editors, In order to test farther the comparative value of the five MSS., as inferred from the character of the singular readings of each, it is worth while to inguire, Of which of them have the singular readings most frequently commended themselves to the judgment of the best textual critics? To answer this question, I refer‘ to the Greck Testaments of Tischondorf (8th edition), and of Westcott and Hort ; and with them to the more recent and very carefully considered text appended to Bernhard Weiss’s elaborate textual study of the Apocalypse. ‘The results are as follows :— From ® sole, Tischendorf adopts its reading of i. 11 (Zuspvav; also ii.8); 4.15 (mervpopéry); ii.19 (om. cov) ; v.11 (ins. ds) ; v.13 (om. [4] gore); vi. 18 (Bdddovea); ix. 11 (ins. $); 2 (Aedvrov); xvi 6 (aipara) 5 xviii, 12 (uapyapirév); xxi, 27 (8 woudv); xxii. 8 (BXéwav Kat dxoser) ; xxii. 15 (moudv nal giddy) ; xxii. 18 (a? abzdv 5 @eds). Of these, one only (uapyaperay) is accepted by Westcott and Hort (not without doubt), and by Weiss (andoubtingly).* Apart from these places, Weiss admits into his text moujoes (for woujay, xiii. 15) from ¥ alone, with confidence (as in the former case)* ; Westcott and Hort, to their margin only ; and with the same or similar uncertainty they give the above readings of v. 11, v. 13, 2, xxi. 27; and also read with 8, xi. 4 (&bmov without art.); xiii. 10 ‘ * Such instances are :—tor N, with 36, xix. 17; with 88, xvi. 15: A, with 86, xvi.4; with 98, xv, 12; xxi. 6:—for P, with 70, xix. 10, See farther, p. lai and Appendix, List 11, 1 and 2. * Seo egy for Bj ic 18; H. 215 fil. 8:—for A, ii 225 iv. 75 vil. @:—for O, xiii. 175 xviil 28; for P, xviii 11. So also in some of the places in last note, See farther, p.Ixiv. * For the reasons stated, note to p. xlv, 1 do not refer to Lechmann’s edition. ‘Those of Gricsbach (1774—1806) and Scholz (1830-36) were likewise formed too early for our purpose. * Die Johannet.pokalypas (in Gebbardt and Harnack’s Teste u, Untersuchungen, VIL. Bs eft i.), Leipzig, 1891. * Seo Weiss, pp. 128, 131.lit INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. (dmoxreiver) ; xiv. 8 (om. dyyehos). But they adopt unreservedly, xxii, 21 (ray dylwv without wévrav), From A sole, Tischendorf adopts ds évOpdirov, iv. 7; omission of has, v.95 dfs, v.12; é€wHev (for ew), xi. 2; repetition of es alxpalwotar, xiii. 10; dvOpemos eyévero, xvi. 18; abrfs, xvii. 4; weOtovear ex, xvii. 6; Ereoey (bis), xviii, 2; omission of dnd rod @cod, xx. 9; yéyovar, xxi. 6; révrov without ray dye, xxii. 21; omission of dyjv, xxii. 21. Tn all these places Weiss concurs, except xi. 2 (where he prefers the reading of Q); and he adopts moreover from A the omission of atrod, ii. 18; dori without 4, v, 13; omission of the second Sid, vi. 9; dvarohay, vii, 2 and xvi. 12; kal for the first prjre, vii. 8; eBoy Sydov wodsy, vii. 9; xal for 5y, ib; dorparat before guvai, viii. 5; omission of airois, xi. 12; loxvoe, xii. 8; Bavancbjoovra, xiv.10; dmdye, xvii. 8; of dnl, xix. 9; omission of rd before xia, xx. 6; insertion of airév @cés, xxi. 9; dyé cus, xxi. 6; Bvopév before vérov, xxi. 13; insertion of xai after Soy, xxi,16; é for éxi, xxii.16. Westcott and Hort agree with Tischendorf as to xi. 2, and with both Tischendorf and Weiss as to iv. 7, v.9, xiii. 10, xvii. 4, xvii. 6, xviii. 2, xxi. 6 (yéyovay), xxii. 21 (om. duyjy) ; also (doubt- fully) v. 12, xvi. 18, xx. 9, They admit moreover, but with doubt, the readings accepted by Weiss (as above) of ii. 18, vii. 2, vii. 3, viii. 5, xii. 8, xvi. 12, xvii, 8, xix. 9, xx. 6, xxi. 3, xxii. 16. Of the A-readings which the other two editors reject, they adopt 7 for ris, ii. 8, ii. 18; omission of recodpay, ix.13: and they mark in their text as doubtful, or place on their margin, about a dozen more. From C sole, but two readings appear to have been received, and that into but one edition (Westcott and Hort’s), and with doubt :—omission of final dyfp (vii. 12), and 08 (for ofre) perenéqoay (ix. 20). In the margin of the same edition two C-readings also are noticed :—éyere (ii. 10) ; omission of ért (ii. 14). From P sole, no variant has been received into any of these three editions, except (doubtfully) by Westcott and Hort, the omission of én’ (xxii. 5): but all three adopt the interpunction after dx’ dpri (xiv. 13),* and after obxére (xviii. 11), for which it is the only uncial authority. From Q sole, Tischendorf adopts aiyara, xviii. 24; airg, xxi. 6: Weiss, ee, xi. 2; Exor, xvii. 85 papyapirais, xviii. 16; 8 @eds én? avrdv, xxii. 18: * Tn this placo, XA C stand noutral, and Q alone opposes P.STUDY OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. it Westcott and Hort, the last only ; but (doubtfully) pov, ii. 7; ys, v. 45 4 (before per’ airod), xix. 20; Xpwrod, xxii. 21; and a few other + Qreadings. In nearly all these, Q has large cursive support. It is clear then that A is, from this point of view, pre-eminent among the MSS. Of its 81 singular readings, Westoott and Hort adopt 13, and admit with reserve more than twice as many more. Weiss adopts 31. Even Tischendorf accopts 13,—a larger proportion than of those of his own MS., 8 (15 of 115). The other two editors, as we have seen, admit hardly any reading on the sole testimony of &, or of C, P, or Q. In eight places, A stands as the sole MS. witness for readings, including some of the highest importance, which all the critical editions above cited concur in accepting; whereas not one place can be found in which any other MS. holds such @ position of authority. In three other places there is a like unanimity in ite favour, qualified only by notes of doubt in the edition of ‘Westcott and Hort. But ono such instance appears where X is the sole witness, and not one for any of the other three. ‘Thus it is from A alone of the five that the toxt has received independent contributions towards its rectification, appreciable in number and in value Of it alone we can affirm that, where it stands as sole witness, it is signally right so often ‘as to indicate the presence in it of an element of peculiar value and of probebly primitive authority. 4, Summary of results as to the MSS. severally. ‘To sum up:— Of the threo older MS8., C, and of the two later ones, P, exhibit on the whole a more fairly normal uncial text than the others do; the deviations of © being due mainly to deficiencies on the part of, the scribe; those of P mostly to the influence of @ distinct type of text. The remaining three deviate much more largely. Q is a lato MS. with a text studiously conformed throughout by a careful hand to that cursive type which in P appears only to limited extent, and from which A and X, and still more, C, are in the main free. ¥, over and above its abounding errors of negligence, presents a text, ancient undoubtedly, but far from being + Ie ia to be borne in mind that I restrict our examination to tho variants which are pereeptiblo in 8. If T were to include variations in orthography and grammar, the case for ‘A would be alll stronger. It exhibite many archaic forms, evidently retained from tho primitive text, which tho other MSS. have Tot. aliv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. purely representative of the uncial consent,—debased, rather, by admixture of an alien clement of unknown but early origin. A excels the rest in this, that it alone is characterized by singular readings which are to be accepted, not as divergencies from a standard text, but as survivals of the primitive and authentic text whence its brethren have diverged. NOTE PREFATORY TO CHAPTER IV. If the missing part of C wore fecorere, it in promumable that most, if not al, of the numerical Aetails ofthe following Chapter would be modified. (2) Tho readings attested by C alone would be probably increased from 7 to 11 or 13.— (2) OF the 72 attested by RX slone, 82 occur where C fails; some of these, therefore, would probably be tranetrred to the group XC. Similarly; of the 27 of A, of the 18 of P, and of the 40 of Q, many would pass to A.C, CP, CQ, respectively.—(8) Of the groupe 8 A (13 instances), RP (11), RAG, AP (13), AQ (14), PQ (15), for like reasons as above, many would be transferred to NAC, NOP, NCQ, ACP, ACQ, CPQ.—(4) The groups NAP, RAQ, NPQ, APQ, number respectively 45, 10, 20, 12. Many transfers would be made from these to NACP, RACQ, ROPQ, ACPQ—{S) An instance of the group RAPQ, in a place ‘where C fails, might be changed into an instance of all MSS. concurring, and would thus pass ‘out of our total list. But in point of fact, no such instance occur. ‘Hence it follows: (2) That the total mumber of 688 instances would probably bo increased by a few singular readings ot C; possibly to 542 or 543.—(2) That, as regards hoad 8, against this small increase in it, due to ©, would be set a dvcreaso under cach of the other heads; the result being that the instances under head 8 would be on the whole diminishod in number—(3) That, es regards hhead +, the four binary groupe containing © would cach reccive an increase (corresponding to the decrease affecting 8, A, P, Q, severally, undor head 8); while the remaining six groups ‘would be diminished. Under this head, then, as under 8, there would probably be a decrease ‘on the whole.—(4) That, es reganls heed , the doorease under the six binary groups which exclude C would appear in the form of an increase in the six ternary groupe containing C; while ‘each of the remaining four (RAP, RAQ, NPQ, APQ) would be diminished. But the range of probable diminution is very large in APQ, and much larger in NAP; and itis therefore doubtful ‘whether, on the whole, the number of ternary groups would be increased or deoreased.—(5) That, ‘as rogurds head «, there would be an increase in the four groups which include C; and against ‘this increase there would be no counter-decrease under RATPQ (seo above). ‘Thus (finally), the total number of cases would be increased, to a posible maximum of nearly 645; the distribution under each head would be altered, with the general result that the number under each of the heads &, y, (B doubtful) would be decreased, but under head a largely increased ; and the postion of C, as tho most frequent constituent of the groupe, especially ‘the quaternary, and as the most constant representative of the normal uncial text, would be rather strengthened.THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. Ww CHAPTER Iv. ‘THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. I wow apply myself to test the text that underlies S by comparing it with the text of the MSS, collectively in groups, and severally, by means of the appended collection of readings (list I, Appendix, pp. exxv, ag.) on which this investigation is based. ‘This list enables us to exhibit the facta of the caso in a numerical form. It sets forth (as above stated, pp. xlii, xliii) in 588 places where tho evidence of S is available, all the noteworthy variants which have more or less divided uncial ovidence, none being omitted which even one uncial attests, if corroborated by any appreciable evidence of cursives, or by a Latin or Syriac version, or if approved by sufficient critical authority. —Numerical Expression of Amount of Agreement between § and each MS. I find that in these 538 places— 8 agrees with Q 218 times: #0 that in nearly three-fifths (320) of the cases before us it is, opposed to Q. 8 agrees with P 285 times; so that tho cases where it is opposed to P are but 253—considerably lees than half (-47) of the whole number.* S agrees with A 290 times; the cases of agreement being very slightly more, and those of disagroement (248, being “46 of the whole) as slightly less, than are shown by P. 8 agrees with X 830 times. Here, therefore, 8 finds most support, and the cases of disagreement are 208, less than two-fifths of the whole. 8 agrees with C (which I take last in order because of the rectifi- cation needed by its figures) 198 times, But inasmuch as in 196 of the places in our list C is wanting, and is forthcoming therefore for but 342 + Theso figures require alight correction, inasmuch ax P is wanting in rather more than twenty of the 538 places, heWi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. of them, it appears that we are to compare these 198 cases with a total of 342 only; in other words, that if the MS. were entire, the 198 would be increased to something over 310. The proportion of agreement with S, therefore (so far as can be judged from the extant part of C), is consider- ably higher (about 58 per cent.), and that of disagreement correspondingly lower (about 42 per cent.), for C than for any of the others, except 8, which it closely approaches. F ‘This result is not, however, to be absolutely relied on, for we cannot be sure that the amount of agreement with S was as great in the lost parts of C as in the extant parts (see above, p. liv). The result, then, of the comparison of S with the uncials (setting C aside for the moment because of the uncertainty that attaches to ite statistics) is, that S has the marimum of uncial support from 8, and the minimum from Q: the instances of agreement being over 61 per cent. for 8, and under 41 for Q, out of the total list of 588 readings; while the percentage for P is nearly 58 and that for A a shade highor—nearly 54. [That for C is probably intermediate between that for X and that for A.] ‘Thus Q is the only MS. for which it is under 50 per cont. TI.— Variation of this Amount according to Group-dis tribution of the MSS. This comparison may be pressed farther, and fuller results may be obtained, by examining our list, and classifying the readings it records according as they are soverally attested by one, two, three, or four MSS. "The 588 places on the list, when thus classified, fall into four divisions, as follows" Cass (a)—Where four MSS. agree with 8, ée., where it is supported by quaternary groups ; of which places there are, in all, 141. OF these, the largest proportion, 66 (nearly one-half of the whole number) belong to the group 8 ACP, i, the one group which excludes Q; leaving 75 to the groups into which Q enters, of which 18 belong to NACQ, 9 to RAPQ, 26 to NCPQ, 22 to ACPQ. Cass (8)—Where three MSS. agree with S, i.e, where the groups are ternary; of which cases there are, in all, 127. Under this head the figures yicld a result similer to (but more marked ‘+ The reader who is not disposed to go into numerical details may omit this section (II), and ‘poss on to section IIL, in which he will find the results summed up.‘THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. sit than) that found under (a), so far as this, that much more than half— almost three-fifths—belong to groups which exclude Q, as follows.—To group RAC, 7 belong; to NAP, 45; to NCP, 5; to ACP, 18; in all, 75: ‘as against 52 belonging to groups containing Q, vis. 10 to NAQ; 2 to RCQ; 2 toNPQ; 4 to ACQ; 12 to APQ; 4toCPQ. Cass (y)—Where two MSS. agree with 8, i.e., where they give it their support in pairs; of which there are, in all, 106, Here we are met by a different result. Of these pairs, those into which Qenters are not far from equal in number with those which exclude it, 51 against 55. Of the latter class, the pair XA numbers 13; XC, 5; RP, 11; AG, 12; AP, 13; CP, 1. Of the former, XQ, 21; AQ, 14; CQ, 1; PQ 1b. Cunss (8).—Where but one MS. agrees with S, of which the instances are 164 in all. . Here, as under (y), Q stands high, the readings which it alone of the ‘MSS. supports being 40, largely exceeding those supported by A, which are but 27, or by P and C, which are but 18 and 7 respectively. But a new fact comes now to light as regards 8, which under this head proves to stand highest, supporting S in no less than 72 instances. Reverting now to the totals (as given above, p. Iv) of agreements between S and 8 AC PQ severally, we find that the figures, when rearranged in view of the group-distribution, yield for each MS. the following results:— OF the 218 readings in which $ agrees with Q: 75 belong to the quaternary groups (8 ACQ, 18; RAPQ, 9; NCPQ, 26; ACPQ, 22): 52 to the ternary (RAQ, 10; CQ, 2; NPQ, 20; ACQ, 4; APQ, 12; OPQ, 4): 51 to the binary (8Q, 21; AQ, 14; CQ, 1; PQ 15). In 40, Q stands apart from the rest. Of the 285 agreements of 8 with P; 123 are in the quaternary groups (SACP, 66; RAPQ, 9; RCPQ, 26; ACPQ, 22); 104 in the ternary (RAP, 45; ROP, 5; 8PQ, 20; ACP, 18; APQ, 12; CPQ, 4); 40 in the binary (XP, 11; AP, 18; CP,1; PQ, 15). In 18, P stands alone. Of the 290 agreements of S with A: 115 are in the quaternary groups (ACP, 66; NACQ, 18; RAPQ, 9; ACPQ, 22); 96 in the ternary (RAG, 7; NAP, 45; RAQ, 10; ACP, 18; ACQ, 4; APQ, 12); 52 in the binary (8A, 13; AC, 12; AP, 18; AQ, 14). In 27, A stands alone.Wilt INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. Of the 330 agreements oS with 8: 119 are in the quaternary groups (RACP, 66; RACQ, 18; RAPQ, 9; RCPQ, 26); 89 in the ternary (RAC, 7; RAP, 45; RAQ, 10; NCP, 5; NCQ, 2; NPQ, 20); 50 in the binary (8A, 13; XC, 5; XP, 11; RQ, 21). In 72, Nstands alone. Of the 198 agreements of 8 with C: 132 are in the quaternary groups (XA CP, 65; RACQ, 18; RCPQ, 26; ACPQ, 22); 40 in the ternary (RAC, 7; ROP, 5; NCQ, 2; ACP, 18; ACQ, 4; CPQ, 4); 19 in the binary (RC, 5; AC, 12; CP, 1; CQ, 1). In7, C stands alone. [The probable corrected totals will be (see above, p. liv)—Agreements, 311: quaternary, 207 ; ternary, 63; binary, 30; sole, 11.] If, again, wo examine our four classes, a, 8, y, 8, to ascertain how the five MSS, severally stand in each class, we find the following results :— For the above 141 cases where the groupe are quaternary (class a): Q agrees with § in but 75 cases; P in 123; A in 115; 8 in 119; C in 192. ‘Thus in this class, 8 and A are nearly on a par as supporters of S; P but a trifle above them ; Q is considerably the lowest of all, and C the highest, even in its incomplete state [if it were complete, the figure would pre- sumably exceed 200, as above]. For the above 127 cases where the groups are ternary (class B):— Q agrees with S in but 52 cases; Pin 104; A in 96; 8 in 89; Cin 40 (corrected, 63]. Thus 8 and A change places, but keep protty close together, and P not much above; Q being still distinctly the lowest: but C now falls below 8, A, P, the highest place belonging in this class to P. For the above 106 cases where the groups are binary (class ):— Q in this class stands among the first, agreeing with S in 51 cases; Pin 40; Ain 52; Xin 50; Cin 19 (corrected, 30]. Thus 8 and A are even closer together than before; but P is' now distinctly below them, and C still lower than in class 8; while Q has passed from the lowest, to almost the highest place,—by a shade higher than ® and lower than A. In this class the figures for the several MSS. aro less unequal than in a or B, except for C, which even as corrected is far behind the rest; but A is slightly first. For the above 164 cases where the MSS. stand single (class 8):— Q appears in this class as agreeing with S in 40 cases; P in 18; A in 27; 8 in 72, far exceeding the rest; C in but 7 (corrected, 11],THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. tix far the lowest number. Thus ¥ has in this class parted company with A, and now heads the list; Q following, though at a long interval; then A; then P; and finally C. . IIL—Analysis of the Figures arrived at in II. We are now in a position to analyze the figures above arrived at, and thus to prepare for interpreting their import as regards the relation borne by the MSS. severally to 8. In the case of Q, the total of its agreement with 8, which as we have seen is much less than for any one of the other MSS. (218 instances), would be small indeed, if it were not more strongly represented (relatively to the others) in classes y and 8 than it is in classes a and A. In other words, S tends towards Q with greater relative frequency where Q stands alone or as one of a pair of MSS., than where it stands in a ternary or quaternary group. In the case of P, the results stand in sharp contrast to those arrived at for Q. Not only does the total of its agreement with $ (285 instances) largely exceed that of Q, but it shows its highest figures where Q is lowest, in the temary and quaternary classes, and its lowest where Q is highest, in the class of pairs and in that of single instances,—dropping very abruptly as one passes from the two former classes to the two latter. ‘Thus the support of P to Sis relatively much more frequent where P is one of a ternary or quaternary group, than where it stands apart, or paired with one other MS. ‘The case of A yields results numerically akin to those found for P. The figures are nearly the same as regards the total (200), and are similarly distributed, though not so unevenly, among the four classes, with a drop in passing from a and to y and 8, in the same direction as in case of P, but less in amount, ‘The case of X stands by itself, differing in more than one respect from the rest. For it the total of agreement with S (330) is higher, as we have secn, than for 8, A, P, or Q,—higher probably than even for C; but the distribution of its instances of agreement among the four classes is less unequal than for any other MS. It alone cannot be said to stand low in any one of the four classes ; though not first in a, 8, or y, it keeps close to A in all three classes, and rises far above A and all the rest in thehk INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. fourth ; its preponderance in that class being so great as to overbalance the higher figures attained by other MSS. in the other classes. In the case of C, taking the MS. in its imperfect condition as it stands, the actual amount of agreement with 8 is, as might be expected, less than for any other (198): but if we assume that in the lost parts of it the proportion of agreement was the same as in the extant parts, the corrected total as above, pp. liv, ly, Ivi) will be about 311, little short of the total shown by x, and greater than for any of the rest. As the MS. stands, the distribution of the 198 instances, though similar to that in A and P, shows @ more rapid diminution in passing from the quaternary class (a) downwards, than in A or even P, And when we rectify the Sgures for C, this unevenness of distribution will be enhanced ; for the probable increase of the total number of instances, from 198 to 311, will, as has been shown, fall presumably in class a mainly. Thus for ©, if entire, it would pro- bably be found that its agreements with S, which in class 8 are fewer even than for P, would in class « be almost as many as for 8. IV.—Interpretation of numerical Results. ‘These numerical results, thus analyzed, give us an insight into the relation borne by 8 to the text of the five MSS. severally. 1. § with Q—The text of this MS. is, as has been shown above, of a type distinct from that in which the other four uncials tend to consent, and coincides largely with what may be styled the cursive text. The facts now established, of the relation between Q and 8, are:—That S agrees less frequently with Q than with any of the other four ; that with Q alone its agreements are less numerous than its disagreements; that this comparative infrequency of agreement lies chiefly in the classes where Q occurs in combination with two or three of its brethren ; but that, where Q stands alone among the MSS., or with but one other of them, 8 shows a relatively larger tendency to side with Q, and that the number of cases where S thus sides with Q (usually supported by many mes.) against the rest is considerable. It follows, therefore, that, on the whole, the toxt of S is mainly of the uncial type; that its adhesion to this type is most manifest where the MSS. are most agreed inter se; but that into it there enters an admixture, of secondary but appreciable amount, of a text of the Q-type. 2. 8 with P.—The text in this case we-have found to be of normal‘THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. Ist uncial type, with but few individualisms. To it, therefore, as such, § in the main keeps pretty close; closest where the uncial consent approaches most nearly to unanimity. Where P stands alone, S is but seldom with it. 3. 8 with C.—The text of C is, as we have seen, more purely repre- sentative of the average uncial than even P, or any other; and it is, of the five, marked by the least proportion of individualisms. In the class of instances where four MSS, concur, C is the one which supports § more fully than ony other MS.; less fully than any other (very rarely indeed) in the class where the MSS. stand singly. Thus the case of C is similar to that of P, but more strongly marked. As a MS. representative of the average uncial text, it supports S more strongly, as an individual MS. less strongly, than any other of the five. 4. $ with A.—Numerically, the results in this case are closely akin to those we have found for the two preceding, except that the coincidences of § with the singular readings of A, are less infrequent than with those of C or P. And when we recall the fact (see above, pp. lii, liii), that many of these singular readings of A are of special value, tending, not as in case of Q, downward in the direction of a more recent form of the text, but upward towards a form more archaic than that of the average uncial, and presumably primitive, we are led to inquire whether 8 has retained any of these important readings. On examination, it proves to exhibit the following —r@ for ris, ii. 8 and ii. 18; omission of airod, dvOpémov, iv. 7; dfios, v.12; dvaroddy (plural), vii. 2 and xvi. 1 dxdov modty, vii. 9; uber, xi. 2; els alxyahuotay repented, airs (for ris yijs), xvii. 4; weOdovoay ex, xvii. 6; Sadyes, x repeated, xviii. 2; insertion of of before édn@woi, xix. 9; omission of rd Defore xAua, xx. 6; yéyovay, xxi. 6 ;—also (nearly) insertion of abraiv @cés, xxi, 8. S thus goes with A in an appreciable number of its most notable and approved singular readings (see especially note on xxi. 6, p. 49 infr.). 5. 8 with &—This is, a8 we have seen, an exceptional MS.; and we have seon that its relations with 8 are exceptional likewise. It exhibits a text fundamentally at one with the consent of ACP, yet with a large alloy of foreign and inferior metal. And 8, as has been shown, agrees with it, on the whole, more extensively than with any other, the excoss of agree- ment lying chiefly in the class of eases where 8 diverges in a direction away from the rest. That is to say, S agroes with 8, not only in so far as 8 represents the average uncial, but (largely) in the individualisms, often .lxii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. eccentric, which characterize 8. In fact, there are a few instances where the singular readings of 8 would hardly be worth recording, were it not that, though otherwise unsupported, or nearly so, they reappear in S: such ‘as—insertion of dvai, ii. 20; insertion of dca, v. 5 [also Latin Vulgate] ; Yuyjv (for plural), viii. 9; pvpedSas (for nominative), ix. 16 [also ¥]; & $6By for gudoBor, xi. 13 (also lat, of Primasius) ;comission of kal 6 épipis avzoi, xiii. 18; Siaxootuy for eFaxoctwr, xiv. 20 [also ms. 26]; insertion of atrév, xxi. 12. I omit many examples where the variation is more minute, or where it is supported by one or two mas., or by 3, or by a Latin version, or by some combination of such. None of the above has been adopted from ® by any editor: but of the fow other singular readings of 8 so adopted, with or without doubt (see p. li), 8 agrees in Zprpvay (for Zp.), i. 11, ii. 18; memvponéry, i. 15; insertion of ds, v. 11; Bddovea, vi. 13; insertion of , ix. 11; dedvrav, xiii. 2; dmoxretver, xiii. 10; moujorer, xii 15; papyapsrav, xviii, 12; moudy, xxi. 27; BMéwuv wal dxovwy, xxii. 8; én’ airbv 6 @eés, xxii. 18. In some of these, X has considerable support also from mss,, Latin versions, or 2. To sum up:— S is in the main a witness to the normal uncial text; but not altogether such. It is @ mixed text, into which two main components enter, in unequal proportion: the larger component being a text adhering to the consent of 8A CP (or the majority of them), and the smaller component fa text agreeing with Q and the cursives. But in the larger component there is not uniformity in its adhesion to the uncials severally. In so far as it is simply normal, it koeps closest to C and P, especially the former ; but it is now and then abnormal ina direction where A, or moro frequently R, leads it. ‘Thus, where it loaves 8, A, C, and P for Q, it passes from the uncial to the cursive typo; where it leaves A, C, P for X, it tends to an aberrant form of text, and is so far discredited as sharing in the eccentricity of 8; where it leaves ¥, C, P for A, it often appears to revert to a more authentic and probably primitive tradition, and shares, s0 far, in the credit that attaches to A as the MS. that on the whole proserves most faithfully the archetypal text.‘THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. _Ixiii ‘V.—Farther Examination of the comparative Relations of 8 with Greek Texts. The comparison in value between the attestation of S by 8 and by A may be carried further by examining the 8 Q and AQ groups. Of the 21 8 Q readings of S, Weiss accepts but five. Of these, Westeott and Hort admit but two, certainly; the other three (with four more), doubtfully—nine in sll. Tischendorf, biassed (as before noted) in favour of R, accepts eight of these nine with three more—eleven in all. ‘There remain nine, unanimously rejected from all three editions. But of its A Q readings, bit 14 in all (all having ample cursive or Latin support), one only (the second insertion of ré dvdpara in xxi. 12), though supported by good mss. and by the Vulgate, is unanimously and without question rejected by our editors, Weiss rejects two more, adopting eleven in ell. These two, with a third, Westcott and Hort mark as doubtful, adopting nine with certainty. Tischendorf adopte six in all. So far, then, as these instances go, the contrast established between the XQ and the AQ groups points the same way as the contrast previously shown to exist between the class of cases where 8, and the class where A, is the sole uncial support of S. On the one hand, the 21 8Q readings of S indicate that it goes with X in deviating towards the text of Q and the cursives; on the other hand, its rarer AQ readings (14) represent, for the most part, the exceptional retention by 8, together with Q and its satellites, of the authentic text, for which A is the main authority. Again, comparing inter se the binary groups in which S has P for one of its supporters (8 P, A P, PQ), we find further confirmation of the above results. The PQ readings of S are 15. Tischendorf adopts five of these, of which two only are received into Westcott and Hort’s text; but they admit besides (with doubt) three of those which Tischendorf passes by. Weiss adopts four, agreeing with Tischendorf as to two only; with Westcott and Hort only as to one of those two, and one which they place on their margin. Thus the threo editions concur in rejecting six; in absolutely accepting only one. It follows, therefore, that P, even more decidedly than 8, so far as it sides with Q, is somewhat disparaged as a supporter of the text of 8. * ‘The readings of 8 that are confirmed by combination with P meet with more approval from our critics. ‘There are 11 such readings. Of 12lriy INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. these, three are adopted by Weiss (the omission of éyé, v. 4; Barhesoovet, ¥. 10; per’ airod 4, xix. 10), the first and third of which Westcott and Hort also admit, but doubtfully. Four more they admit also doubtfully, absolutely rejecting the remaining five. Tischendorf rejects three of these five, with one other, and adopts seven in all, including Weiss’s three. Thus, there are threo of these readings which all agree in rejecting; and there is not one accepted without reserve by all. Some of them have Latin support. But as regards the readings of S that belong to group AP (13 in all), the critics approach much more nearly towards agreement. Two of them they all reject (Yuxpés before {eorés in ifi. 16; the insertion of xal Mewtonuévon aftr meiparos dxaBdprov in xviii. 2). All the remaining eleven, Weiss accepts; as do Westcott and Hort (with doubt as to three of them): Tischendorf rejects five of them. ‘Thus thore remain six unani- mously accepted. The conclusion yielded by the above comparison is, then, that P, as a supporter of &, is strongly accredited so far as it is confirmed by A; but less strongly where it is confirmed by 8; and that it is, on the whole, discredited by the more frequent instances where it agrees with Q. The relation borne by the S-toxt to that of the uncials, collectively, in ‘groups, or severally, might be discussed farther ; but enough has been now said to establish the general conclusions above stated as to the text which our translator had before him, or formed for himeelt. It is to be added that, of the cursives 36, 38, 79, 87 above referred to (p. li), with which may be joined 1, 7, 28, 35, 49, 91, 95, 96, 152, some support 8 in conjunction not only with 8 or A, but with some other one of the MSS., or with one or more Latin texts, against the remaining MSS., and all or nearly all mss. Sometimes S stands with one or more of these against all other Grock copies, or even against all other authorities, Greek and Latin Of this perhaps the most notable instanco is its agreement with 152 in the interpolation in ii. 13, for which see note in loc. “The relations of 8 with these mss., especially 36, 98, 95, deserve to be examined more fully. ‘And ifthe text to which the Comnenary of Andreas is atached, were avaiable ina trustworthy ‘hrm, o comparison with it to would be important (we note oa Grock text of vii 12). 1 have noticed nine cases where 38 in the ale Greck supporter of 8, seron where 95, three ‘where 26; also twenty where 8 aad S have with them but fow mas, and no MS.; twenty -throeTHE GREEK TEX! UNDERLYING THE VERSION S. lew VI.—Relations of & with the Latin Versions severally. In pursuing this investigation, it is important to examine the support which the S-text finds in the Latin versions—Old, and Vulgate. 1. S with Latin and MS. support—On this part of the subject I have touched more than once in the preceding discussion; and in list I (Ap- pendix, pp. oxxy, #99.), the Vulgate (both Amiatine and Clementine), and both forms of the Old Latin, appoar throughout among the textual witnesses cited. Without going into detail, or classifying the Latin texts into groups, as I have done in examining the evidence of the Grock MSS., it will suffice in the first instance to state summarily that, out of the 588 instances entered in this list, $ hes the support of the Vulgate in more than 300 (in 317 if wo take as standard the Amiatine text, as I shell do throughout; if the Clementine, in 382); of the European Old Latin (g) in nearly as many (804) ; of the African (pr) less frequently (in 267)* In nearly 100 of them none of theso Latin texts is with S. 2. 8 with Latin support against all MSS.—Again, in the 215 instances of list IT (pp. exli—exliii) in which $ is against all MSS., there are 124 (II, 1 and 3) in which it is supported by one or more of the Latin texts. The Valgate is with it in about 50 of these (am, 44; cl, 55). But for the Old Latin the facts are noteworthy. In list II, pr, which we found to be lowest in list I, stands far ahead of the others, sapporting S in 82 instances (two- thirds of the entire number) ; while g stands much on the same level as the Vulgate, supporting S in but 47. Farther; of those instances, the number in which pr is the only Latin text that agrees with 8, amounts to 36: while for g it is but 9, for the Vulgate, but 10 or 12. Moreover, of these 86, there aro but 10 in which pr has any Greek support (that of a few mss., some- times of but one); but 6 in which = is with it; and there remain 20 in which the combination pr § stands alone, opposed to the consent of all whore 36 and 8. Of the uncials, 8 is found with 38 and 8, against all else, four timos; with 36 and § threo times: A with 38 and S once. Both NX and A now and then have somo other sole ims. with thom and 8. : * Ita to be bomen mind that no comparison can properly be made between theso figures and those which show tho amount of agreement between S and the MSS. soverally (above, p. Iv). In the 588 cases hero used as basis of calculation, no account is taken of the cases whore 8 differs from the Latin texte, with or against the content of the unciale, Within the range of theee 538, ‘we may cafely compare MS. with MS., or Latin toxt with Latin text, but not MS. with Latin, as regards extent of agreement with 8.lav INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. other authorities—Greek, Latin, and Syriac: whereas the like combination g § occurs unsupported but 4 times, and og S but 3 times. In other words, the Vulgate and g, though they agree very largely with S in company with one or more of the uncials, very seldom do so when it has little or no Greek support: while pr, though it stands markedly below the other forms of the Latin in amount of agreoment with S in the former class of cases, is far above them in the latter class—the class, namely, of subsingular readings. It thus appears that pr, standing thus lowest in the one class, and highest in the other, tends farther than do g and the Vulgate to deviate from the uncial text, or any uncial-attested form of text, into a line of its own; and moreover, that in this line it has, to an appreciable extent, S as the companion of its deviations. The interpretation of the facts thus ascertained seems to be: on the one hand, that (1) the coincidences between S and the Vulgate, or the European (g) type of Old Latin, form (for the most part) no reliable addition to the results already obtained from our examination of S in its affinities with the MSS.; but may be illusory, resulting merely from the common relation borne by the Syriac and the Latin to known forms of Greck text, represented in one or more of the extant uncials. And, on the other hand, that (2) the coincidences between § and the African (pr) type of Old Latin, are real tokens of affinity traceable to a common source apart from all known MSS., a very ancient type of text, attested often by no extant Greek copy, or at most by one, two, or threo cursives, of which type, in not a few cases, S and pr are thus the sole surviving represen- tatives. 8. 8 with cach several combination of MS. with Latin version. —It is worth while, however, to revert to list I, in order to ascertain how far each Latin text shares with $ its inclination towards, or against, this or that form of text as presented by the uncials severally. The figures prove to be as follows, for each MS. so far as it agrees with $:— For 8; the combination og R occurs 202 times, g 8, 200; pr &, 17: For A the figures are: og A, 222; g A, 197; pr A,176. For P, ug P, 208; 9 P, 201; pr P, 169. For Q: 19.Q, 181; 9 Q, 133; pr Q, 115. “T havo aui, for tho most part,” because in a few iostanoes the unsupported coincidences of g at least with 8, veem to betoken a common source distinct from all extant Greck. See ‘eepocially xii, 10, and notes on Greok text there ; and xvii, 12 (rior).THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. Ikvii I proceed to consider the questions which are suggested, and may be answered, by these figures. We have seen above that Q represents to a great extent a typo of text distinct from that of the other MSS., and that S tends to the latter rather than to the former. The question then arises, Do the Latin texts tend towards the Q-type, or (like S) away from it? Let us compare the cases of Q and A. We have seen (p. lv) that, out of the 538 instances of list I, 8 is with Q tiree-fourths as often as with A. If then the tendency of the Latin texts was uniform as between ‘A and Q, in supporting 8, the combinations 1 Q, 9 Q, pr Q would be three-fourths of the corresponding combinations xg A,g A, pr A. But the proportion actually found to subsist is much less than three-fourths, about two-thirds; and for og Q especially, it is under three-fifths the amount for uy A. ‘A comparison of the cases of Nand P with that of Q leads to similar results somewhat less marked in degree. Wo infer then that the Latin texts, especially the Amiatine Vulgate, within the range of the agreement of $ with the uncials, tend to follow the Q-type to a less extent than the type of the other uncials, especially the type represented by A. We have seen (p. Ixi) that 8 contains an aberrant clement, shared to an appreciable extent by 8. Does this X-clement appear in the Latin toxts ? 8, as has been shown, is much more frequently with X than with any other MS. Then, as before, if the tendency of the Latin, in supporting S, were uniform as between ® and the other MSS., wo should find 2g 8, 9 8, pr, far outnumbering the like combinations for A and P sovorally, as well ‘as for Q. But the above figures show that rg A largoly and og P slightly outnumber ty 8, while g 8, pr 8, are about on a par with g A, pr A, g P, prP. Itis probable, therefore, that the Latin texts, while sharing with 8 ita general affinity to the normal uncial text, tend, not like S, towards the N-type of that text, but rather towards that of P; or, till more, towards that of A—the tendency towards the A-type being most marked in the Vulgate. ‘Tho relation of the Latin texts to 8, A, and Q, severally (putting aside P as less important and showing fewer characteristic features), will be more distinetly discerned if we confine our observation to the cases where one of these MSS. is the sole uncial supporter of 8. ‘These caves number 72 forInvi, INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. 8; 40 for Q; 27 for A:—that is, the concurrence of § with the subsingular readings of A is little more in amount than one-third of its concurrence with the subsingular readings of 8, and barely over two-thirds of its concurrence with those of Q. But when wo examine how far the Latin, Old or Vulgate, gocs with 8 in this respect, we find— In the 72 subsingular R-readings: og 8, 9 times; g 8, 18 times; pr 8, 12 times. In the 27 subsingular A-readings; og A, 14 times; g A, 7 times; pr A, 12 times. In the 40 subsingular Q-readings; 1g Q, 12 times; g Q, 15 times; pr Q, 13 times. It thus appears from this comparison that none of the Latin texts concurs, as they might all have been expected to do, nearly three times more frequently with ¥ than with A. On the contrary, the Vulgate tenda largely towards A rather than N; the African Old Latin (pr) equally towards both ; while the European Old Latin (9), which alone inclines to R, does so in a ratio of less than two-fold. As to Q, all the Latin texts agree with it rather more frequently than with ®. As between 8 and A, then, our conclusion is, that, within the range of the readings attested by 8, when those which are peculiar to A among MSS. are compared with these peculiar to 8, a much larger proportion of the former than of the latter prove to have Latin support, that of the Amiatine Vulgate most frequently—of the European Old Latin least frequently. ‘The Latin texts therefore, and especially the Vulgate, share more or less in the credit which (as above shown, pp. xi, Ixii) pertains to S by reason of its concurrence in some of the most distinctive readings of A. And, on the other hand, the Vulgate and the African Old Latin partake very little—and the European Old Latin in no great degree—in the aberrant element akin to 8 which discredits 8, and which (we conclude) was derived from some text unrelated to any known form of the Latin.* ‘A remark of some importance here arises as regards the relation borne by 8 to the Rtext on one side, and on the other, to that represented by pr. We have seen that, as regards concurrence with S in subsingular * A fow interesting and notablo examples will be found in lit I, and in II, (1 and 9), where the Latin texts (or at least one of them—usually pr) stand with 8 in company with one MS. ‘note ®), or with one or two important més.,or with no Greek support. Soe, 0, ii. i. 8; xvili. 12, 14, 20.THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. _Ixix readings, N stands first among the MSS., and pr among the Latin toxts. Now, of the 72 readings in which 8 is the sole MS. supporter of 8, pr concurs in but 12; and of the readings in which pr is the sole Latin supporter of S, 51 in all (15 of list I, 86 of II), 8 concurs in but 9 (alll of course belonging to the 15, the 36 being non-uncial readings). And it proves on examination that, of these 12 N-readings, but one is found among the 9 pr readings. ‘Thus, there is but one reading, among all the 758 (588 + 215) places of lists I and II (1, 2,8), in which pr alone of Latin texts, and 8 alone of MSS., concur in supporting S. This reading is 2 very trivial one—Bdérav Kat dxovev for dxovwr kat Bréruv, xxii. 8; but is confirmed by a few cursives.t From these facts it follows that the two elements of aberrancy by which we have found the text of 8 to be affected, one shared by it with ¥ and the other with pr, prove to be distinct, each from the other. With regard to Q, when we inquire how far the Latin texte support it in the 40 readings where it stands with 8 sole among MSS,, it is to be borne in mind that none of these readings is even subsingular in the full sense, but all are largely confirmed by cursive evidence. Comparing these 40 readings, however, as regards their Latin attestation, with the like 27 readings of A, we find that the former are not in any considerable degree more largely supported than the latter, except as regards the g-text—and that A, in fact, exceeds Q in point of concurrence with the Vulgate text. We may -with some probability infer hence that the Vulgate (in its Amiatine form) admits less, and that the European Old Latin admits more, of the Q-typo into its text than is to be found in 8." It is hardly necessary to explain thet, in thus tracing out the extent of + Als by the Coptic, and by some texts of Andress, and ty Dionysius Alox. (ap. Euscb. IE, vi. 28). "Te may be presumed that the Vulgate, in the Apocalypse as laewhere, isthe result of Jerome's revision of a°form (perhaps European") of the Old Latin. With the African (or Primasian) text it has no special affinity ; and a comparison of it with g shows an extent of Aovintion euch as to prove, either, that the Old Latin known to Jerome differed materially from ‘the type (presumably European) presented by g, or, that he must have remodelled it largely into conformity with his Greck MS. or MSS, The result has certainly been that the Vulgate comes clover than either form of Old Latin to the uneal text. The facts and Sguree given above, as resulting from the comparison betweon A and X, A and Q, lead us to suppose Jerome to have sod a text of the Apocalypse akin to A. in revising hie Old Eatin: while g, on the other hand, seems ta have been somewhat conformed tothe Q-type. ®lax INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. the toxtual affinity that subsists between our Syriac and the Latin texts, T am not to be understood as suggesting it as, even in the lowest degree, probable that our translator was acquainted with any Latin version. ‘There are, no doubt, 75 readings, out of the whole 753 which lists I and II (1, 2, 8) exhibit, for which there is no Greek evidence, but Latin— chiefly that of pr—in many cases unconfirmed by other versions than S. But theso instances can bo satistuctorily accounted for by supposing that the Greck texts which the translator chiefly followed (if he had in his hands more than one), or the chief factor in his Greck toxt (if he had but one), contained certain elements in common with the Greek text, or texts, underlying the Latin versions. ‘VIL—Hypotheses to account for the Facts of the S-text. If then we desire to frame a theory of the formation of the S-text, we shall find that (so far as concerns its relations with the Greck and Latin texts—without taking account of a large amount of aberration, not yet treated of, which is poculiar to 8) the facts as above stated will be sufficiently accounted for by cither of two hypotheses: i, We may suppose our translator to have formed the text for himself, taking os basis one main exemplar, the text of which he modified at his discretion, to the extent of about one-third, by the introduction of readings from a second subsidiary exemplar. Or :— ii, He may have followed the text of a single cxemplar, which toxt was @ composite one—of two factors, a primary and a secondary, the former predominating in the ratio of nearly two to one. In either case, the secondary text was of the common cursive type with Q as its uncial representative: the primary, a text of the normal uncial type, in character intermediate betwoen 8 and A, partaking to some extent in the peculiar aberrancies of the former, and to a less but appreci- able extent in the special excellence of. the latter ; and, like both 8 and A, exhibiting extensive affinity with the texts represented by Latin evidence, but inclining towards the African Latin in its deviations from all uncial, ‘and even from all Greek, authority. To go further back—to inquire how the supposed primary source of the S-toxt came into close relations with texts of Latin attestation, or how it came to share in the divergencies of X, or in the poculiarities of theTHE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. ixxi African Latin where it departs from the Greek and from the other Latin texts—would, I apprehend, be fruitless, or at least premature, in the absence of fuller material for investigation. Of the alternative hypotheses above suggested, I incline to the former. ‘The admixture of the secondary element in $ is not only, as I have said, unequal in amount to the other, but is uneven in distribution ; readings of the Q-type tending to occur in patches, and then not to recur till after a not incousiderable interval. ‘This fact looks like the work of a translator with two copies in his hands: one used habitually ; the other for occa- sional reference only, and unsystematically,—perhaps capriciously, perhaps to clear up places where the sense presented difficulty. It is even an admissible conjecture that he may have noticed passages quoted from a text of the Q-type in some authoritative Greek divine of the fourth or fifth century (in which period that text had become prevalent), and may have endeavoured to conform his text accordingly* in such passages. Tho admixture of tho secondary element, if due to a scribe, would probably have been more uniform, as being more mechanical. ‘VIII.—Relation between the S-text and the E-text. I now pass on to consider the text of S in its relation to that which underlies %. 1. Their extensive agreement-—Directing our examination, in the first instance, to the first list (of the 588 pluces where the uncial evidence is divided), we find that 8 is supported by % in about 350 of theso—not far from two-thirds.” Now, although this list has been made primarily with a view to S, yet in making it I have throughout compared tho ¥-text as well as that of $ with the uncials, us regards both differences and agreements ; and moreover, it is as regards the uncial evidence a completo list We may, therefore, safely accept it as an adequate basis for a comparison * Thus, sn wo lean from Moses of Aghel (Assemani, Biblioth. Orient, tom. 11, p. 83), it ‘was the observation of discrepancies between the Pesbitto text and that of the citations of Cyril of Alexandria trom LXX and N-T,, that led to the revision which beors the name of Philoxenus. Bee p. xeri, infr. *'T take no account here of agreements occurring in i. 1-8, for the reason given above, P xxxv, note: nor in places where the rendering of 2 is indecisive, or its text uncertain. kaxxii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION, between 8 and %, (1) infer ee, and also (2) as regards the relation which each bears to the uncials, soverally or collectively. We learn then from list I that S has an extensive textual affinity with 3, and is nearer to it than to any one of the Greck MSS.; the number of the agreements of S with 8 (the one which comes closest to it) boing but 330, with A 290, and with P 285, against the above 350. ‘This extensive, though by no means universal, textual agreement between, the two versions, is of itself sufficient to suggest the idea that they are textually akin—that, as has already been shown to be on other grounds probable, one of them is in part founded on the other. This inference is confirmed when we turn to list II, 1, 2, 3, (of the 215 readings which have only cursive or Latin attestation), and observe that even in this region where no uncial confirms S, % is with it 52 times. And not only 120, butof the readings (nearly 150; see below, p. Ixxvi) where S hasneither Greek nor Latin support, there are 27 (see list II, 4) where ¥ alone stands by it. Of these 27, few are of textual value; the most notable being, the substitution of Sart for aiyar (viii. 7), of the passive Boj for 8éew [8éo7] (xiii. 16), and of the accusative feminine ras wenchemopévas [2e., uxds] for the genitive masculine (xx. 4). Of the instances in list II, 1, 2,3, a few are remarkable, such as 7G év for rf év (iii. 1), rovrg inserted (xiii. 4), dmdyer for cwvdyer(xiii. 10), ripsov for rysiov (xviii. 12), ds omitted. (xix. 1). The rest, though in themselves sometimes uncertain and not seldom trivial—such as the substitution of plural for singular noun, present for past or future verb (or vice versa)—are collectively of appreciable weight as evidence of affinity between the texts represented by the two versions. 2. Their differences.—The relation, then, between S and ¥ is on the whole one of unmistakable textual affinity. But it is by no means one of simple affinity. Out of the total range of the passages included in lists I and II (780 in all), they read alike in nearly 430, and differ in more than 360 (about 45 per cont.): or, if we confine ourselves to the main list (I), the coincidences are, as we have seen, under two-thirds; the differences exceed one-third, Judged by either method of testing, the figures compel us to * The evidence of a Syriac version i apt to be precarious as to the munber of « noun, or the enue of « verb, inanmuch as the distinction in the Mos. aa written is ofton made merely by a ‘point or pointsTHE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. _Iaxiii conclude that the texts, though not independent, are far from being identical. A natural explanation of this mixed relation is to be found in the hypothesis that one of the two translators, having in his hands the work of the other, and using it as his main basis, yot revised its toxt at his discretion into partial accordance with some other text or toxts—presumably of one or more Greek copies;—in other words, that the later of the two translators of the Apocalypse dealt with the version of his predecessor, as Thomas of Harkel is known to have dealt with the Philoxenian version. If this be so, we may restate the above numerical results as folloy Within the range of the 780 instances collected in our two lists, probably fairly representative of the total text of the Apocalypse as affected by variation, the later translator has retained without change, to a large extent amounting to more’ than one-half, the text followed by the earlier, but has introduced changes also large, though less large, from another source. , 3. Comparative extent of agreement of & and % severally with each MS.— ‘The questions then naturally follow: What is the character of the text of each? Which of the two is the more archaic? And the answers are to be found by instituting the comparison above proposed, between S and & in respect of the affinity borne by each to tho uncials severally. ‘The result then proves to be, that out of the total 538 places of list I., % agrees with Q in nearly 300; with P in a number slightly less; with A in a number slightly greater; with 8 in but 270 or under, With C the agreements exceed 200 [probably to be corrected, as before, to a number exceeding 300]. Comparing then these figures with those already ascertained (p. Iv, 499.) for 8, we learn that, in their relations to A, ©, and P, the two versions do not materially differ inter se. But with regard to 8 and Q the caso is very different. Q, which stands markedly below the rest in the scale of agreement with S, is nearly on a par with A [and Cl, and above P, in the scale of agreement with 3, On the other hand, 8, to which 8 approaches nearest in text, is the one from which ¥ is most remote, The exact facts are as follows, as regards Q, 8, and A. As regards Q:— % is with Q (singly, or in groups including Q) in 298 instances; against Q (with the other MSS., singly, or in groups excluding Q) in 223 ;lasiv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. in the remaining 17 it is ambiguous, or deviates from sll the MSS. Thus its agreement with Q is over 55 per cent.; while that of S is but 40. In nearly every one of the groups which include Q, with few and slight exceptions, the agreements with % are more numerous than with $; whereas in those which exclude Q the reverse holds good. In the two most important groups, ACP, NAP, especially, this fact is conspicuous, the numbers being for E: NACP, 54—against 66 for 8; NAP, 35— against 45 for S. ‘Thus the affinity between the -text and Q is pretty uniformly distributed among the groups. In the class of cases which yields the surest test, that of agreement with one MS. against the rest, the result is even more plainly conclusive : % is with Q slone 63 times; S with Q alone 40 times. From these figures then we draw the inference, that, while 3 resembles Sin having a mixed text, partly agreeing with the normal uncial, partly with that represented by Q against the rest, the admixture of the Q-element is considerably larger throughout in ¥ than in 8. As regards 8: is with 8 (singly or in groups) in 267 instances; against 8 (with the others as before) in 254 (the remaining 17, being set aside as above). Its agreement with ¥ is therefore under 50 per cent. ; as against 61 for S. ‘This deficiency for % occurs for the most part in the groups into which ® enters without Q, and appears in hardly any group which contains Q. % is with B alone but 21 times; whereas the figure for S is 72. ‘The inference here is, accordingly, that in most of the places where 5 se ems to agree with X, its agreement is really with Q, and that the aberrant N-element which marks the text of S is absent, or present in very much diminished amount, in 5. As regards A:— The total number of agreements with A is (as has been above stated) somewhat greater for ¥ than for § (301 for 290). But— ‘This excess is due entirely to the groups in which Q enters with A, notably A CPQ (where ¥ agrees 44 times; 8, 22); APQ (3, 26; 8, 12); AQ(E, 23; 8, 14). % is with A alone 18 times; 8, 27 times.THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8. xxv ‘The inference then is, that though A is with % to an extent somewhat greater numerically than with S, the advantage of ¥ is but apparent: in the class of readings specially characteristic of A, 8 comes closer to it than =. Aa regards P and C:— For P, and (so far as can be judged) for O, the facts are similar to those for A, but exist in a markedly less degree. ‘They are not sufficient to supply grounds for distinguishing between 8 and % as regards their textual relation to these two MSS. 4. Probable Method by which one Text was formed from the other—In the case of % then, we are led by the above facts to conclude that the under- lying text is one which, if we are to regard ¥ as the derivate version and as the primary, has been altered from that of 8 so as to bring it nearer to the Q-type of text, and to set it therefore farther from the text attested by the consent of the better group, 8AC P,—altered, that is, in the direction of deterioration. The author of ¥, therefore, on this hypothesis, had S before him, and modified it extensively into conformity with a Greek copy not much differing from Q.—If on the other hand we accept the converse hypothesis, and regard S as a revised and corrected recension of %, we must suppose a basis-text akin to Q, revised and corrected in the authority of a copy such as 8, A,C, or P—probably approaching nearest to 8, the MS. which shows the closest affinity of text with S, but retaining some important traces of A. The process under this theory must be admitted to have been, on the whole, one of textual improvement. . Yet the transformation, under the latter hypothesis, of ¥ into 8, was not altogether for the better; nor, if the former hypothesis be preferred, was the transformation of $ into & altogether for the worse. For, as wo have seen, ¥ does not follow as $ does the aberrancies of 8; nor do I find that it has, like 8, a considerable number of hardly defensible readings peculiar, or nearly s0, to itself. If then S is a revision of 3, we must own that along with a large amount of better readings it has admitted a considerable, though smaller, amount of worthless ones; if % is a revision of S, it is undeniable that, in parting with much that ought to have been retained, it has rejected not a little that deserved rejection. The total of aberrant element that can be held (on this latter supposition) to have passed from S into %, is represented by 73 instances where ¥ concursIxzvi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. with S in readings which are weakly attested (i.e., without MS. evidenco, or by 8 only;—of which readings S contains 287* in all)—together with the 27 readings in which & alone is with S (out of nearly 150 where 8 has no Greek or Latin support). 1X.—The Divergencies of 8 from all other Texts. It remaina that I should treat of the singular readings of S. ‘These form a large—but, I apprehend, by no means important— element in its text. Their total number is not accurately determinable. But it appears that there are over 120 instances of variations probably belonging to the underlying Greck ; setting aside many more which seem due to carelessness, conjecture, or caprice on the part of the translator; and some which may be set down as errors of the Syriac seribe—especially such as affect a prefix consisting of a single letter, as for example (what seems to have frequently occurred), the omission or insertion of the copulative vay. All that seem worth noticing are recorded (in loco) in the notes on the subjoined Greek text. 1. The following may be deserving of mention here as examples, Some are substitutions, of which a few evidently represent etacistic or other orthographic mis-readings in the Greek: as ouvep(Bere [or -pere], for owrpiBerat (ii. 27); wéop ex’ dvOpumov for waioy . . . (ix. 5); emt 1a mpécuma for én. ri mpara (xxi, 4); and perhaps 8¢ abrjs for Suavyris (xxi. 21). Others again may, perhaps, be due to laxity of rendering; as els perdvoay for iva peravorioy (ii. 21); and s0 again the passive jvotyn % odpayis for jvoge riv ogpayiba (vi. 5); and (conversely) the active ob i eiptioess for ob pi} eipeBG (xviii. 21); éakdvnoas for érhajOnoav (xviii. 23); Bei abtdv Moat for Bef abrov Mubvar (xx. 8). Again, we have drt érucpdy- Onoay ra Tara for ex rav Sdrwv Sr emxpdvOyoay (viii. 11); and as a + These aro—(1) Attested only by N, 72; (2) by a fow mas, with or without Latin support, 1405; (8) by Latin only, 75. § and 3 concur in 21 of (1); in 88 of (2); in 19 of (3). In this reckoning I do not include the Q-readings. They cannot be supposed to have been derived by 2 from § ; and most of them have strong cursive attestation. It in noteworthy that as regards X (the MS. with which S has the maximum and % the ‘minimum of agreement), % rarely agrees with its singular readings except in company with 8. A similar observation holds good, though not so extensively, with respect to tho 36 (p. lv) ringular readings of pr. In 6 of these 36, 3 concurs,THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE VERSION 8.°__ Ixxvii parallel instance, orpégew 72 G8ara for én rav Wdrwv orpégew abrd (xi. 6). But the brief of ob yeypappévor for dy ob yéypanrat ra dydpara (xiii. 8) is balanced by the expansion of goBovperot 13 Svopa abrod, of of GoBovpevos airéy (xix. 5). Other notable instances are:—rds Yuxas ras eogaypévas for as Yuxds ray dogaynévay (vi. 9);* ent Lory wal él anyds for éni Las [téoas] myyds (vi. 17); Baddoons for éBieoou (xi. 17; xvii. 8); era ray peydhav for kat rois weyddous (xi. 18, and 0 xix. 5); ry expry = +. ray exqvotvren for ry exnyy airod [ral] rods. . . oxqvoivras (xiii. 6); Seondras for éhevBépovs (xiii. 16); kal ai éxaréy (with altered punctuation) for ef ph al éxaréy (xiv. 8); Bixaa nad ddnOud ra épya for Bixasas ad Adnwot ai 480i (xv. 8); BiBdov ... vfs xplocws for B. rijs Luis (xx. 12); wérpov xédapov for wérpov xaddpou [xdhapov] (xxi. 15); 72 yeypappéra for ot yeypappéror (xxi. 27); Baordeds atrdy for Bardedoovow (xxii. 5). More deserving of consideration are the substitution of kexpuownéva. for kal Kexpvowpérn, 80 as to relate to the “ purple and scarlet,” not to their wearer (twice, xvii. 4, xviii.t6) ; and of ént ra. tudria atrod éxt rods wnpods adrod for éai 73 indriov xal ext rv ynpdv adrod, so that the Name .of Him who sat on the white horse is written ‘on the gatments [that were] on his thighs”, not “on His garment and on His thigh.” One reading stands by itseli—the unmeaning compromise (between guedhes doBddhew and Edra-ov] énofavel), sueddes doGavely (iii, 2). A few others may be more or less pliusibly accounted for as due to errors of the Syriac scribe (see notes tn loc. on the Syriac text); a8 180d al oval ai 340 dmqdBov for obal 4 Seurépa dmfdde (xi. 14); eyévero Gédaooa bs vexpés for eyévero ala és vexpod (xvi. 3); viob for dpviou (xxi. 14); Bdérww for giddy (xxii. 15). Of the omissions a few are considerable in point of extent. Thus (to pass by some instances which may be accounted for by homoteleuton in the Syriac) the following sentences, or parts of sentences, are wanting: 705 kdBnpévov én 08 Opsvov, kal amd ris épyiis (before 700 dpviov, vi. 16); kal mpooexivnoay 7G GeG (bofore héyovres, vii. 11); kal ofrus eBoy rods Tewous & rf) épdoa (beginning of ix. 17); al yap odpal a dpeow, Exovoa xepddas, nat év adrais dBuxoier (end of eovoia ro% xpiores avrod (xii. 10); 74 yap awa (ie. ¢ae> sx), which is the rendering in $ of 7) xupiaxf, as if ris puis caBBérov, a gloss recorded from no other authority. . V. Like traces in Barsalibi’s Commentary on %.—Further evidence, tonding to show that many more such notes relating to S were formerly to be found attached to 3, is yielded by the (inedited) Commentary of Barsalibi (see p. Ixxxiii, note *) on the Apocalypse, which he cites ac- cording to X. Following it he writes s»al\ooia for xptoraddy (iv. 6), ssoreleeam for duddas (v. 8), assheta [orale] for xaenSdv (xxi. 19), and worhLeais [walhawis] (xxi. 20). But he explains the first by eéaal, the second by giant, the third by részata, and tho last by rémmx Srés,—in each case by the rendoring of S. Now of these three, eS ‘The obelus f would more properly be used here than the *; but the two signs appear tohave ‘been confused, and used indiscriminately by scribes in noting variations of text.REASONS FOR ACCEPTING 8 AS THE PRIOR VERSION. lxxxv the second (at least) is a rare word, and (what is specially notable as evidence) the first is a mistranslation, unlikely to have been happened on by two translators independently. Again, though (as above noted) ho writes ‘Awo\Avwr, as %, in the transliterated form alaare (ix.11), ho gives as one interpretation of it, etx (‘Looser,” “Releaser”), which is tho rendering of 8 (after the reading ‘Awodvwr). ‘Theso instances go far to prove that Barsalibi had some knowledge of S; but their infrequency looks as if he know it but partially and indirectly, and suggests the probability that his copy of © may have been furnished with @ series of marginalia which survive in these glosses of his, and in the single gloss attached to Zn. VI. Conflations in % embodying Renderings of 8.—Then, further, in view of these facts, all tending to prove that © was originally furnished by its author with marginal variants and other signs indicating its relation to a prior version, which presumably was 8, it becomes highly probable that certain examples of conflation exhibited by %, in which one member of the conflate reading agrees with the reading of S, are duo to the transference of such marginatia into the text, and thus serve to reinforce the evidence showing the dependence of % on 8. It is true that, on the other side (as shown above, p. Ixxviii), 8 also has its conflate readings, ‘of which two or threo may possibly be due to interpolation from . But in case of S there is no ground for surmising that it was issued by its author (as © apparently was) with the appendages of side-notes and asterisks of the Harkleian fashion; and (as we have seen) every one of the S-conflations may have been (as some of them certainly were) in the underlying Greek; or (if belonging to the Sytiac text) may have been introduced by the translator from some source other than %, or from ¥ by a subsequent transcriber. ‘Three or four such examples of conflations in %, duo presumably to the influence of 8, may be pointed out, Aud 13 GAqpd cov Hoar (iv. 11), S (see p. xxiv) misrenders this, mod maesy mao (= bid 108 Oedypards...). ¥ (which nowhere falls into thie mistranslation of 81d) has here LY=00 . omadur’ wr a5 0@ Lomabun nice (= 51d coi clot Kal Bid 73 Gedyud ood Fear) ; of which sentenco'tho first member has no authority except the mis- rendering of 8, out of which it has no doubt been formed.Laxxvi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. "Wa exer} 7 xpirov abrév, al 4 finda Ge fin (wii. pe z renders tena: pl esas .aazwa Lamia irk eae cea cea where the eau makes the pessago anintelligible as wellYas ungratmma- tical. But aazw has its proper place in S, which follows a variant kal doxorioOqoav .... odx &auwe—in which it is to be noted that Kat tonoriebyeay is a reading peculiar to 8, supported only in part by a very few authorities which read ral éoxorio@y. The above E-rendering is that of 2n, where ase» appears asa crude interpolation; but Sdp attempt to shape the sentence into sense and grammar by reading Yea rela reseas wyewe. Here we detect the actual process of conflation, carried out by the’ omission of a final @ and the insertion of the profix 3; and we can hardly avoid the conclusion that its first stage was a marginal aszwe (= xal écxoric@yeay), as alternative for wedass (= bra oxorie6j), inserted by the translator to signify that he found the former in 8, but substituted the latter in his text on the authority of his Greek exemplar. (See note on Greek text in doe. for éoxortatn). Kal 13 Spoioya rév dxpibev Spor [-a, or o1) twmous (ix. 7). Here S renders etzaa hasan wer’... . haspre as usual: whilo % has esata ecthooan werd aond 1. echaseae (= wal 13 duotaa... . Guoioe os Syoloua). Thus’ (adopting the reading Snow) renders the adjective twice over,—first (more suo) by gasen, then by x ehaws wer’, which is the rendering of Syows characteristic of S (see p. xxiv). \ Here again wo detect conflation in %, and trace it to 8, whence it may casily have been derived by a provess like that which % betrays in viii. 12. For dmjAfov (xxi. 4) & gives psias (rather = rapjMfov). 8, treating the verb as first person singular, gives &\ie. In ¥d we find a conflate reading ins cali [sic], of which the former word indicates that a former copy of % bore on its margin the reading of 8. ‘Thus the asterisks of £1, the side-note extant in Zn, and the side-notes which probably are represented by the glosses of Barsalibi, and in the above-cited conflate readings of ¥,—ell presumably due to the author of 2,—alike evince his knowledge of 8. VIL. Renderings borrowed from 8, and imperfectly assimilated, by %.— Finally, to complete the evidence for the priority of 8, I have to point out that, in some places, the dependence of ¥ on it is betrayed by the inadvertence of tho translator in so imperfectly assimilating what he has retained of S, as to leave traces of its origin. Thus—REASONS FOR ACCEPTING 8 AS THE PRIOR VERSION. Ixxxvii In rendering ds 6 HAs gaiver ey rp Sw-dper abrod (i. 16), S has for Gaiva, the feminine eicarsa, thus treating e¢zsax (= ijhios), which is of common gender, as feminine; and (consistently) for airod, the feminine Gals. likewise has the feminine verb; but the following pronoun appears as calex (masculine) in all the copies. Elsewhere in both versions, rézsax is masculine. Apparently the author of X has altered the pronoun into the more usual masculine, but overlooked the verb. For ée ris dpas rod meipacpod ris peddoveys (iii. 10), S has eso sedan résaums, = ex roi weipacpod rob péMdovros,—omitting nis dpas and changing the participle from feminine to masculine, 80 as to agree with ‘retpagyod (the former noun being feminine and the latter masculine in Syriac, as in Greck)—a reading unattested otherwise, but consistent and intelligible. %, after the Greek, replaces rjs Spas (esx), but leaves the participle in the masculine, thus representing a reading éx rjs dpas 05 eipacpot 706 édRovros,—also unattested otherwise. The probability is, that this arose from an oversight on the part of the author of 2, who, when he corrected the S-text by inserting 1 hse. before etiasms, forgot to conform the gender of suka to that of har. For xparoivras rods réowapas dvduous ris ys, ba pi) mvép dvepos (vii. 1), & writes réwot ag eels etiaer’ .etsires etwol asirel cater. Now that etwei (= dveyos), though usually feminine, should thus be masculine at the end of this sentence, as it is also in 8, is not without precedent: but that it should be, as here, feminine in the first part and masculine in the second, is s0 strange as to lead us to ask how it is to be explained. The explanation is found when we turn to S, in which, instead of rtwai asin we find wai dasire, a form of expression which leaves the gender indeterminate, so that the following réwet as involves no incompatibility. Apparently, the author of & replaced the tuoi dasiee (properly = ri» rerpd8a rév dvéuaw) of S by the more literal ewe aniee (feminine), but neglected to change the gender of the following masculine verb as. E renders ba pi mis. Bivqrar dyopdoa: 4 modjoa (xiii. 17), by cb oe cots eégsnhs ai’ eels, without the usual and (almost) indispensable prefix's before asa. This is at once accounted for by comparison with 8, which writes ests or cote sur’ els after an * ee Skat Rérdan, Diuertti, § $4, Annot.1 (inhis edition of the Hexaplar Judge ond Ruth), milaxxviii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. unattested reading tra pi ris dyopdoa 4 mudora: (verbs in optative, without 8éqra). ‘The author of ¥ inserts eégsed, after his Greok; but omits to supply the a to connect its dependent verbs. In xviii. 4, ba pi) ovyroudonre + kal bya pi) AdBnre, both versions (as noted above, p. xxxvi), vary the rendering of the recurring iva yo} (eésada .... e¢la). In §, there is a valid ronson for this: eal ix omitted (against all other authorities) from before the second iva, 60 a8 to make the second clause subordinate to, instead of co-ordinate with, the first. In 5, the copulative conjunction is restored; and yet the varied rendering of the second iva psf, which has significance only in the absence of that conjunction, is retained,—and retained contrary to the uniformity which is with ¥ the normal practice. ‘Thus, in our comparative survey of S and , considered simply as versions representing substantially the same original,—we are led, (1) by the analogy of the relation borne by the “Pococke” to the Harkleian version of the Four Epistles, and (2) by the tendency of % to betray ite dependence on 8, by occasional lapses from its own artificial, exact, and rigid manner into the variations, the idioms, the errors, and (in general) the peculiarities, of S—to conclude that S is the prior version, and ¥ a rovision of it. VIII, Teztual Affinities of each Version—When we revert to our com- parative study of the Greek texts underlying each version, we find no lack of independent evidence to confirm this conclusion. For— Tt has been shown (pp. Ixxiii, agg.) that, comparing the texts of the two versions, S proves to tend, in general, more decidedly than ¥ does, to the more archaic type of text,—to that which I have called the “normal uncial” type (of 8A CP), as opposed to the type represented by Q and the bulk of the cursives. And this archaic character of S appears farther, in a special way, in the fact that its special affinities are (pp. Ixi, Ixii; pp- Ixv, Ixvi)—(1) among the uncials, with 8 the oldest Greek MS.; and (2) among the Latin versions, with the Primasian, the earlicst known form of the old Latin,—probably the oldest version oxtant of the Apocalypse. It has been shown, farther (pp. Ixxv, Ixxvi, notes), that % is to a great extent free from such singular and subsingular readings as are largely present in S—(of throe main classes, (1) 72 readings attested by ® alone of MSS. ; (2) 36 readings attested by pr alone of Latin texts; (3) nearlyREASONS FOR ACCEPTING 8 AS THE PRIOR VERSION. lxxxix 150 readings which have neither Greek nor Latin attestation),—yet that it shares to a limited but appreciable extent in the aborrancies of S. It concurs in 21 out of the 72 N-readings, in 6 out of the 36 pr-readings, and in 27 of the readings in which 8 is unsupported by Greek or Latin. Thus it appears that three distinct elements, characteristic of 8, occur likewise, in a less degreo but in a form identical so far as they occur, in ¥, ‘These elements then—the readings of thes three aberrant types in which % concurs with S,—are in S normal and characteristic, in % exceptional. Hence the inference is (as before, pp. Ixxxi, Ixxxii, in the matter of peculiarities of diction), that the version in which such readings excep- tionally occur, has borrowed or retained them from the version in which they are habitually prosent:—in other words, that the text of ¥, as well as its diction, shows signs of dependence on that of 8.xe INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. CHAPTER VI. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. I wow enter on the questions of the probable date, and authorship, of the version 8. L—Ine Dare. 1, Direct Evidence of Brit. Mus. Ms., Add. 17193. As to its date, we have ono certain fact to limit our inquiry: it is earlier than the year 874 4.v. For though the Crawford Ms., whenco I derive the text I now publish, was probably (see below, pp. exiii, sg9.) written late in the twelfth century, a considerable extract from the Apocalypse (vii. 1-8), which when examined proves to belong to S, is included in a volume of Miscellanies (Brit. Mus., Add. 17193, fo. 145), bearing date A. Gr. 1185 (= ap. 874)" So far, but no farther, the external and direct evidence carries us 2. Indirect Evidence of Crawford Ma., Syr. 2. But the Crawford Ms., when we tum back to it, will be found to contain internal and indirect, but cogent, evidence of the antiquity of the text of the Apocalypse exhibited in it. ‘The very blunders which disfiguro the text (see p. Ixxix), serious as they are and far from infrequent, cannot be reasonably set down to carelessness or stupidity on the part of the seribe, who seems to have done his work accurately and with intelligence, a8 is shown by its comparative freedom from such blunders in the rest of * For this extract see Appendix to Part IJ, p. 95, where itis printed in full as it stands in ‘Add. 17193, ‘This Ms. is fully desoribed by Wright, Cotal., pp. 989, agg.; who notes that the extract in “not according to the ordinary version” (is. 2).DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. xo the New Testament. They are probably to be accounted for by supposing either that the text had passed through many stages of transcription before it reached him, or that the exemplar whence it was derived by him, was one much damaged by time or mischance. The latter supposition agrees well with the fact, elsewhere pointed out, that it appears to have lost its first leaf, so that he has been obliged to supply the first eight verses of chapter i. from a copy of 3. In farther confirmation of this explanation it is to be noted that these blemishes in the text do not appear with any uniformity of distribution, nor yet are they scattered at random: they tend to occur in groups,—three or four in a page, preceded and followed by many pages free from flaw, in such wise as to suggest that the archetype had suffered from injury or decay in places corresponding to these groups. ‘The other supposition—of repeated transcription, is also confirmed by the state of the text of our Ms. in the passages where the blunders occur; for in some of them (see, e,g., notes on the Syriac text, ii. 17, xii. 7), particles or points have been inserted with the effect of forcing some meaning on the misreadings, so as to betray the care of a scribe not content to copy merely, but bent on editing his text into intelligibility. It is clear that the text, needing to be so edited, cannot have been recent when it came into his hands, Either supposition, if admitted, would go far to account for the state of our text; and either of them implies the lapse of generations, perhaps centuries, between the translator and the twelith- century scribe. Neither of them excludes the other, and it may well be that both are true. On the whole it seoms probable that two or three (if not more) transcripts stand between our Ms. and the original; and that some one of them was separated from its successor by a long interval. 8. Inference from Comparison of Texts of vii. 1-8, given in above Mss, A comparison of vii. 1-8 in our Ms. with the Nitrian copy of the same, enables us to carry the matter farther back. The two texts vary slightly. inter se. One point of difference is, that, while our Ms. misplaces the “sealing” of Levi in verse 7, postponing it to that of Issachar, the other ‘Ms. omits it from the text but has it on the margin, supplied in a different “+ Frequent uso cannot be supposod as a probable cause of the damage, for the Apocalypse was ‘ot included in any Syriac Lectionary systom. * eo the notes on Spr. toxt, i. 1-8; also Tranuactions, R.L.A., vol. xxx, p. 414.xeii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. soript, and apparently by a second hand, The inevitable inference is, that both represent an older copy which passed it over altogether. Of the other differences, some are in matters of grammatical form, as follows. For cearelse (verse 1), etwot dante (i5.), chore Sa (id.), (Siz As (verse 4), of the Crawford text, the Nitrian has—réarclio, etwoi asin, aalire da, redox (sma j—so that in each case it substitutes a less archaic form for a more archaic, So too, as to orthography, it writes (verses 2, 3) ata, wsimd, for cies, Loierh, of our Ms. We are thus led to the important conclusion, that our Ms., though probably three centuries later in date than the Nitrian book of Extracts, represents an earlier form of the text;—in other words, is derived, immediately or mediately (and if mediately, then through a line of accurate transmission), from an ultimate exemplar older than the Nitrian,—so much older as to belong to an earlier stage of the language than that which prevailed in the age to which the Nitrion Ms. belongs,—the latter half (namely) of the ninth century. 4, Internal Evidence of the Version. ‘We should, therefore, be obliged to ascribe a considerable antiquity to this version, even if we had no grounds to rely on save those that are yielded by the Crawford Ms. whence we derive it, and by the older Nitrian Ms. which preserves a fragment of it. And in this ascription we are confirmed by the internal evidence of the version itself. For, as has been shown in detail in Chapters II and III, on the one hand its diction is that of the esrlier stage of Syriac literary use in translations from the Greek, before the Syriac language had been debased by the alloy of greecism; and, on the other hand, its ‘ert appears to have had as its prepollent element a Greek basis conformed in the main to the earlier type represented by the agreement of the ancient uncials 8 AC, with P following—which type is known to have passed more and more out of currency among Biblical students as generation followed generation. In the eighth century, or even in the seventh, a text of such type would be unlikely to be adopted by a translator; and a translator of that age would hardly rival, in his language and style, the purity and caso of the Peshitto. ‘Thus we have here two lines of argument, each confirming the other, both tending alike to the common conclusion thst, for a version of such quality, based on a text of such character, an earlier date must be assumed than the eighth or seventh century.DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. xeiii 5. Inference from probable Date of %. A more definite approach to its date may be made by means of ite relation to the other version (), of which, as has been shown, it must be regarded as the predecessor. The date and authorship of %, indeed, are not known with certainty. But we are assured that: the missing Florence Ms. (2/, stated to be written by one Jacob of Hesron, a.p. 1582) had a colophon describing as the work of Thomas of Harkel."’ This description is confirmed by the fact that while Barsalibi, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, Acts, and Epistles, makes 3 his basis (see pp. Ixxxiii, note*, Ixxxiy) in the Apocalypse, which he places first, he comments on the following Books in the Harkleian; thus as it seems treating ¥ as part of that version. And the internal evidence amply bears out what these authorities thus affirm or imply. Apart from all external testimony, we find the method and diction of % to be beyond dispute Harkleian ; so that it may without impropriety be designated the Harkleian Apocalypse, in this sense that, whoever bo the translator, the translation is Harkleian in its manner and language—the production, if not of Thomas himself, then of a disciple and continuator, belonging to his age, trained in his school, a rigorous adherent of his system. Now the date of Thomas is accurately recorded; he did his work a.p. 616. If then we may assume that the E-version of the Apocalypse was part of the Syrine New Testament as revised by him, or at least a supplement appended to it not long after his time, it follows that the S-version, being prior to it, cannot be reasonably assigned to a period later than the sixth century. No later period, as has been shown above, would suit the facts of the character of the version, whether viewed on the Syriac side, in its grammatical and literary aspect,—or on the Greck side, as a witness to the toxt of its original. And this concurrence of ovidence, internal with external, textual with linguistic, seems sufficient to warrant us in accepting the conclusion to which we are led by the facts and inferences above stated. * Thowo statements as to tho Florence Ma. are mude by Lelong (lit. Sacra, tom. 1, p- 191 [Boerner’s edition, 1708]), on the euthorty of a Catalogue communicated by Montfaucon. Ttis to be hoped thut this Ms. may be recovered and the abore account verified. Tt was missing when ‘Bernstein sought fo it at Florence in or bere 1864 (Barustin, De Zhark!. Tran. p. 8).xoiv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. IL—Ire Auruor. It remains to examine whether we can with any probability trace its origin and conjecture its author. 1. Not Jacob of Edessa, One negative conclusion we may, in the first instance, lay down with confidence, and thus narrow the field of inquiry. Putting aside for the moment the reasons above given for assigning it to a date earlier than the seventh century, we may unhesitatingly affirm that neither our version nor the rival one cau be the work of Jacob of Edessa, whom, as a Biblical scholar and translator, high in repute in the Jacobite Church, one might naturally suggest as the probable author of one or other. His manner is known to us, from his version of ‘the Septuagintal Etaias, extant in a Nitrian Ms. (Add, 14441) in the British Musoum ;* and it is unmistakably distinct alike from the manner of S and from that of %. His date, moreover (seeing that his activity covered the second half of the setenth century and passed into the eighth, ending in his death, a.v. 708), would oblige us to assign & to a period so improbably late as the eighth century, if we supposed him, in the latter years of the seventh to have produced 8. But we have, farther, direct evidence to the same effect in a Syriac rendering of Apoe. xvii. 3-6 (contained in a Syriac Catena on Genesis, compiled by the monk Severus, appended to the Commentary of Ephraim ‘on that Book), ascribed (apparently with good reason) by the editor of the Roman edition of Ephraim, to Jacob of Edessa,*—aa follows : ethos Ss hoc eausia .rtsers résmsse dalas ehbur’ dutis 3. eésae resi cal dune .easaXa else hom etalon . whoa eehasil, wore etlser domo réma tog dun’ 4. Jims whites ctor’ hot Laas .rfint ooh caiaw doo 5, ohana honda ce doep etaots ade hdurdl durio 6. aint chastise whasils sRO.nes mandates esos qoo0 .réziges eto Here, after making all allowance for looseness of citation (such as is shown in the transference of résex eéacoase from verso 4 to verse 3), + Printed by Ceriani, in Monuments 8. ot P., tom. v, fase. Ephraim 8., Opera Syr., tom. x (Roman ed), p. 192. i, pp. 7 of agg.DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. xov we find on comparison with the corresponding passage in S and , that we have @ version materially different from both, alike in diction and in text." 2. Presumably identical with Translator of “ Pococke” Epistles. But in endeavouring to reach a positive conclusion which may be accepted as at least provisional, it is necessary to proceed gradually. As @ first step in our inquiry, it is to be observed that the combination in which S comes before us, and its accompaniments, are at least suggestive of ite probable authorship. It has reached us as an integral part of a New Testament in Syriac,—Peshitto, Supplemented by the addition of the Books which lie outside of the Peshitto Canon. It may fairly be pre- sumed that when the scribe and his fellow-workers or directors arranged the contents of the volume, the supplementary matter which they incor- porated in it with the Pethitto, was borrowed by them all of it from one and the same source: that is, that this version of the Apocalypse comes from the same hand as the version of the Four Minor Epistles. 3. This Presumption confirmed by Internal Evidence. For so far, this is a mere presumption, arising out of the extemal fact that the S-version of the Apocalypse and the Pococke version of the Four Epistles are associated in the same Ms., in the same supplementary relation to the Peshitto New Testament. But when we follow up the clue thus put into our hands, and examine the two versions side by side, the presumption becomes materially strengthened. I have already noticed (pp. xvii, xviii) the internal resemblance that subsists between them. In method and in diction alike, they are similar works: they belong to the same stage of the language, they occupy the same midway position as regards their literary character—more exact in rendering than the Peshitto, more froo than the Harkleian. ‘They are, to all appearance, products not only of the same age, but of the same school,—it may well be, of the same hand. This general similarity, moreover, between the two versions, includes (as pointed out above, pp. xxxvii, xxxviii) some special points of coincidence in diction, which raise to a high degreo the probability of their common authorship. * Thos, #g., 8 and % read sopriv in verse 6, with all Grock authorities; whereas in Jacob's renilering, as in the Latin, a reading copvady is followed. a2xovi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. If then we assume on these grounds that this version of the Apocalypse is by the same hand as the version of the Four Epistles with which it is associated in the Crawford Ms., and to which it bears a close affinity alike in general character and in particular details, we arrive at a dotermined date, and a known name. For it is certain, as I have shown,* that these Epistles aro part of the version made 4.p. 508, by Polycarpus, “the Chorepiscopus,” under the direction of the famous Philoxenus of Mabug, after whose name it is styled the “Philoxenian” version,—to be dis- tinguished as the “ Philoxenian proper” or “ unrevised Philoxenian” from the Harkleian, which (though too commonly confounded with it) was really the result of a revision of it in which its text and its diction were largely modified, more than a century later, by Thomas of Harkel. That Polycarpus included the Apocalypse in his work, may be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. We are told by Mosos of Aghel, that he translated “the New Testament” (no Book or Books being ex- cepted); and inasmuch as his translation of the Four Epistles proves that “the New Testament” is not to be here taken as limited to the Books of the Peshitto Canon, there is no reason to suppose that he did not—but every probability that he did—translate the Apocalypso likewise. 4, Also by analogous Case of % and Harkleian. A second, and quite independent, line of probable inference leads to the same result. The version %, as we have seen, is either e part of the Harkleian New Testament (which, for the like reason as has been above assigned in the case of the Philoxenian, may be presumed to have included the Apocalypse), or a supplement to it, wrought in sedulous imitation of its method. It is probable therefore that, like the rest of the Harkleian, % was constructed on the basis of a prior version forming part of the New Testament as translated by Polycarpus. It is therefore also probable, and in the same degree, that S, which is unmistakably the basis of %, is to be identified as the Apocalypse of which Polycarpus was the translator. It is to bo observed, that each of these chains of probability holds good apart from the other. ‘The former depends on the affinity between S and the “Pococke” Epistles; the latter on the relation of S, as basis-version, * Sco reff, note p. Ixxxi. © dp. Assemani, Biblioth. Orient, tom. 1, p. 83.DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. xovii to 5. If either of our two distinct lines of argument be accopted as valid—if we admit it as probable, either that the S-Apocalypse is from the same hand as the Pococke Four Epistles,—or that the 3-Apocalypse is a part (supplemental at least if not integral) of the Harkleian New Testament,—on either assumption (and the probability of each rests on a sufficient basis of its own), it follows as an almost inevitable inferenco, that our Apocalypse is the work of Polycarpus, and belongs to his version of the whole New Testament into Syriac, the Philoxenian propor of A.D. 508. 5, Also by Affinity between S and Philozenian Esaias. Of this inference, confirmation is forthcoming from yet another quarter. Moses of Aghol (ut supr.) states that “David” was translated for Philoxenus from the Grock by Polycarpus, along with the New Testament; and a note appended to the great Ambrosian Ms, of the Syro-Hexaplar version (Esai. ix. 6), informs us that the Philoxenian version extended to Esaias also. ‘This version of the Psalms is not recorded as extant, but that of Exaias (after the LXX) survives in some large fragments, identifiable as Philoxenian beyond all reasonable doubt, preserved in the Ms., Add. 17106 of the Nitrian Collection in the British Musoum, which has been printed by Dr. Ceriani in his Monumenta Sacra et Profanat (cited by mo as “ Phx.,” see Pt. II, p. 86). The internal evidence of these fragments shows that the version to which they belong was in style and language closely akin to 8;° and also that, though based on the LXX, it bespeaks an author to whom the Peshitto Isaiah was familiar,—a note of identity with the author of 8, of whom, as we have scen, familiarity with the Poshitto diction, especially that of the Old Testament, is a marked characteristic, preparing us to find in him an Old Testament translator. It is a note- worthy fact, moreover, and one that serves to reinforce the proceding arguments, that this Philoxenian Esaias bears to the Syro-Hexaplar Esaias of Paul of Tella a relation closely parallel with the relation borne by the Pococke version to the Harkleian of the Four Epistles, or by S to 3. * Tom. +, fase. i, pp. 9, ag9-—On the authorship of theso fragments, see Ceriani, p. 5; and Dict. of Christian Biogr., vol. 1, #2. Pouxoanrus (5), pp. 430-433. See also Wright, Catal, 28, for his account of tho Ms. which he assigns to the seventh century. * Bee the points of affinity between 8 and Phx., recorded passim in my Notes to Part II.xoviti INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. On all those grounds we are, I venture to think, entitled to claim this Polycarpus as the author of the version of the Apocalypse herewith printed,—at least until some more probable theory shall have been advanced. 6. Objections answered. (1) To authorship suggested for Against this theory of the authorship, one argument (and I know of no other) may be urged. Barsalibi, the great teacher of the Monophysite Church of the twelfth century, in commenting on, the Apocalypse, follows (as we have seen, pp. Ixxxiii, note’, Ixxxiv) the version ¥; and though a few tokens appear of his knowledge of 8, they are doubtful, and, even if certain, could be accounted for by the very probable supposition that he derived them from marginal notes attached to his copy of 3. Is it likely (it may be asked) that so learned a scholar as Barsalibi should be ignorant or negligent of a version of this Book bearing a name so great and 80 revered in his Church as that of Philoxenus? This objection (it is to be observed) is raised—not with regard to the existence of S in the time of Barealibi (for of that we have found Ms. evidenco dating three centuries before him,—soe p. xc}, but with regard to the view that it belongs to the Philoxenian New Testament. And as so raised, it admits of a complete answer. Barsalibi, in the same work in which, he comments on the Apocalypse according to the Z-text, not only comments on the Four Epistles according to the Harkleian toxt, but states* expressly that he knows of no other. If,-then, we are to conclude that S cannot be Philoxenian becauso Baisalibi ignores it, we must extend the same con- clusion to the Pococke text of the Four Epistles, which he likewise ignores. But that toxt is demonstrably Philoxenian, notwithstanding Barsalibi’s negative witness to tho contrary. His negative witness, therefore, against the claim advanced for 8, that it too is Philoxenian, may bo safely set aside. (2.) To authorship suggested for ¥:— So again, the theory which makes the ¥-Apocalypse part of the Harkleian New Testament is open to an objection,—a serious one, though * Ap. Pococke, Praf: ad Lectorom, prefixed to his edition (1630) of theso Epistles.DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 8. xox of negative character. This Book is absent not merely from the Now College Ms. (No. 933) of the Harkleian (which supplied the text of White's edition, but is defective at the end, and therefore inconclusive as a witness), but from the Cambridge Ms. (Add. 1700), the only known un- mutilated copy professing to be complete." In this matter, Barsalibi is a witness on our side; for (as noted above, pp. Ixxxiii, note’, xeiii) he seems, in the Commentary above referred to, to have known it as associated with the Harkleian version of the Four Epistles,—probably deriving it from a Ms, of the Harkleian, in which the Apocalypse stood, as in S, before the Acts, the Epistles following after. That the Apocalypse is wanting from the Cambridge Ms. may be a fact of no farther significance than is its absence from many Greck cursives;—to be accounted for simply by the prevalent custom of most Churches of excluding the Apocalypse from their lectionary systems.* In estimating the weight of the above considerations, it is to be borne in mind that the argument for accepting $ as Philoxenian, and the argument for accepting % a8 Harkleian, are in the main independent each of the other, each resting on sufficient grounds of its own. They may therefore be regarded as mutually confirmatory; and to argue that if ¥ be the work of Thomas, § is probably the work of Polycarpus, or vice versa, is valid reasoning, and not vicious circle. ‘+ Bxcept these two, no known Harkleian Ms, exhibits the Acts and Epistles. » Thus the copy used by Barsalibi would bo similar in arrangement to the Crawford Ms., only with the supplementary Books derived not from the Philoxenian proper bat from the Harklcian. * For the adverse opinion of Adler, who denied (Fersionss Syr., p. 78) that % could be ‘Harkleian, and for the grounds on which that opinion isto be rejected, soo Tramactions, B.T.A., ‘ol. xxvii, p. 304,e INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. CHAPTER VII. ‘THE APOCALYPSE IN THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. In the course of the preceding inquiry, it has distinctly appeared that the Apocalypse was not only unread in public, but had no great currency even among students of Scripture, within the Jacobite communion,—the body which, though lying under the reproach of heresy, unquestionably represents the national Syrian Church, and is honourably distinguished by its zeal for Biblical literature. To the divines of the rival Nestorian Church, and to its Biblical scribes, the Apocalypse, and with it the Four Epistles, appear to have been absolutely unknown. It seems worth while to put together the facts, so far as I have been able to ascertain them, which indicate the extent of knowledge of this Book, existing among Christians who studied the Scriptures in Syriac, traceable back from the latest point at which that knowledge may reason- ably be presumed to have been acquired in or from the East, and independently of printed editions of tho Syriac New Testament. I.—The Apocalypse known to certain Members of Syrian Churches. 1. Of the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries —In the seventeenth century the Apocalypse, in the version 3, is known to have been in the hands of three persons belonging to Syrian Churches ;—of a priest of Amid (Diarbekr) ‘Abdul Ahad, who transcribed it with the rest of the Scriptures in Paris, a.p. 1695 ;* of Gabriel Sionita, who edited it. from a Ms. or Mss., no longer forthcoming, for the Paris Polyglot, 1633; and of Joseph, a monk of Kenobin, in the Lebanon, who transcribed it for Archbishop Ussher, in 1625*—the two last-named being Maronites, the first no doubt a Jacobite. * This copy is numbered 1 to 6 in Zotenberg’s Catalgue, g.0. * See Transactions of RLI.A., vol. xvi, p- 288.THE APOCALYPSE IN THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. a To these, the sixteenth century adds two more—Jacob of Hesron (in the Lebanon country), who wrote the Florence copy in 1582, and (as it seems) Caspar, whose name appears in the colophon of the Leyden copy, described as “from the land of the Hindus” (rtaoise,—not eaoism, as printed by De Dieu).* Thus, of these five, the last was apparently of the Syro-Indian Church of Malabar; three were Maronites; and one only was of the Jacobite Church of Mesopotamia—the other four be- longing to communities subject to the See of Rome. All five, however, worked morely as transcribers,—in Europe, or for European scholars ; and it was, no doubt, under European influences that their transcripts were made: but the fact that they had, or had access to, Mss. whence they transcribed the text, proves that, in the sixteenth and soventeenth centuries, copies of the Book in this version were still preserved among Syrian Christians in three regions so remote one from another as Mesopotamia, the Lebanon, and Malabar,—not only in the Jacobite Church whence it sprang, but in two other Churches ecclesiastically and doctrinally distinct from it. As regards the Apocalypse, therefore, Wid- manstad was no doubt correctly informed by Moses of Murdo, in 1554-5, that the non-Peshitto Books in Syriac were then extant in Mesopotamia, For so far, the evidence points to as the form in which the Apocalypse was known in the places named; but the version S, too, is proved, by a note entered in the Crawford Ms. (see pp. ex, cxi, inyr.), to have been in the hands of two successive owners in the same Mesopotamian rogion, in 1534,—of one Galibe, and of a Patriarch (probably Jacobite but possibly Nestorian) Simeon of Hatacha,* to whom he sold the Ms. 2. Of the twelfth, eleventh, and ninth centuries. — For three centuries before that date I am unsble to adduce any evidence of knowledge of either version ; but when we go back to the twelfth century, both come again into view. Shortly before the year 1200, as I hope to show in the following Chapter, the Crawford Ms., in which the Apocalypse in the version S is, as we have seen, ranked high among the New Testament Books, and ascribed to the Fourth Evangelist, was written in the very heart of the Jacobite Chureb, in a convent of Salach, in Tur'abdin. Not many years earlier is to be placed the composition of the Commentary! of * Bee De Dieu's Apocalypeis, p. 164. * See reff. in note, p. xvi, to Widmanstad’s Bpitle to Gienge. ¢ Bee above, p. Ixxxiii, note *.oii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. Barsalibi (the leading divine of the Jacobite Church of this century), who died Bishop of Mabug, 4.p. 1171,—in which the Apocalypse is ascribed to St. John aud expounded after the ¥-version. An earlier Commentary (of unknown authorship and date), contained in the Ms. Add. 17127 (Brit. Mus), embodying the text I have designated as Xn, written 4.p. 1088 in a convent near Alexandria, proves that Syrian monks of the eleventh contury, settled among their Monophysite brethren in Egypt,*—the country in which the Harkleian New Testament was produced, 4.0. 616, by a Syrian Bishop,—knew the Apocalypse in the Herkleian or Harkleianized Z-version. This is at once the earliest Syriac Commentary on the Book, and the earliest evidence of the existence of X. For 8, we are enabled to bring proof two centuries earlier, in the shape of the fragment of it (Rev. vii. 1-8), included in the collection of extracts, Ms. Add. 17193 (Brit. Mus.), written ap, 874. This Ms. is no doubt Jacobite, and was in Tur'abdinese hands 4.p. 1493, but its place of origin is uncertain (the second part of its name, which began with a, being illegible’). 3. Of the seventh and vizth centuriee—About 200 years before the date of this Ms., Jacob of Edessa, as wo have seen, knew and cited the Apocalypse, but in a rendering of his own. It is uncertain, however, whether he translated the whole Book, or merely the passage from Rev. xvii (sce above, p. xciv); and we can only infer from it that he did not know, or did not care to quote, S or $. The latter, as I have endeavoured to prove, is to be regarded as a work of Thomas of Harkel or a continustor in the earlier part of his contury, the seventh; and the former is to be placed still earliér, as part of the Philoxenian New ‘Testament, in the sixth. I am unable, however, to point to any evidence in the writings of Philoxenus to show that he knew the Apocalypse in any form. 4. Of the fourth century.—In the fourth century, however, we find it distinctly cited, and ascribed to St. John, by the greatest of Syriac divines, Ephraim, in one of his Sermones Ezegetici, as follows :— * The Coptic Church was in close communion with the Syrian Jacobite Church, both being Monophysite. » The Commontary may be considerably carlier than the dato of this Ms. ; but that it is of Syriae origin, and not a translation from the Greck, is proved by the fact that the author cites, ‘and explains, the vorso vii. 13 as mistranslatod in 3, attributing a “tail of blood” to the eagle. + Wright's Catalogue, pp. 989, 992. Soo also p. x0, aupr.; and p. 35, Pt. IL, infr. «No citation of it is rocorded in Dr. Budge’s edition (1894) of Philoxenus.THE APOCALYPSE IN THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. iit cal ppm ashas mame si eoha pwd. iy milis wuasses wom dur’ el. pad rane pmol wo dure stall soma aduls riales ois Let led esas elo exints rl patio veasaly Oné eas, “In his Revelation, John saw a book great and wonderful, which was written by God, and there were on it seven seals. There was none that was able to read it in earth nor in heaven save the Son of God alone who Himself wrote it and sealed it.* Here we have a brief summary of Apoe. v. 1-8, but too loosely worded to admit of comparison with the text of these verses as it stands in 8 or 3. Ephraim seems to have written the above from an inexact recollection of the passage, which he may have known only in the Greek. It does not therefore prove that in his time a Syriac version of the Book existed. But elsewhere he apparently cites ¢Xsa reais ease from Apoc. xxi. 6 (also xxii. 17), with a slight variation (roi {avros for rijs Loris), in which it is to be noted that 8 (with 2) concurs against all other authorities. So too in his elder contemporary, Aphrahat, there seems to be a trace of the Apocalypse under a Syriac form akin to the two extant versions, in the remarkable phrase, twice used by him,* eaish hase, “the sepond death.” Yet this reference must be accepted as a doubtful one, in view of the fact that the same phrase occurs more than once in the Targums. IL.—Its Circulation very limited. On the whole, it seems most probable that this Book, excluded as it was (by ignorance rather than of set purpose) from the Peshitto Canon, remained unknown to Syriac-speaking Christians for perhaps four centuries, except to the comparatively few who had access to, and could read, the Greek original. It may well be that the author of our version was the first to place it within reach of his countrymen in their own tongue. In * Opera Syr., tom. 1% ps 382, Sermo Exegeticus in Ps. cxl. 3. So far as T know, the ‘genuineness of this Sermon has not been disputed. > Hymn. vii In Fest. Epiph. (Hymni, &, tom.1,p.66, ed. Lamy). In his Greck works some references to the Apocalypse are to be found ; but Ido not cite them, feeling doubtfal whether wwe can accept anything as altogether his which does not survive in Syriac. + Demonstr. vii. 25, viii. 19 (Paria, 1896). See the editor's Prafati, p. xlili; seo also my note on the Syriae text, ii. 11 (Part TE., p. 43).civ INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. the numerous translations of the writings of the Greck Fathers, with which Syriac scholars of the sixth contury (and perhaps earlier) sought to compensate for the dearth of original Syriac theology, the points of difference betweon the Greek and Syriac Scriptures must have been noticed by Syrian readers ;—and above all, the absence from the Syriae of whole Books which stood unquestioned in the Greek. In the account of the origin of the Philoxenian version, given (seo note +, p. Ixxi) by Moses of Aghel, it is plainly suggested that the object of Philoxenus, in issuing that version, was that his people should learn to know the Scriptures in a form assimilated to that in which their Greck-speaking brethren of Alexandria and elsewhere knew them. Yot it is plain thut the Apocalypse never became familiarly known in the Jacobite or any other of the Syrian Churches. It was rarely transcribed, rarely commented on, had little influence on their religious mind, and contributed little if anything to their religious thought or phrascology. ‘The hymns and liturgies, in which alone Syriac religious literature is rich, are with hardly an exception devoid of all such Apoca- lyptic imagery and language as we meet at every turn in the hymnology of the West,—whether of the medieval Latin Church, or of English Christendom, Anglican and Noneonformist alike. LIL.—Value of the Versions & and 3. But if, as it scems we must admit, both the Syriac versions of the Apocalypse have failed to commend the Book to Syriac readers, neither of them is therefore to be lightly esteemed: each has a value of its own. ‘The one which has now been for more than two centuries and a-helf known to scholars, is interesting in its capacity as a supplement to the Harkleian version, and shares with it the merit of usefulness for critical purposes by reason of the very literalness which is, from a literary point of view, its fault, The other, which I now give to the public, is to be prized as being, together with the Four Epistles published by Pococke, the total of what time has spared to us of the Philoxenian version, once famous but now surviving only in these remnants,—amall in bulk, yet constituting the portion of it best worth preserving, inasmuch as in these Books alone the translator worked directly on the Greek before him, without having (as in tho other Books) the Peshitto to draw him aside from the faithful rendering of his original. ‘This Apocalypse therefore, and the Four Epistles, come to us as a monument of the learning and industry ofTHE APOCALYPSE IN ‘THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. or the Syrian Monophysite Church of the early sixth century. They are valuable alike in their literary aspect, as a successful presentation of the Grock original in a Syriac version of adequate exactness, without sacrifice of idiomatic purity,—and from the point of view of the textual critic, as reproducing the text (or perhaps a combination of two or more texts) that was accessible to a scholar in the Euphratensian province immediately after the close of the fifth century. In closing this investigation, I may be permitted to quote the con- eluding sentences of the Memoir I have already referred tot :— “We justly claim [for this Version], as regards its general tone and manner, that it approaches the excellence of the Peshitto; and in point of force, directness, and dignity, that it gives worthy expression to the sublime imagery of the Apocalyptist. It has strength and freedom such as fow translations attain; such, in fect, that it would not be difficult to make out @ plausible case for accepting it as the Aramaic original, or a close reproduction of an Aramaic original, of the Book. In it, far more fully than in the cramped and artificial diction of its reviser, the Aramaic idiom assorts its power to supply for the burden of the divine visions an utterance more adequate than could be found for them in the Greek which is their actual vehicle. From it, as a comparison of the two versions shows, the latter one has borrowed the touches of simple majesty which ever and again raiso it out of its usual level of painstaking and correctness : in it, I may almost venture to say, more perfectly than in the written Greek, we may read ‘tho things which shall be hereafter’, well-nigh in the form in which St. John first apprehended the divine word that came to him, and inwardly shaped into speoch the revelation of ‘the Lord God, which is and which was and which is to como, the Almighty.” * Tramactions, R.T.A., vol. xxx, p 398.oi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. CHAPTER VIII. ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD Ms, (SYR. 2). ‘To the preceding study of the version S, I deem it fitting to append a brief account of the Ms. in which it has reached us,* and of my reasons for believing it to have been written in the latter years of the twelfth century. I—Deseription of the Me. ‘The Ms. must have consisted, when entire, of twenty-four quinions (240 leaves), with @ single sheet (2 leaves) subjoined. It contained the whole New Testament, with the Pauline Epistles placed last. Four leaves have been lost (the first of the first quinion, the first and tenth of the twenty-fourth, and the former of the final pair), and with them the first twelve verses of St. Matthew i, the greater part of the Epistle to Titus, and Hebrews xi. 28 to end, have disappeared. Otherwise the sacred text is complete, except that a few more verses of St. Matthew, and a few of the Acts, have perished owing to the mutilation of two or three leaves. Besides the 288 leaves which remain, eleven have been inserted imme- diately after the Fourth Gospel, exhibiting a Harmony of the Passion- ‘narratives. Thus the Ms. has now 249 leaves. ‘The last leaf contains the Subscription and Colophon. That leaf slone is (on both sides) written in single column, the rest in double columns throughout. The last page alone is in a cursive hand : the preceding one, in common with the rest of the Ms. (including the eleven inserted leaves) is in a clear and regular estrangelo, of a well- * For fuller details, eo the Memoir above cited (Transcctions of R.I.A., vol. xxx, p- 847). ‘Thin Me. in No. 12 of the apparatus attached to Mr, Gwilliam’s forthcoming edition of the Peahitto Gospels; alo of my list of Mos. of Poc., in Hermathenay vol. vr, pp. 285, 286.ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). ovii marked but not archaic type. Here and there a word is interlined (prima manu) in cursive. The cursive olaph (\.) appears not infrequently, especially when final; also the cursive ‘au (2), especially before final 1. In the text, the vocalization is sparingly indicated—usually by the simplest method—of points above or below, now and then by Greek vowels attached to unusual words, or to such as would be ambiguous if without vowels. On the whole, the Ms. is in good condition, and hardly any part of its contents is illegible, excopt in the last leaf, which (especially its latter page) has been so damaged as to be decipherable with difficulty and (in a few places) not with absolute certainty.* IL.—Iis Contents. Tt comprises the New ‘Testament, in the Peshitto version, supplemented by the Apocalypse (as now for the first time printed, Part IL., pp. 1-29), and the Four Minor Catholic Epistles (in the version known as “ Pococke's text”). Its contents are thus unique in two respects. Firet, it exhibits the Apocalypse in a version which is (as above shown in detail) quite distinct from the version hitherto included in printed Syriac New ‘Testaments, from the Paris Polyglot down to the latest. And secondly, it is the only Syriac Biblical Ms. (excluding from that title such transcripts made from European libraries, as e.g. the Ms. No. 5 of Zotenberg’s Catalogue, Bibliothdque Nationale) that presents to the student a complete New Testament, according to the canon ordinarily received, whether Greek or Latin ;—including with the Peshitto not only, as a few other Mss. do, the four non-Peshitto Epistles, but the Apocalypse,—of which Book the few extant Syriac copies exhibit it in the other version, and apart from the Peshitto. ‘The Books aro continuously arranged ; each Book, after the first, beginning in the same column in which the pre- ceding Book closes, with but a narrow interval of separation. The order is, I believe, unexampled: Gospels, Apocalypse, Acts and seven Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles." It is remarkable that the supplementary Books * Seo the autotype reproduction of two columns of tho Ms., in the Plate facing title; also the photographic facsimile at foot of p. ev, supr. * Im tho copies 7 and » it stands slone; and so also, wo are told, in the lost copy f: In d, itis ‘associated only with the ‘Pococko” Epistles. Seo p. xv, note‘, awpr.; and Part II, p. 86, inf. * Bee however Hermathona, vol. vii, p-410, note ¢; vol. vii, p. 145, noteoviii INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. thus interpolated into the Peshitto are in no way distinguished by the seribe from the others. ‘The Apocelypse follows St. John’s Gospel, and is in turn followed by the Acts (see Plate), as closely as St. John follows St. Luke. And in like manner, the Four Epistles are placed—2 Peter after 1 Peter and before 1 John, which last-named Epistle is succeeded by 2 John, 8 John, and Jude,—as in Greek and Latin Bibles: whereas in the few other Syriac Mss. which exhibit these non-Peshitto Epistles, they are mostly subjoined (as, eg., in the great Cambridge Syriac Bible, Oo. I, 1, 2) 1 o-f/' 08 a sort of appondix to the Now Testament. Nor do the notes prefixed or appended to these interpolated Books distinguish them in any way from the rest. On the contrary, the superscription of the Apocalypse assigns it to “St, John the Evangelist,” and the subscription to “St. John Apostle and Evangelist,” as if to assert its equality in the canon with the Gospel that immediately precedes: and in like manner the subscriptions of 1 Peter and 1 John are “the first Epistle of Peter”, “the first Epistle of John”, thus connecting them respectively with 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which follow; whereas in purely Peshitto Mss. they are usually described as the Epiatle of Peter”, “ the Epistle of John”; and so even in our Ms. in > the superscriptions. Our Ms., however, contains clear indications of the supplementary character of these Books. Ite margin bears two distinct series of numbers, both of which are usually found in Syriac New Testament Mss. Of these, one series divides each Book into the rétaisg or Sections peculiar to Syriac usage, 165 in number: the other into Lessons, for the Sundays and Holydays of the year,—nearly three times as many as the Sections. To each Lesson is prefixed (in the text) a rubric indicating the day to which it is assigned.t These two systems of division, however, relate to the Peshitto text only. The supplementary Books are passed over in the | marginal numeration of Sections and of Lessons alike. In the Four Epistles a few lesson-rubrics are inserted; but none in the Apocalypse. ‘Phe exclusion of all these Books from the division into Sections amounts to a negative intimation that they were not known to the Syrian Church when that division was made. Of the Four Epistles, the same may be said with regard to their exclusion from the Lectionary series ; but hardly * See Plate, second column, for numerals of both seriet, and a rubric, prefixed to Acts i.ACCOUNT OF THE ORAWFORD MBS. (SYR. 2). ox of the Apocalypse, inasmuch as many Churches which know it and accept it as canonical have judged it to be unsuitable for public reading. But when from the text of our Ms, we turn to the Subscription which occupies the recto of its final leaf, we find a direct and positive statement that none of these Books lay within the scope of the sectional division, — as follows: “The Book of the New Testament; in which there are 165 sections ; besides the Revelation and the four Epistles.” Of these last, the verses, or fijara (eSaX ds) are numbered, 1873 in all; and the Subscription then goes on to reckon the verses of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles. ‘The rest of the page records the number of Chapters or rizhow, Eusebian divisions or xavéves, Parables, Mirucles, and Testimonies (Ola Testament citations), contained in each Gospel severally. I have printed this Note in full (line for line) in Part II, p. 31, and have added a translation, p. 95. ‘The Colophon written on the verso of the same leaf gives us the name of the scribe, Stephen, a monk; of the person for whom it was written, Gbriel, also a monk ; and of various fellow-monks, relatives, and friends, to some of whom he professes himself indebted for instruction or for assistance, and for whom he asks his readers’ prayers. He elso names the place where he wrote—‘the monastery of Mar Jacob the recluse of Egypt and Mar Barshabba, beside Slach, in Tur‘abdin, in the dominion of Hema Kipha.” I have reproduced this Colophon in Part II, p. 82, and have given a translation of it (pp. 98, 99). Of the persons and places named in it I shall have more to say farther on. It is unnecessary to describe the contents of the eleven inserted leaves which precede the Apocalypse, farther than to state that the Passion- Narrative contained in them is compiled from the Harkleian Gospels, and is portioned out into lessons for Good Friday.’ Though written by a hand probably identical, certainly contemporaneous, with that which wrote the New Testament, they form no part of the Ma proper. It is complete without them; and not only so, but they are intruded into one of the quinions of which it is composed—the eleventh, between its eighth and ninth leaves. The verzo of the eighth leaf breaks off in the last verso of St. John’s Gospel, and the rest of that verse (four lines) runs over into the recto of the ninth, where it is followed by three lines of subscription ; 50 that, if these eleven leaves were removed, the Fourth Gospel would appear in unbroken integrity, and the New Testament would be complete and >x INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. continuous. But by a peculiar arrangement, such as T have not met with in any other Ms., Syriac, Greck, or Latin, these seven lines, needed to complete St. John after fo. 8 of quinion 11, are repeated at the head of the first column of the recto of the first intruded leaf, and then followed by the Harmony headed by its superscription, occupying ten leaves and the recto of the eleventh, ‘The result is, that the Four Gospels with this Harmony admit of being separated from the following Books so as to form a volume complete in itself, The verso of the eleventh of these leaves, originally left blank, now exhibits « record, in a much later and very inclegant cursive hand, of the purchase of the Ma by ‘Simeon of Hatacha, Patriarch, named Taibu,” in A. Gr. 1845 (a.n. 1534) from a deacon named Saliba, the price being “one hundred and twenty ‘athmanih (awirésods.);—probably equal to about £3 15s. sterling.* OF the origin, history, and age of the Ms., our knowledge is limited to the facts stated or implied in the Colophon, and in the memorandum of sale above described, together with such inferences as may be drawn from the contents of the volume, and the handwriting, I have discussed those facts and inferences at length in the Memoir lready referred to: here I propose to give a summary of the results arrived at in that discussion, adding a few points which I have noticed since it was published. IL.—Its Place of Origin. The region of Tur'abdin* (now Jébel-Tér), where the Ms. was written, is a hilly district in the north-east part of Mesopotamia, for centuries the headquarters of Jacobite monasticism, and still the chief contre of the dwindling Jacobite Church. The name of the scribe, Stephen, is not elsewhere met with, so far as I have ascertained, but “ the monastery of Mar Jacob the recluse of Egypt, near Salach,” where he wrote, was a Jacobite house, and Salach, in ‘Tur'abdin, was the seat of a Jacobite Bishop. The first owner of the Ms., Gabriel, the monk for whom it was written, belonged to the town of Beth-nahle, also in Tur'abdin, of which district Hem-Kipha (now Hasankef), was * S00 Payne Smith, Catal, col. 612, for“athmanih. * Seo Transactions, R.LA., vol. xxx, pp. 356-858, for Tur'abdin, Galach, and Beth-nable ; ‘leo for Hatacha, which lay somo 50 miles outside Tur‘sbdin,ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). ei the chief stronghold, and for many generations the political capital. Of its contents, the parts supplementary to the Peshitto,—the Four Epistles, and (a8 I have endeavoured to show) apparently the Apocalypse, are of Jacobite origin; 28 is also the interpolated Harkleion Passion-Harmony. ‘The modified form of the estrangelo character in which it is written, and the occasional Greck vowels inserted, are Jacobite likewise. ‘Thus wo may safely conclude that it is a Ms. in every sense Jacobite. IV.—Its History. Between the date, which I now seek to determine, of Gabriel, its first owner, and the date (some thirty or forty years ago), when it was purchased by the late Earl of Crawford, the only fact in its history known to us, is the above-mentioned sale of it in 1534. The seller, however, « Saliba the Deacon” is an unknown person, and the purchaser, ‘Simeon Taibu [or Taibutho] of Hatacha,” cannot be identified with certainty. He is styled “Patriarch,” and if we may presume him to have been the head of the Jacobite Church, he was probably the prelate known officially as Ignatius XVI, otherwise ‘Abdallah of Hesna d’ Atta. If #0, the Ma, ‘was presumably kept by him at Deir-Zaferan (the convent of Mar Ananias) near Marde,—then, as now, the seat of the Patriarchs. But secing that, at the date specified, the Nestorian Church of the East had at its head a Simeon as “Catholicos,” for which title “Patriarch” was commonly used as equivalent,—and had a footing in the chief Jacobite contres, even. in Marde,—it may be that by this sale the Ms, passed into Nestorian hands.* How, or when, or by whom, it was brought to England, or from whom it was purchased for the Library where it now is stored among so many ‘treasures of Oriental learning, is unknown. Va lts Age. In the Colophon, it will be observed that, though the names of places and persons are fully recorded, no date is givent; nor among the persons named is there one whose date is known. The age of the + Seo Transactions, RIA vol. xx2, pp. 969-860. © 1b, p. 360, note f. * Tho date may bave been noted onthe Tost penultimate leaf ofthe Ms * Poxi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. ‘Ms. must therefore be inferred from such indications as are yielded by its handwriting and its contents. On the back of the modern English binding, the volume is lettered “Cire. 4.p. 1000”; but on what grounds, or by what authority, this date was suggested, does not appear. @. Arguments for and against an early date—The experts in paleography to whom it has been submitted have given very various judgments on its age—some dating it as late as the twelfth century, some as early as the ninth, or even the eighth. A perfect idea of the handwriting and present aspect of the Ms. may be obtained from the Plate, which re- produces with absolute fidelity two columns of it as specimens. It will be seen that its estrangelo is not of the purest or earliest type. The dolath and rish sre curved, not rectangular ; the Ae, vay, and mim are closed, not open; the semeath is joined with the following letter. In all those respects, and in the vccasional insertion (prima manu) of Greek vowels (sco facsimile, p. cv), it deviates from the usage of Mas. prior to the seventh century. But the rounded dolath and rish have been relied on by some as tokens of a date not later than 4.p, 1000, inasmuch as a reversion to the square archaic forms took place about that time, due (as is supposed) to the rovival of estrangolo by John, Bishop of Kertamin in Tur‘abdin (consecrated 4.0. 988). I am of opinion, however, that these tokens are unreliable. For— (1). The revival of the square forms did not superfede the contem- poraneous use of the curved forms, as is proved by Mss. which exhibit both. For example, in the Syro-Hexaplar estrangelo Ms. of Genesis, Brit. Mus., Add. 14442, ascribed to the seventh century, the text exhibits the square forms of these letters, but the curved forms prevail in the notes, which are unquestionably contemporaneous with the text.t Again, the Ms, Add. 12139 (Brit. Mus.), dated A. Gr. 1311 (= a.p. 1000), is written in its earlier part in the modified estrangelo of our Ms., and resembles it in the rounded forms in question and in other minor details,—but suddenly, in the middle of a page, changes to the square forms and adheres to them * These notes are written, according to Ceri maronitioun”” —Monumenta 8.6 P., tom. ut, f280. ‘other like Ms; 5,., sometimes of those in the Ambrosian Syro-Hexaplar (cighth contury). is “characte medio inter etrangealum ctACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). exit for the rest; though the colophon testifies, and the uniformity of the handwriting in all else confirms, that one scribe wrote the whole. All these Mss. are Jacobite. 5 (2). The extent and permanence of the revival effected by John of Kartamin has been over-estimated. Tho statement of Barhebreeus,* who is our authority in the matter, merely conveys that John restored and carried to perfection the use of the estrangelo among his own monks, so a8 to enrich his monastery with many volumes, and (no doubt) to organize for Tur'abdin an active and influential school of caligraphy. If his scribes preferred the square forms, the fashion did not last very long, even in his own monastery. In the Bibliothéque Nationale there is a Ms. (Zotenberg, No. 41), writton by a monk of Kartamin, 4.0. 1194, in which the estrangelo closely resembles that of our Ms., not only in general character, but in every characteristic peculiarity, including the curved dolath and rish, which have beon relied on as arguments for an eighth- or ninth-century date, 4, Reasons for assigning Me. to close of twelfth century.—After a careful comparison of a large number of Mss., especially those of the “Rich” collection in the British Museum, and of the Bibliothtque Nationale, Paris, and a full consideration of the evidence yielded by the Crawford Ma. itself, I have come to the conclusion that it belongs to the latter years of the twelfth century. ‘This is the period to which, after inspootion of some photographs taken from it, it was assigned by the person who was host qualified to speak with authority in such a matter—the late Dr. William Wright, of Cambridge. Another expert palmographer, Dr. Karl Hérning, late of the British Museum, to whom I showed the Ms. without informing him of Dr. Wright’s judgment, at once pronounced the same opinion. I will briefly stato the grounds on which this judgment rests— Evidence of handwriting —The handwriting of the Ms., which as I have shown has been assigned to sn earlier date only on grounds which are untrustworthy, bears a real and close resemblance to the estrangelo Mss. written about the year 1200—closer than to those of any previous or * Chron, Heels, 1, 76, col. 417 (ed. Abbeloos and Lamy).cxiv INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. following age. Dr. Wright and Dr. Hirning, independently, fixed on one Ms. of the Nitrian collection as especially like it in general character,— Add. 12174 (Brit. Mus.), a volume of Lives of Saints, written a.v. 1196 in the great Jacobite monastery of Melitene, a little north of Tur'abdin. Farther research, especially among the “Rich” Mss. and those of the Bibliothtque Nationale,* disclosed to me the fact thet nearly all the extant Biblical Mas. written (as this was) in or near Tur'abdin, present, more completely than those of any other origin, the peculiarities of hand- writing and usage which characterize our Ms,—the agreement in this respect being twofold, for it is observable in the cursive character in which (as in our Ms.) the colophon is usually written, as well as in the estrangelo of the body of the book. Moreover, all these Tur‘abdinese Mss. of which the dates are known or probably assignable, prove to have been written within the period specified: whence it may reasonably be inferred that, as regards the production of such Mss., the activity of the Tur'abdineso monks began after the middle of the twelfth century, and did not continue far into the thirteenth, Tam thus enabled to affirm two propositions: (i). That the Biblical Mss. which are most clearly distinguished by the marks which sre characteristic of the Crawford Ms., are Mss. written within the region, and the period, above indicated,—viz., in Tur‘abdin, in the latter part of the twelfth century. (ii). Conversely, that a Biblical Ms, marked by euch characteristics is presumably a Ms. of that region and thet age. Mention of Tus‘abdin in the Colopkon—The above results (though the research which led to them was suggested by the local and ecclesiastical relation between Tur'abdin whence our Ms. comes, and Melitene, the home of Add. 12174) might have been arrived at even if the colophon which specifies the birthplace of our Ms. had perished or had never been written. On the mere evidence of the handwriting, with its accompanying peculia- rities, I should have claimed it as belonging to Tur'abdin or some adjacent Jacobite contre. But when we call to mind the fact stated in the colophon—that the Ms. was written in a principal Tur'abdinese monastery, * The detuiled particulars as to these Mos, are given at length in my Memoir (in Traneactions, BiL.A., vol. 22%, pp. 364 1492).ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). ow by a Tur'abdinese monk, for another monk also Tur‘abdineso ;—it follows unquestionably that the twofold heads of evidence, of its characteristics in point of handwriting, and of its Tur'abdineso origin, give twofold force to the presumption raised above, that it belongs to the yoars just before, or the years just after, a.p. 1200. ‘The inferences which the colophon yields extend beyond the indication of the place of origin of the Ms. ‘There are, farther, inferences from— Structure and wording of Colophon ; in which respects it closely re- sombles like notes appended to the other Tur'abdinese Mss. above referred to. Some of these come so near to it in their wording that much help is to be had from them in the difficult task of deciphering the nearly obliterated final page of our Ms.; wheroas its fashion and diction differ widely from those of Mss. of “earlier or Inter date, or of other regions. Here then we have the internal evidence of the scribe’s language and matter, concurring with the external evidence of his handwriting, in determining the age to which he belongs. Political situation implied in Oolophon; in tho mention of “the ees\lax (= dominion, or principality) of Hosna Kipha.” It appears from thé Annals of Abu'lfeda* (and is confirmed by the Chronicon Heelesiasticum of Barhebraeus) that Hosn-Kipha, a strong fortress on the Tigris,” became for the first time the capital of a alex (ie., of the dominion of & quasi-independent sovereign prince, eé\uLe) in the twelfth century, under the Turcoman chief Sokman, son of Ortok (A.p. 1101); by whose line, the Ortokids, it was ruled till 1221-2. Hero then the evidence points, as before, to the twelfth century. Another authority supplies facts which serve to determine the date to the latter and not the former part of that contury, and at the same time to account for the lack of Tur‘abdinese Mus, of eurlier date. From the Life of John, Bishop of Marde, based on his own autobiographic memoranda," we learn that when he was consecrated, A.D. 1125, he found that, in his diocese and the adjoining region of Tur'abdin, the monasteries were and had been for two hundred years deserted or even in ruins. ‘This statement is no doubt exaggorated,* *+ Annals, tom. 11, p. 3365; 1¥, pp. 192, 392 (Adler's olition, Copenhagen, 1790). * Trantactions, B.1.A., Vol. X23, p. 358. © Ap. Assomani, B.0., tom. 11, pp. 216, 220-223, 228, * The facta ‘above stated as to Kartamin show that, thero at least, there was a flourishing monastery little more than a century before John of Marde.exvi INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. as to the duration or the extent (or both) of the desolation described ; but we may safely accept it as evidence that a long period of violence and disorder had preceded the rise of the Ortokid dynasty,—as the authorities above referred to amply attest. And the restoration of monasticism which this John is stated to have effected, in the rebuilding of monasteries and the refurnishing of them with books, which appears to have been the employment of his forty years’ episcopate, implies that he lived under a settled government and enjoyed from it some measure of protection. Indeed the narrative of Barhebraeus records instances in which, towards the end of the century, the intervention of the Ortokid prince (though @ Mohammedan) in the affairs of the Jacobite Church was sought and obtsined.* Thus the monks of Tur'abdin and the adjoining region (for Amid was added to the Ortokid princes in 1183," and Marde was ruled by another branch of the samo house’) were free to follow the impulse towards sacred letters which seems to have been originally given by John of Merde, and which was carried on and enbanced by two more noted persons who came after him,—Barsalibi, who died Metropolitan of Amid, 4.D. 1171, end Michael (the Great) his friend and supporter, who died Patriarch, 4.p. 1199. ‘Thus the historical indications implied in the word réaSlas—of a monastic life in Tur'abdin pursuing ite employments in som ething of security under the rule of a sovereign Prince—lead us, as the palmographical indications have already led us, to assign the Ms, to the latter rather than the earlier years of the twelfth century. Personal statements of Colophon as to the scribe, and his unclee.—Stephen the scribe tells us that he was instructed in writing by his uncles, monks like himself. He is therefore not of the first, but of the second or a later genoration, of the caligraphers of the Tur'abdinese school. ‘That school can hardly have been in operation before the middle of the century: and ho therefore (especially as three of the five uncles named are described as “ deceased”) probably belongs to a time not earlier than its last quarter. Farther: there is something to be said of the names of certain of these uncles; his “paternal uncles, monks: Mas‘ud deceased and John and Simeon.” ‘To these men, Stephen tells us, and to two “maternal uncles, monks and priests, deceased,” he owed his training “in the matter of + Chron, Kel, 91, eal. 607, 611, 613. % Abu'lfeda, dinals, tom. 1, 64. + 1, tom. a, 360.ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). cxvii doctrine and of writing and soforth.” He wrote, therefore, at a time when two of theso five persons were still living—the brothers John and Simeon, both monks and (as is implied) scribes. Now in a Paris Ms. above referred to, No. 41 Zotenberg (Biblioth. Nat.)—a copy of the Gospels bearing im its handwriting and all its characteristics the closest possible affinity to our ‘Ms—there is mention of two brothers, John and Simeon, monks, born at Mido, in Tur'abdin, and trained at Kartamin: one of whom, Simeon, wrote the Ms., and died in November 1194, as is recorded in a note appended by John. If these brothers aro the John and Simeon, “ paternal uncles” of the scribe of our Ms., it follows that the Ms, having been written in Simeon’s lifetime, cannot be later, but probably is not many years earlier, than 1194, Tho names are too common to permit us to regard the suggested identification as certain: but considering that the geographical area our inquiry deals with is a limited one,* and the class of skilled ‘Tur'abdineso caligraphers more limited still,” it seems fairly probable that the monk Simeon, who died in 1194, after writing the Paris Ms. No. 41, and who had a brother John also a seribe, was the Simeon who, with his brother John, instructed Stephen in caligraphy, and lived to see him produce the Ms. whose date we are investigating. Unless, therefore, we are prepared to go back to a date earlier than that of John of Kartamin—earlier than the period of ecclesiastical chaos that prevailed (as we are assured) for two centuries before the time of John of ‘Mardo—to go back, that is, to the opening years of the tenth century,—to an age when the type of estrangelo was not nearly so close to that of our Ms. as is the estrangelo of the late twelfth-contury group,—an age in which we have no evidence that Tur‘abdin possessed any caligraphers,— it seems that there is no date to which any Tur'abdineso Ms. can, with any plausibility, be assigned earlier than the middle of the twelfth century. And in the case of the Crawford Ms., the particulars stated in the * Tho greatest length of Tur'abdin is about one hundred miles, Mando adjoins ita border, and Amid (Diarbckr) is less than one hundred miles from Salach, For the topography of these regions, see Budger’s Nestorians (1860), vol.i; Taylor's Travele in Kurdistan, in Journal of Royal Geographical Society, vol. xxxv (1865) ; Prym and Socin’s Der newearamaische Dialect des Tir-ABdin (1881), tom. i (Hneitung); Sachau’s Reise in Syrien u. Movopotamien (1883), aloo his review of the work of Prym and Socin, in Zeituhrift der Morgenl. Geullachaft, Bd. xxxv, pp. 297 ag9. * See Transactions, R.J.-4., vol. xxx, pp. 970, S71. 4exvili INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. colophon tend to place it in the fourth rather than in the third quarter of the century. (6.) Contents and arrangement of the Ms.—An argument, moreover, which seems to preclude the assignment of an earlier date to the Ms., independently of palcographic considerations and of the evidence of the colophon, is to be drawn from the contents of the Ms. and their arrangement. As has been stated, it not only includes the four non- Peshitto Epistles, but reckons them among the Catholic Epistles, on par with the three of the Peshitto, placing them in their usual Greck order, 60 that 2 Peter comes next after 1 Peter and before 1 John. Now, of the few other Syriac Biblical Mss. which exhibit these Epistles in ‘combination with the Peshitto (less than a dozen in all), none is older than the eleventh century; only one (Add, 14478, Brit, Mus.) can be confidently counted older than the twelfth, and in that one they are a mere appendix added by a hand possibly of eleventh century to a much older copy of the Peshitto Acts and Three Catholic Epistles; in the remaining two (Cambridge Univ. Libr., Oo.i.,2; and Paris, Biblioth. Nat., Zot. 29) they stand all four together, after the three of the Peshitto. And a like arrangemont is found in Mss. even as late as the fifteenth century— as in the Amsterdam Acts and Epistles (No. 184) in which the Four are separated from the Three by the interposition of the Pauline. ‘The earliest dated Syriac Biblical Ms. which places the Seven in their Greek order is a New Testament dated 1471 (now preserved at Utica, U.S.A.),* but the British Museum copy of the Acts and Epistles (Rich. 7162), which follows the same order, is perhaps earlier." Thus it appears that our Ms., even if we date it, as I venture to do, about 1200, presents much the earliest Syriac example of this arrangement. It is improbable in the highest is Ms, (900 Transactions, B.Z.A., vol. axrn, p. $19), now containing only the Acts and Epiatles, appears to have been once a completo Now Testament, af which tho fst 178 leaves aro timing. I havo elsewhere (i., vol. xxx, p. 878) shown it to be probable that in the lost leaves ‘the Apocalypee followed the Gospels, as in the Crawford Ms. Tt may be confidently conjectured farther that, should thoso leaves be recovered, they would be found (after the analogy of the Crawford Ms.) to exhibit the Apocelypeo in the version 8, as the extant leaves exhibit the Four Epistles in the “*Pococke” version. ® Published in phototyped facsimile by Professor I. H. Hall: Baltimore, 1886, « Rowen and Forshall (Catal, p. 25) assign it to fourtoonth century: Wright corrects this to ‘teenth (Catal, p. 1203).ACCOUNT OF THE CRAWFORD MS. (SYR. 2). oxix degree that a Ms, exhibiting the New Testament Books in such an order should belong to an earlier age. ‘Tho Seven Epistles are indeed found arranged as of equal authenticity, in a poouliar order (1, 2, 3 John; 1,2 Peter, James, Jude), in one Syriac Ms. dated as early as s.v. 823 (Add, 14628, Brit. Mus.). But this Ms. is not a Biblical one like the rest, but a mere volume of miscellanies; and does not therefore form a precedent for the order observed in our Ms., which is a complete New ‘Testament, arranged for ecclesiastical use, It is, in fact, surprising thet @ Ms, of such contents and so arranged, rubricated for Church reading, and with one or two Lessons appointed from non-Peshitto Books, should belong to an age so carly as even the end of tho twelfth century ; for the order in which the Epistles stand would incline us to place it rather in the fourteenth, were it not that the character of the handwriting forbids 80 late a date. ‘On the whole, we may with some confidence conclude that the Ms. was written in the latter half, probably in the last quarter, of the twelfth century; yet (we may perhaps add) not later than 4.p. 1194. aeoogleAPPENDIX TO DISSERTATION.oxsii APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM TO APPENDIX. Iw constructing the following Lists, and the footnotes to the Greck text, I have taken the evidence of the cursives chiefly from the Apparatus Crificus of Tischendorf’s Greck Testament (eighth edition), with the corrections made by Dr. C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 1298 agg.; but have also used the editions of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tregelles, as well as the collections of the late Dr. Scrivener (Codex Augiensix, pp. 580 299.; Adversaria Critica Sacra, pp. 148 s99.), and of the late Rev. W. H. Simeox (Journal of Philology, vol. x11, pp. 285 299.). From the last, I derive the readings of mss, 68 and 152, including the very remarkable one of it. 13, in which 152 is the sole supporter of 8. In caso of the alleged variant, yéyove for yéyova, xxi. 6, I have judged it necessary to ascertain the readings of mss. 10, 17, 41, 94, 95, with the results that 10 and 17 prove to have been wrongly alleged for the variant; 95 deficit; and 41 and 94 remain as its only authorities.* For the evidence of the uncials, I have throughout collated the facsimile texts:—Of 8, Tischendorf’s great edition, St. Petersburg, 1862; of A, the photographic reproduction, London, 1879 ; of C, Tischendor’s edition, Leipsic, 1843; of P, his edition in vol. VI of Monumenta Sacra, Leipsic, 1869; of Q, his edition in the Monumenta Sacra, Leipsic, 1846, with his revised text of same, Appendix NV.7. Vat., Leipsic, 1869. For the Latin texts I have used the following editions:—Of “Gigas”, Belsheim’s (Christiania, 1891)*; of “Fleury’s Palimpsost”, Berger’s (Paris, 1889); of Primasius, Haussleiter’s (Erlangen, 1891); of * For theso results, I havo to expross my thanks, as regards ms. 10, to Mr. J. H. Jenkinson, M.A., Librarian, Cambridge University; ms. 17, o Monsicar Omont of the Biblioth¢que Netionale; ms. 41, to Professor Ignazio Guidi of the Royal University of Rome; and mst. 94, 95, to Mr. F. G. Kenyon, of the British Museum Library. * Tam indebted to the Right Rey. John Wordaworth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, for the use of « copy of this edition, carefully corrected from the Stockholm Ms.APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. coxa the Vulgate, Tischendorf’s NV. 7. Amiatinum (Leipsic, 1850) for the Amiatine, and a Paris edition (1877) for the Clementine. The fow readings cited from Cod. Armachanus, I have derived from the Ms. in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. For the Syriac () I have used De Dieu’s edition (Leyden, 1627) of %1; but have verified its readings by reference to the Leyden Ms. (Cod. Scelig., 18 (Syr.)), and to a collation of it for which I am indebted to the Rev. H. Jackson Lawlor: I have also used the texts given in tho Paris and London Polyglots of 3p. For ¥d and ¥n I have used the actual Mas,, B. 5.16 of Trin, Coll., Dublin, and Add. 17127 of Brit. Mus., p. 86.car APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. ABBREVIATIONS, &c. In the following lista, and in the footnotes to the Grock Text, ‘pr stands for tho toxt embodied in tho Commentary of Primasius, 9 for that of the Ma. Gigat” (Stockholm), A for that of the Fleury Palimpocat (Paris), et for the consent of pr, g, (or of pr and g where daft), om for the text of Cod. Amiatinus, d_for the Clomentine, as printed, 7 eg forthe consent of am, ly arm _ for the text of Cod. Armachanus, lat. for the oonsent of of and eg. ‘The MSS. are NACPQ, as in Troglle, and in Weis (s0-pp. xxxix, xl, spr.) ‘The mes. renumbered asby Tachendort and Gregory; ‘‘mu.” stands forthe consent of thee, By “nearly all”, “most”, “many”, “some”, *fow”, aro to bo understood ‘moat mss.”, “many mss.” early all ms some mes.”, “few m 1% 34, 31, 3n, 3p stand for the commonly known Syriac version, and the various texte ot it, for which sce p. 36, Purt II. 2* signies that the reading of 37 io marked in the Ms. with # (see above, p. Ixxxili).APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. 1.—The following is a collection of readings of S, which are attested by ono or more, but not all, of the MSS.; showing in each case, how the Greck, Latin, and Syriac, evidence is divided. is, 4, 4, 5, 5 6, 6, Resoonos oF 8, ois Aéyour, ACP, nearly all mas, Int., 3: 6dr, RACP, 1, 7, 28, 38, 49, 79, 91, 96, 99, &e., 9 4 og, 3: om. dovw, RA CQ, many, 3: Aiur, or eas), RAC, 1, 7, 28, 96, 98, 19, pr 3: ina, judi, BCP Q, mont, g, by 09, 3 droiqaer, RA CP, most, (lat. 2), % nds, RQ, most, g pre 35 (or Spy A, 88, few): tiv alive, 8: ins. raw aldvor, RCQ, most, g, A, og, B: SHporraty By 1y 12, 182, 3: ‘om. dpx'y nal rédos, AC PQ, most, A, pr, 3: de'tyeed, RCP, 88, 9, am: nai 8id, PQ, most, A, Bz aida Xpuoret, Q, most, pr, 3: om. by6 cyt... Haxaros, xa, RA CQ, ‘most, lat, 3 Zyipray, R, am: om. teat, RACP, many, lat, 3: Addyos, Py 1, 7, Ben, many, F: om. beri, ACP, 1, 28, 38, 152, fow, A, pr, am, 3: Aevnads RA CR, most, 9,19, 3: ervpanirg, R, few, lat, 33 (AC, -r8): dys, Q, most, 3: om, Bei AP.Q, mss, lat, 32 dni ris 8, RCPQ, mes, 3: as dies, B, 1, 79, few: 1B oy, ACE adrov cov, 8 Q, many: al dry RCP Q, ms, lat, 3: ras, Q, most, fel, 3 troporiy yas belore @Béor., NACQ, most, at, 3 derérraxas, P, 1, 7, 28, 79, come, 9, #9 : om. raxi, RACP, 9, ¢ om. teré, RPQ, ros, lat, om, aind, 8, 91, 96, fow, 9, el: om, wow, RACQ, most, pr, 69, 3: Coorm Reaonros, RQ, few mss,, sing. Q, 86, 87,95, 97, pref. sk. Py many, lat, ine, PQ, mott, 9, eg, dov[varr). A, 1, 12, 16, pr, omg Q, 7, 86, &., xovjoarn. bam, Sp. ACPQ, mss, let. 3, pl. AP, 28, 79, 97, few, om.5 (pr?) ACPQ, most, lat., sing. R, 1, 26, 35, 36, 79, 87, many, 9, £9, ine. , moet, by pr; el, Badd. (A, 25, ubstit.) Xpor@. AC, many, 9, pry eg, 0m. Bud. RACP, 28, 36, 79, few, 9, A, og, om. B, 1, 7, 36, 98, dc, ine ACPQ, mes, ef cl, 3, Suiprar. , most, ine NCO, most, lt, impt5 (A, pres). RQ, most, 9, «ins. , many, Aeveai eat (h, pr, om. 2). PQ, most, -o« AQP, 36, 98, lt, om. RC in. Ay lat, do rf. RACQ, most, lat, ¥, om. NPQ, mss, 3, rhs, (lat). ACE, many, lat, 3, om. oon ‘hom ea RACE, few, am, om. B, 7, 28 88, 79, fow, after. RACQ, most, pr, 3, wéeronas. Q, mas, pr, 3, ins. AC in. ACPQ, most, pr, am, 3, ins, BP, 1, 28, 85, 86, 79, 91, 96, many, g, ins.oxxvi APPENDIX ‘10 DISSERTATION. ‘Rasprnos or S—continued. 4.7, om. now, RAGP, 1, 28, 38, 78, bo: 8, ris, NCPQ, mu, (lat?) 3: 8, Zion Ay am 8, om. 12 Soya cov wal, A.C, fow, lat: 9, Prac gnaiay rip, Ry 3: 9, te RACQ, most, at, 32 10, p98, RP, mot, lat, 10, om. 84, RACE, many, lat 10, & Bdpiodor betoro ef fuse, ACPQ, most, 09, 3 10, Here, 8, most, og 32 10, Spiga, Q, many, 90g % 18, om. i fpye cov nai, MAE, 88, lt: 18, wal AC, 81, 72 18, om: [s) als, AG, pr, og: 12, drasas, A, 07 and some, 3: 18, muorés, NPQ, most, lat. M4 Su RAP my 2 14, age, Q, most, $: 14, gayciv, RACP, 1, 28, 36, 38, 79, 91, &e., at: 16, om 8 puod, NACO, nearly allyl 3: 16, of», ACQ, most 17, pues Be 92, 9, 17, om. gayer, RAC, most, pr, eg: 17, &, 8, 88,91, pr, 35 (B15 7,28, 79,96, 8, dnd): 18, 18 dy Ay pry 3: 18, 8$60hn, A, 36, 88, lat: 19, troporiv cov, ACPQ, nosey all, eg, 3: 20, mohs, N, 36, few, 9, (woAAd, fow, prj BXya, 1a): 20, ywraixd cov, AQ, most, pr, 3: a 20, davmiy, ACP, most: 20, spodiiro, RAC, most, 9, 20, vas, 8? 21, Gide, ROP, mony 9, 09, 3 22, ide, AC, most, pr, am, 3 22, abrév, A, 1, 86, 79, &e., pr, am, 23, fdr, ACP, nearly all, ef, am, 3: 24, BaBia, ACQ, most, 3: 24, Bard, RQ, 1, 14, 91, 92, fow, pr, 9 25, &y ff, RACE, most, lat, 3: 21, owrpiBerai{e), RAG, 1,7, 98, fow, 9: iii. 2 LJueddes, Q, many: 2, drobardy, ACP, many, lat, 3: Coomrsn Reapixos. , most, lat, 3, én Are RCPQ, mm, ot, ob 3, Spipr RQ, most, 3, én ACPQ, mun, om. rip, (lat?) P, 1, 28, 86, 79, 91, 96, fow, om. ACO, 38, fow, wi. Q, many, %, ine R, many, g, after. AB, 46, pr (9 0m., Byres (O, ixere). RACE, 1, 7, 28, 87, 91, Bc pr, iepiv. Q, neatly a, 3%, ine NEO, nearly all, ef, 3, om. PQ(R, & vais), mss., g, 3, tne. RCPQ, most, lat., drroras. AG, 14, 92, %, add. pov. C, pr, am, 3, NACH, 1, 28, 79, fow, lat, dzone. Q, many, %, pref. nal. +B, fow, ine, RP, many, lat, 3, om, ACPO, all cleo, pr, am, 3, add. a B, 1, 7, 14, 28, 79, 91, &., gy 3, ine. ‘ACQ, most, om. (Q with accus.). NPQ, ms, 9, «9, nfs dv; (Com). ROP, we, 3, add. atrod. R, 49, ef, om, cov. ACPQ, nearly all, am, 3, om. REP, 1, 7, 36, 88, 95, 80, 9, «7, om. oom. NO, 7,69, fow, 3, atnip; (at. 2. PQ, 7, 36, 87, 96, pr, eg, xpogiray. ACPO, mat, lat, 3, om. A, pr HPA. PQ(R, wads), 38, fow, 9, of, Pars, RNCPQ, most, g, some ey, %, abris. Q, 88, cf, abrod; (3 om.) RP, 1, 28, 36, 79, o, Int, by ACP, most, g, 3, BédAw, Q, 14, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, few, Xd (mg), dvoite. PQ, most, pr, eg, 3, cvrrpsBioeras. ACP, many, lat., 2, Gucddov. Q, many, dwofadrew.# APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Reapmvas ov S—eontinuad. fi. 8, pompdveve, 8, 14, ot: 8, ral ripe RACE, 1, 7, 8, 87, 91,96, &e, lat, 3: 3, yrreieys, ACPO, mes, g, eg, 3: 8, dri 8 és, RQ, many, of, am, ch, Z 5, ofres, RAC, many, lat, 32 5, repiBideras, 0, 2: 7, Sos beforo Adywrés, CPQ, men, lat, 3 7, om. atriy, RACP, many, lat, 3 1, om. a 4 4 dvolyur, RACE, many, Int, 3: 7, dolya, ACP, 1, 96, fow, lat, 8, aénjr, ACPO, nearly all, 3: 9, yoiow [yrécorra:], ACP OQ, nearly al, HH 3 9, 76, RACE, many, g, 07, 3: 12, bropd pov, RACP, many, ef, am, e, 3: 14, wad jy B: 16, Younis odre Leorés, AP, few, 0g (ot om): 17, br whosouos, AO, 1, 28, 35, 88, 79, 87, 95, 0.5 95 895 (Pr om. 18, rap! duod before xpvovor, RACP, many, #9, (pr om.), 3: 18, aloxiry, RACQ, nearly all, Int, 3: 18, Sxpwar, NAC (P, Uppioor), 7, 28, 36, few, (lat. ), (32): 20,* nal elodeioouar, XQ, many, pr: iv. 1, § gem}, APQ, mas, g, 0g, 3: 2, nal ei@us, P, 1, 7, &e, ol 3, Ips, PQ, nearly all, at, 3: 4, nal eoedéber, AP (om.), many, lat: 5, drimeov 708 Opéveu atzo’, Q, most, 3: 5, af, Q, most, 9, am: 7, ds dvOpirov, A, 11, 18, 86, pr, 1, (9 de- vito) 8, ty Txaorov, R, 38, 3, (lat. ?): 8, atran, NAP, many, g, 09, 3: 8, dyes tor, AP, most, lt, 3: 9, dyriv, Ry 82, 95: 10, dyar, B, 82: 10, adobor, AP, many, 9, (pr), (69%), 3: 11, 8 mips ne, RAQ, moet, am, 11, om. 8 dys, NAP, some, pr, og: 11, foay, RA (Q, 14, 38, ofx jour), most, 9, 9 (pr), B: Courran Raaprxos, ACPQ, nearly all, eg, 3 add ot. ©, mans, om. R, pr, neravwo. ACE, 1, 12, 8, pr, some oy, om. txt od. PQ, many, obros RAPQ, mos, let, fut RA, after, Q, many, ine. @ mans, ins. RQ, moet, fut. R49, lat, om. R14, prs pen. ©, many, pr om. Q, many, some 29, om. pov. ACPQ, mas., lat., 3, om. NCQ, most, 3 £ ofre y. RPO, many, 3, om. gr Q, many, after B, 7, 96, doxnmooivn. Q, most, iva éyxploy [~ AP, 1, 7, 28, 96, 98, 79, &c., 9, eg, 2 om. kak AR, pr, pre. ido. RAQ, most, RA, 28, 79, iepes. Q, many, 3, om. eal. RAL, 1, 36, 38, few, lat, om. atrod. AP (i om), 1, 86, 94, pr, eh 3, &. B, many, 3, 6 ddpurce; (R, bx Spo.or dpcry) ; Q, most, drdpsinov. 3, om. wal. ABQ, mot, wal , many, pr, om many, mover; (3, oni). APO, nears all, lat, 3, om. ABQ nearly all, lat, 3% om. NQ, many, pres. B, some, ef wipe Q many, 3, ine B, many, eet. © O hia, fi. 12—¥. 14.oxxviii Reapives o” S—continusd. ¥.1, eborPQ, most, lat: 2, dfs, RAP, 38, fow: 3, om. dvw, RAP, 1, 28, 36, 49, 87, 91, &e, at. 4, om. bydy RP (A om. ver.) 1,36, fow, 9, 3: 5, dy B14, (lat?) 5, Nous, Rel: 8, af cow, AP, most (lt. 2), lm: 9, Suds, RPO, nearly al, lat, 3: 10, Baodesoovor, NP, 1, 36, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, 97, 98, &c., 95m, (pre, oper): 11, ds gerry, R, most, ios, A: 18, 8 RAQ, 7, 14, 88, 87, 91-98, &e, 9: 18, xa Grondra ris ys, APQ, most, of, am, hd: 13, Gaddaoys £(8) tor, PQ, many, pr, eg (Ay most, Gediooys tow! 13, mivra, RAP, 1, 35, 38, fow, 9, 32 15, rat jxowea, R (Q?), 35, 36, 87, 98, &e.,9, 3: 15, Adgorras, NPQ, moet, lat:, ($2): 13, kat 7G dove, RPQ, mss, lat. 18, om. dui, RAP, 7, 85,87, 94, fow, lat, 3: 14, Aéyorra, Q, most: Viel, dry RACGP, 1, 7, 28, 98, 79, 91, Be, of, somo oy, 3: 1, teréy RACQ, most, lat 3: 1, eal Be RQ, mang, eel, Bs 2, rai dor, RACE, many, g, am, ob, 2 nat i AO PQ, most, am, 4, mopeds, 80, mans, lat, X: 4, bn airg, ROP OQ, nearly al, eg, %: ix (4rd), RCPQ, most, lt, 3: 4, fre, Q, most: 5, om. nai ie, ACP, many, g, 5, om, nad bor, Q, many, g, et 8, om. ds, Q, most, 9, eg, 3: 6, rps, Q, most, (lat?) 7, deriv, NA, 1, 28, 96, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., am, el: 7, om. nat Be, ACP, 1, 7, 28, 36, 8, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., am: 8, indvw airot, NAQ, most, lat, frohoide abrg, OQ, most, lat. APPENDIX 'T0 DISSERTATION. Course Raanrxos. RA, 1,14, bey 3, drole, Q, mort, lat, 3, add. dort many, 3, én Q, most, pr eg, ins. APO, nearly all, 3, profx 3, ARQ, mss, ef, am, 3, om. RQ, 86, few, dp, A dow. A, 44, om. AQ, 7, 14, 28, 85, 98, Be, X, pres. APQ, 1, 14, 49, 79, few, lat, om. ds. NPQ, mor, (lat. 1), 3, nout, B, 1, 28, 95, 36, 49, 79, 87, 96, &e., pr, wg, 3, Sore. Ni, 4, 95, fow, some eg, om. 8, 28, 88, 7, fo, g, 3, om. most, pr, 0g, wévras ; (Q, wérra nal wévras). AP, most, pr; eg, om. eal. Ay A, 12, Xyorra. A, 3, om, most, ins. NAB, 1, 7,28, 95, 36,98, 49, 79, Bo, at, % Deyor, Q, most, am, ct, Bre P, 1, 28, 7 few, om. AGP, many, am, on. @, mans, pr, some eg, om. Ri few, eof, ime. APQ, many, reps 4,81, ef, om. airg. 4, 1, fow, om. RACP, many, at, 3, prefix nat RQ, many, pr, oh 3, ins. ACP, 1, 7,28, 96, 49, 79, 91, Be. pry am, 3 ine RACE, fow, pr, im. RACE, 1, 79, few, 3, pl CP, most, ef, some oy, 3 om. RQ, most, of, e, 3 ine. OP, 1, 12, om. atrot. ‘x. wer aii, ACP, 1, 7, 28, 49, 79, 91, 96, 97, 1 By fr. er arin).APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. oxxix Reaixos o” S—continuad. vi. 8, &Bé6m arg, Q, most, lut., 3 9, om. risv dvGpimuv, ACQ, most, lat., 3: 9, Ba ry, RCPO, mos, og, 3 10, expagay, RACQ, most, 10, garg jieyddg, RACP, 1, 7, Re, lat, 3: Ui, dedory, RACP, 7, 14, 28, 35, 36, 38, 49, 79, 87, 91, 92, 96, Be Jat, 3 LL, Fe xpévov, CPQ (N, est xp.), mas, cb, 11, puxpée, RAC, 1, 28, 36, 38, 79, and fow, $69, (prom. vors.), E 1, wAnpwGor, AC, 22, 9, 09, (2) M1, Kal of edges, RACP, mss, 9, LL, of péMdovres, RACE, mans, 9, 095% 12, bre, RACQ, moa, 9 cl, 3: 12, péyas tyérero, RCPQ, nearly all pr, oh 3 12, pddas eyévero, RQ. 7, 14, 45, 81, 91, 98, &e, 12, Bhy, RACQ, mot, 9,09, 3: 18, a6, 8, 47, eg: 18, Biddows, Ny 95, 87, 90, 97, &o, 3, (Beroion, most) 15, Desbapor, ACO (8 om.), mot, lat, 3: 17, atran, RO, 88, 9, «9, 3lnp: 1, Kal werd, NPQ, mas, 3 1, raéra, B, 1, 28, 86, 79, 92, 95, 1, wav, RB, 1,28, 38, 49,79, 91, fon Int, 3: 8, Be. | (Ay 3, om): 2, drarohir, A, 90 2, bepage, NCQ, mas, lat, 3: 8, pire [nn82] viv, RCPQ, most, of, some oy 8: 6 roped, 8, el, 3: 9, om. nat bos, A, pr, og 5 (Com. Bod): 8, by RCPQ, mus, lat, 3: 9, airér, RACP, 1, 14, 96, 92, fow, 3: 10, 7§ Ocg, RCP, neatly all, lat, 3 11, dnémor 708 pévov, RACE, many, lat 12, alévow duyy, RA PQ, nearly all, g, eg, 3: 14, pov, RCPQ, nestly all, og, ¥: V4 atrde RAF, 1, 49, 79, 91, 96, 8, 9, eg 3: 16, easdoowoen Ny 86, 9; #9, 3: 16, Bopjoowew, P, 1, 8, 36, 8, 87, 192, 9: Couxren Reaninas. RACP, 1, 28, 49, 79, be. abrois, RP, 1, 36, 49, 91, 96, fow, ine. Ay et, om. Bd. B, 1, 86, 88, 79, 9, eg, 3, impt. Q, many, accus, Q, many, om. Ayam, tronep, ©, moet, om. NPQ, most, active, * ey, om. eal Q! mans, prefix eal B, many, am, pr, pref: eal 4,31, 9, am, tramp. ACP, 1, 28, 36, 88, 79, dc, lat, 3, transp. B, 1, 85, 49, 87, 91, 96, &e. pr, om. ACBQ, nearly al, pr, (9 om.), 3, els. AOPQ, 14, 36, 49, 92, few, let, BOA B, 1, 28, 38, 49, 91, 96, &e., prof: was. APO, noatly all, pr, 24, abrod. ‘AG, lat om. wai. RACO, most, roire. ©, most, lat, re RCPQ, nearly all, (lat.?), 3, sing. AP, impt. A, 88, few, am, cl, nal ARQ, man. of, em, 04d. 1 (C, »)- NPQ, me, g, 3, ine As eal Q, most, lat., om, A, 88, git many, 3, 044 aod. ©, 28, pr, om. dui. Ay 1, et om. most, (ort), om. APQ, nearly all, g, add. tu RAQ, most, pr, og, Z, add. tre. Oia, il 4-17.oxrx APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. ‘Reapowos ov S—continued. Vii.2, Béoyear, NCP Q, most, lat, Zdlp: 5)*xal dovparal after Bporral xai guvai, AQ, (By alter g. eal B.), many, lat, 37 6, davrovs, PQ, mas, 2, (lat. 2) 7, naweypéva, AQ, mot, g, eg, 3: 8, om. &yyehos, RE 8, om. wups, Q, many: 9, om. pipes, AQ, nearly all, 3: 9, ri dv-7j 6, 8AP, many, g,h (pr, piacium), 3 9, Yoxtny 9, Siep@dpn, Q, many, lat: 11, es dyivdior, R, 7, 28, 49, 79, few, lat: 12, pi gery before x3 epirov aris, RAP, most, eg, (8) 3: 13, évés, AQ, mas, lat, %: 15, derod, $8 A.Q, most, lat, 3: ix. 2, om. nal fpoige.... 4Bieoor, RQ, most, am: 4, 088i wiv ydupér, APQ, nearly al, g, 9,3: 4, perdmuw abriov, Q, most, pr, cl, 3: 6, Seiferas, Q, most, lat, 3: 6, 8 Oévaros before dx’ aviv, NAP, 1, 28, 96, 88, 79, fe, lat, 3: , Snover xpwog, RAP, 1, 28, 35, 36, 79, 87, ey at, 2: 10, # tfovoia atriv, RAP, 1, 35, 26, 87, fe, HP 9 11, nad fyowew, P, 1, Be, lat, 32 1, be airdy Before Bardia, RAP, 1, 14, 28, 36, 79, 92, @.: 1, 8 Rs pry og, 3 1, nal & RAP, 1,36, fom, pr, 0g 12, Uperas, RA, 7, 14, 49, &, 1, 18, ofa. Meri ratra 8, R: 18, reoodpur, BQ, most, pr, ef: 15, es riv Hndpar, Q, many, 3: 16, 8éo [Bs], RAP, 1, 28, 86, 79, &., 9, «9, , brd), 3 16, prpidfas, Ry Zdlp : o » 18, dx ro8 xarvob, OP, | few, gc, % 18, dx 08 Below, B, 1, 1, 79, Bey 95 22 20, ofre [ob8¢} pererinoas, RAP Q, many, hat 32 Cocxran Reaptxos, A, 35, 87, 95, 95, 96, 3m, sing. ‘A, 16, 28, Sadip, alter B. belore $. RA, aiross. RP, some, some ey, (pr?), sing. APOQ, mes, lat, tne. RAP, many, lat, 3 i 38.35, 68, 87, (lat. 2), én Q, many, c, om. ray, (am om. clause). APQ, mss,, 9, ey, (pr?), %, plur. RAP, 1, 28, 49, 79, 91, 96, &0., %, plur. APQ, nearly all, 3, le Spoor. Q, mans, after. RP om. B, 1, 7, 28, 86, 79, fow, dyy2dov. AP, 1, 7, 28, 86, 88, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, f R88, pr, om, RAP, 1, 28, 79, few, g, am, om. pron. AP (8, dvyn)s 1, 96, 38, fow, pres. Q, most, after. Q, most, xpuest. Q, most, &, 3, dfovolar Fxovow. RAQ, most, om. nai. Q many, lat, 3, after. ABQ, mas, 9, om. most, gh 3, dy 8 PO, mou, lat, plar. AR, 1, 28,49, 87, &o lat, 3 otal werd rare, ald; (Q, 14, obet, Kat werd rafra 8). A, 28, 79, 4 am, &e.y om (38 om, lant), AP, many, om. cis ri, (9 om. clause). , most, om. APQ, mus, lat, Z9, nominet, - NAQ, most, am, om. dx, (pr om. clase). RACO, most, eg, om. dy (pr om, cause). ©, many, of perer, © 0 bie, vil. ix. 18.APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Raspimas or S—eontinued. ‘ix. 20, {vAwa, before AiBera, R: 21, sopredas, CPQ, mes, lat., 32 x. 1, dor, RAC, 35, 36, 38, 87, few, lat., ¥: 2, BuPrapthor [Bépor}, RACP, 1, Be, eg, 2: 8, tals... duvais, 7, gy (prom): 4, Sr, ACPQ, nearly all, eg, 3: 5, om. ry Bais, A, 1, 86, fow, og: 6, om. xa ry 6hacoar wal r3 dv abr, RA, 38, 49, 98, &e,, of: 1, tredlaty, RACP, most, Sin: 7, BotAovs atrod, Q, many, (lat. ?), (3?): 8, BsBrapiBiv [Sipior}, NPQ, most, 3: 10, BiPhepibioy [-8dpior}, A CP, 1, 14,28, 36, 49, 79, 91, 96, & pr, (g om.) 3 10, ds wide before yous, RCP, nearly al, g, 9, (pr om.) 3: 11,* Ade, B, 1, 7, 28, 88, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e. et, ly 3 xis], al derjees dyydos, Q, 14, 85, 36, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., 3: 2, thy Lowber, B, 1, 85, 87, fow: 2, ixfade ifeber, A, 1, 14, 28, 35, 96, 49, 79, 87, 91, 92, 96, 3%: 4, Bio Mogi, N, (32): 4, of [at] animor, ACPQ, most, , 3: 4, derdre, RACQ, most, eg, 3 5, da (2), CPO, nearly all, pr, 3: 5, abroie (2) ator 8. Busioas, R: 6, viv ofpavér after rheioas, RACE, 1,28, 96, 49, 79, &6, lat, 3: 6, dey why belore Sodus, RACP, 1, 28, 36, 88, 49, 79, &e, lat, 3 8, v8 arduara, RP, 1, 95, 36, 88, 49, 79, 87, 91, &e lat, 3: 8, godav eal Andy, Rol, B: 8, ra edyara (1), P, 1, 28, 86, 98, 49, 79, 91, 95, 96, &e., go, (prom), 8: 9, wal Giov, RACE, 28, 49, 79, 95, 0, 9, 9, (Pr om), 3: 9, Agjoover, Q, most, who 2: 10, eégparbipoorras, Q, most lat, 3: 10, réupouocs, AC, 1, many, lat, 3, (Q, many, ‘Bieowow) oxaxi Courren Raxpines. ACPO, mas, lat, 3, after. RA, ornpias. PQ, most, om, Q, most, ef, BrBNior. ACPQ, mss, eg, 3, some, 8, 87, 79, ot (que), Boa. NOPQ, nearly all, ef, 3, int, CPO, mos, eg, 3, ine Q, many, lat. (fut), 3p, redeot davrod Bovhous, RACGP, most, AG, 6, 14, lat, BiBdior. RQ, most, og, ByBNiov AQ, 36, after. . RAQ, most, am, &e,, plural. RAP, most, lat. om. APO, most, lat, 3, rv Halor. Q, most, (eg, ot om.), Bede de (Ny UF, , ip. footer). ACPQ, mut, prof. al (Int?) RB, 7, 14, 35, 87, 82, 95, &e., pr, eg, om. art. B, 1,7, 28, 96, 38, 49, 79, 91, 85, 8c, ef, érvdoas. RA, eabj, (98, fut.) 9, ACPO, many, 4,9, btwoun; (many, pr 3, before). Q, many, before éZovriay. after Gedjouss, Q, most. ACQ, most, sing. ACPQ, mss, lat, 2, transp. RACQ, mot, sing. Q, many, om. nat. ACP, 1, 28, 96, 79, few, am, den, pres. RACP, 1, 28, 86, 79, few, pres. RE, 28, 86, 79, few, some wg, winrowoe. + Chet x. 10 (ipeper}—ai 3.‘Respnen o” S—continuad, x4. 11, spuds, NB, 1, 14, 28, 35, 86,98, 49, 91,96, 152, &e,, lat. ?: 12, Faovar, NACP, few, og: 12, atrois, RCP Q, nearly all, og, 3: 18, al & decry, ACP, 1, many, lat, ¥: 13, Spg, RACE, 1, 36, 95, few, pr, oy, 2: 13, & 6B, Ry 14, pry (6g, in timorem): 16, om. dun, ACP Q, mort, lt, % 16, of trdrior, NCP, most, lat, % 16, niBypras [-noor], ACP, most, lat: 17, Sry AP, mot, lat, 3 18, Siapdeiparras, C, 7, 35, 48, 87, 91, 96, few, Tat 3: 19, & r§ ofparg, NPQ, most, pr, eg, 3: 19, aires, ACP, 1, 28, 85, 36, 79, 87, 85, te, ral ouopés, ACP, most, lat, 3: Exovre nal, RC, 95, ef, am: rpstovon [spake] am, 8 AP, some: 2, nat Boones, Ay 3: 3, nddas before xvp, AP, 1, 28, 96, 49,70, 87, 91, 95, 96, Be, 3 opés, CQ, 1, many, 4; doruey, Cy 3 (14, 92, for): 6, exe’, RA PQ, most, g: 4, 8 Moyet, RCP Q, as, lt: 8, oxwoar, NCB, 1,28, 96,79, many lat 3 (@, 14, texwor): fis, AC Q, nearly all, 9, «7, 3: 12, [eara]ompotrres, A CP, mort, 3: 14, Bo, RQ, most, (lt. 2): 14, bres teddies, Q, most 17,.d8i rf, NAP Q, mes 18, tordbye, PQ, neatly all iil. 1, 5vona, ROP, 1, 28, 79, 95, &e., Dedrrer, Ry 14,92, 3: deriv, RACE, most, Int, 3: ir [81] Bore, ACP, 85, 36, 79, 87, 95, te, pr, em, 4, Bivaran, NA CP, 1, 28, 85, 96, 38, 49, 79, 87, 95, 97, &e, lat, 5 Braodnpiar, PQ, mont, 3m; (am, genit. sing.) at, 3 APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Courren Kraprxos. ACQ, many, %, prof art. Q, most, 9 (pr om.), Rap [Ho 4, 28, 4, om, (prom. clause). , many, om. nal. @, many, Haden. ACPQ, nearly all, R12, 18, 38, 40, AQ, 1, 7, 14, 92, 95, fow, om. ot. NQ, many, 3, pref. of [of]. NC, some lnt., prof. xa APO, most, pres. ptep. aoe ove. 3, Fagofon. AC, 14, 85, 88, 87, 92, 95, fow, 9, 4, Q, most, 9, (pr hiat), ag, r08 Kupiou , many, om. APQ, nearly all, oh 3, om. rat @ some, pr, some eg, tpagers (0, some, 9 ch 3, impt.). RCP, mes, lat, om. nai. NCQ, most, ef, 3, after. RAL, many, lat, rps. NAP, nearly all, Zorye, (ln alti). 6, few, Ay pr, #95 om. 4,3, breM. A, many, foxvoe 81 prom. 8. RB. few, lat, xarouairres. ACP, 7, 28, 36,79, 95, fow, 3, prof. a ACP, 1, 28, 28, 78, 94, 95, few, lat, 3, Brow tolteras. ©, pr, om. dni. a RAC, 87, 92, lat, 3, dondy. AQ, most, eg, 3, plur- ACPO, nearly all, lat, sing. , fow, om. dx. Q, most, g, cl, rp Sedandrs, Q, most, Bivaros. 6, some, (Bdaognsis), A, some, (Bddognne), eh (oP) (pr om.), dlp, plan.xiv 1, om. dpuiuis, RAC, mens, lat APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. ‘Raapmras o” S—continued. xiii. 5, roxjoat, A CP, 1, 28, 86, 79, 95, few, 9, 09, (pr om), 3: + Majoras: airovs, BQ, most, at, 10, es abywaduerar bit, A, am and some eg; (8, with 83,35,87, ee, 3 nw x [Be ]éyes)? 10, dronreres R, 28, 85,78, 79, 95, 3: 12, Gavdrov aired, XA CQ, nearly all, 3: 18, tba before xal rip, RACE, 1, 35, 38, 87, ‘lat. (prom. eal), 3: 13, warep. before tx 108 ofpavod, NP, 1, 95, few, 3: 13, naraBalven, R ACP, 1, 28, 95, 88, 79, 95, Be, 95 095 (pr Blep)s 3 13, dri, Q, 7, 14, 38, 81, 92, &e., 3: 14, Ba rh open 1, wai én .. 14, 8 8 1s many, eg: M4, ie, NACE, 1, many, at: 14, [én] is pnayaipar al yee, RACE, ‘many, lat, 15, Botva before xveiya, RAP, 1, many, lat, 2: 15, om. toa eal... ein 108 Oyplon C, 14, 28, 73, 79, fow, 2 15, rovjou, 8, 14, 36, 78, 79,92, 95,98, (3 15, fou doo, AB, 7, 36, 95, few, et ol, 3: 16, xépayna, RACP, 1, 28, 35, 36, 38, 79, 87, 95, 97, 98, fc. lat, 17, fra, NO, 28, 79, 96, fow, pr, some eg, 17, 708 brSparos, C, pr, some eg, 3*: 18, om. [eal] 8 dpudds atraf, 18, ajnorre, NAP Q, nearly all, lt., 2: 1, yeyrapndror, RCP Q, mas, lat: 2, § ord fe, RACQ, many, lat, 3 3, ds Biv, AC, 1, 28, 86, 79, 95, &e., 0 4; obral dow of, RCPQ, mot, eam. el, Be, 4; ofra of, RAGE, 1, 26, 98, 152, , am, ct & 4, Say, RPO, most, 9, 4, tepdotpoar, RACE, many, lat: 4, drapxi, ACP, neatly al, 9,09, 3: 5, obx eiplty after & 19 oF. abrir, RACP, 1, 28, 96, 49,79, 9, 95, 96, lat Covrree Resoinos. Q, many, add. woAcuow; (N, 8 Here). ACE, 1, 14, 92, few, om. RN CPO, wang (others vary), sel. CPO, nearly all, fut; (A, AxoerarSivas). B, 14, 92, lat om. afr Q, most, attr ACO, most, lat, after. Q, most, xarafairy. RACE, many, 9,09, es 5, om ACPQ, 28, 85, 79, 87, 92, &e., of, &, (32). , most, 3, impt. Q, many, xal Kyoer dnd ris waxeipas. Q, many, aftor ; (C om. Boia). APO, most, lat, Sdnp, ine. APQ, (Com. clause), most, lat. woojoy. RQ, 14, 28, 85, 98, 79, 70, 87, 92, 93, 04, 98, &e., ‘a, om. ia (1,49, few, ins. fva before dwoxrar6iso.). Q, many, plar. ARQ, mot, 9, 95 pref xi. RAP, mss, g, am, ch [5] 7 drone ACPQ, mss, lnt., 3, sins. ©, 5,11, Baa. many, 3, ine. A, % pre. 15. P, some, durjy. NPQ, most, of, 3, om. os. 4, some eg, om. ofrol elo. , moat, pr, some eg, 34, otro etow of. AG, 1, 28, 36, 87, fow, pr, (3), ordye. Q, 7, 14, 88, be, 3, pref. bed "yoo. R, 16, 88, pr, dx" dpxis 7, 14, 55, 38, &,, before.‘Raaprves o” S—continued. xiv. 5, ydp, 8, neatly all, el, 3%: 6, ddAov, ACP, 49, 79, 91, 95, &e., lat., 3: 6, tmirois, RACE, 83, 35: 6, xaBqudvous, CPO, mot, lat : 1, @xér, RACE, 1, 26, 49, 79, 91, 95, 96, ey Pry am, 3: om. dyyedos, &, 95: inece bit, AP, 1, 28, 36, 49, 79, 91, 95, ko, lat, 3: 8, # AC, 85, 88, 90, 95, &o, ey, 3 nfs, ACP, uoat lat, 3 cabrois, NC PQ, mss., 9, 09, 10, de rg rormply, ROP Q, nearly all, lt 10, Ravenebjoeras, RCPQ, nearly all, lat, 3: lavas, RAQ, most, lat., 3: U1, alévay, % A PQ, nearly all, Int. 3: 15, de rod ebpavod batore Acyoceys, ACP Q, neatly al, Iat., 3: 18, Keplg, AQ, mes, lat 13, drofivjaxorrs dripriy P, many, 13, vat before Meu, ACP, mang, Int, 15, (rot) epioas, ACP Q, nearly all, lat, 3: 18, &)AGor, RCPO, mes, ef, Z: 18, 5 bya, A 9, 9, 18, gurj, RAQ, 38, 95, few, g,A,19(pr om.) : 18, 13 Spéravor belore cov, 18, faqaray af eragudat, RACE, 1, 7, 28, 88, 49, 79, &e., 9, hy (prom), 0g, 3: 18, atris, RACP, 1,28, 38,49, 79, &o,9, hog: 19, dni rw yin, R, 38, 97: 19, rv peyddmy, N, 1, 7,28, 95,79, 87, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, &o.: a: 20, Biaxootar, Ny 26: xv. 2, 108 Onpiow boforo nfs cedvos, RACP, many, Int, 3: 2, du rs eeévos, ACP Q, neatly all, 3: 3, alsnar, 8 C, 18, 95, e9 (am, calorum), %: 4) add. 26, 8, 7, 38, 95, few, ol, 3: 4; dows, RACP, Be, 1, 28, 36, 38,79, prs oy, 3: 4, wéora ri lirn, RACE, many, lat, 32 6, of yrres, AG, mang, 3: 6, dx ro vani, RACE, 1, 7, 28. 36, 79, 94, en lat, 3: 6, on, ctoer, RACE, many, lat: APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Courrsn Rrapixas. ACB, 12; ef, am, om. RQ, many, om. Q, most, ros; (98, 97, Int 32 ros). A, 14, 28, 79, 92, &c., %, naroucoivras. most, 9, ef, Kipeo. ACPQ, noarly al, lt, 3,-0m. 145 CQ (Bom. clause), many, ema. PQ, mort ef, om. Q, come, rairys. Ay pr airs. 4,7, 16, 89, e108 rornpiow. ‘A, 8, 14,86, 92, plur. CB, 1, 7, 14, 28, 79, 92, sing. ©, 28, 79, sing. B86, ater. OB, Xorg (3, Of). Q, many, of, ob, drodrfonorres, Andprs; (WAC, 2). | many, after; (9 om.) R98, 108 Bop. ot am, om, RPA, mss, A, pr, om. b. CP, most, 3, spar. ACPQ, mat, 3, alter; (lat 7). Q, mans, sing. Q, many, 3, ris vis. ACR Q, neatly all, lat, 3, ets rip y- ACPQ, 14, 88, 49, 90, 92, 96, &e., pr, 3, roy meyers (9 19%). » 3, dfax. ACPQ, nearly all, Q, many, after. B, 7, 38, fow, hy pry (9, 09%), om. de. APQ, nearly all, of, 26viv. ACPO, most, of, am, &e., om. Q, most, g, Sy0s. Q, 7, 14, &o, wévres, NPQ, many, (lat. 7), om. Q, mans, om. Q, many, %, ins iteAPPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Ruuimas or S—continued, Nivor [Auvotr, -ois}, NPQ, nestly all, of, 1 tera $idas, ACPO, mee, let, 3: 8, be 100 xanved, Q, many, é& 108 vaod, RAC P, many, lat., dnp: 1, éerd dudes, RACQ, most g, pr eg, 3: 8, Beirapos dyyehos, Q( om.), nearly alo, 3: 8, fea, NPQ, nese al, 454, (or om.) eg: 3, dy 77 Gaddooy, RP Q, mss., lat. 4, ais rots, AC PQ, nearly all, lat., 4, eds rs, Q, most, 3, most eg, del rd 4, byivorro, Ay 36, 95, 0, 32 6, ale, ACPQ, nearly all, lat, 3: 6, Buxas before airois, N, 14, 92: 6, dieu ACPO, mss, of, el: 8, Eyyehos, R, 1,28, 85, 36,38, 49,79, 91, Se. pry 8, robs dodpimove before dy mpi ACP Q, ‘many, lat, 9, om. of &vGpuror, X ACP, 1, 36, 38, 79, 95, fe, Tat. 11, de roy xd, KACO, newly al, Int. 3: 12,' dvarohin, A, 1, 28, 88, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., (at.2): 18, de r0¥ oréuaror rol Bpdxovros ai, AQ, nearly ll, lat, 3: 18, rpla before axdBapra, NAC, 1, 7, 28, 96, 138, 79, 91, 95, 96, &e., pr, eg, (9 om.), 14,°& deropete [or] ras, AQ, most, Int, 3: 14, dl rots, AQ, nearly all, 14, dxcdins, Q, most, pr, (27 15, tpxeray, B, 98, 47: 17, weyddn, RQ, nearly al, lat 3: 17, vaod, NA, 14, 92, 95, few, pry 99, 3: 18, cuopis dyévero péyas, RA, 1, 14, 28, 36, 49, 79, 91, 92, 98, 96, &., 9, eg, moxt, 18, dfpuros éyévorre, RQ, nearly all, 4, e7, (er om.), 3 19, al wédus.... decay, AQ, mss., lat. x¥ii.3, ino, Q, most, lat: 8, Txor, Q, most: 4, om, nai belore nexpurey., PQ, many: oxaxy Covrrm Respreas, AC, 88, 48, 90, am, &e,, Nor. B, some eg, om. ter. RACE, many, Int, om. de rf, Q, many, 3, om. B, 1, 28, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., A, om. brré. ACP, 18, 95, of, am, om. Syyehor. AC, 95, 3, on. AG, 3, pref. rd, (3p, rar). R, 18, 31, é ros RACE, 49, 79, 91, 95, 96, fow, ot, some ey, om. prep. CPO, nearly al, eg, sing. 8 86, 89, plor. ACP, nearly all, lat, 3, after. Ram, Be. (Zp. bp, oF Br ACPQ, many, g, am, 3, om, many, after. , most, % ine. B, 88, om. de. NCQ, most, 3 (lat. 2), sing. RO, throc mss, om. Q, many, after. R, 1, 79, 95, few, deropedeatas. B, 88, es ros. RA, 14, 38, 92, 95, fow, 9, «9, om. AQ, nearly oll, lat, 3, plur. A, 1, 12, 46, om. Q, mang, add. 108 otpared; (1, 28, 36, 79, &e., 9, om. vai). Q, many, pr, some og, om. verb. A, 98, sing. 1, 3, sing. RAP, fow?, (32), muse NAP, tow, (lat.2), (32), ase RA, 1, 7, 36, 38, &e., lnt., %, tne, + See not in > P aia vi. avi 1. + © hint, avi 18 (be Bérpexe)—»oxxxvi ‘Reapixas o” S—continuad, xvii d, (alter ropretas) atria, A, 1,7, 28, 85, 96,38, 49, 79, 87, 91, 95, 96, &e., «9 6, de 708 atyaros, A, 1, 7, 28, 86, 49, 79, 87, fo, lat 3: 6, rai x rob afuaros, NAP, mans, lat , 3: 6, Baina péya before iv atriy, R, 3 1, dpb botore ove, AQ, many, #, ef, 3+ 8, Sedyen, Ay 12, Bry (9, 89 iit): 8, BexpacBiorras, AP, 3: 8, dei ris Tis, RAP, mans, 9, 8, 12 dvépara, RP, many, lat: 8, 13 Onplon etore Bru fry RAP, most lat 3: 10, Bc before airdv pera, Q, many, lat, 3: U1, abrés, AP, many, let 12, ofrw, NPQ, mss, ef, am, cl, 3: 15, de Ay pry eg) 3 16, cal yuprjp, NAP, most, lat, 3: 11, ad wofoas play yroyyy, NPQ, neatly al, (ort), 3: ris vis, NAP, many, lat, 3: dreow bit, A, 1, 7, 36, 49, 19, 87, 91, 95, 96, &c., lat, 3; (B, tr): 2, wveiqaros dxaddprov xai pepurmpivos, AP, 1, 86, 98, 73, 19, 152, &e., gy 2: 2, om, nat gudaxi ravris Spriov dealiprov rat nqworudvow, B, 1, 7, 14, 36, 38, 73, 79, 87, 152, &e. 3, rod ofvow, NPQ, mes, ef el, Z2 4, Aer, RAP, 1, 49, 79, 91, 95, 96, few, HH 3: 4, W atric before & dase nov, AQ, nearly al lat, 3 6, Berdboare atrf, P, 1, 7, 38, 91, &e, 3: 6, xorpig, ACP, many, lat, 2 9, wdaszovaw [-orrat] atriy, P, 1, 79, fe 11, wAasoovsr .... xeBjoovew, Q, most, £9, 11, obxére with proceding, P, 49, 79, 91, lat.: 12, napyaperdy, 8, 85, 87, 95, et, 3: 12, Gihov, NCPQ, mas, ef 3: 18, nofy]éqopor, ACP, many, lat, 3: 15, om. xal dyopor, Q, most, pr, eb: 13, ral obor, NACE, most, lat, 3 14, brupa oo, RA CP, 35, 87, 95, pram: 14, guxie ov, Q, 35, 87, many, 9,6, 3: 14, cipjooucw, RAC P, 85, 36,87, fow, og, APPENDIX ‘TO DISSERTATION. Comerm Resprras. , most, of, re ye; (Ny, atric nal re yes P om.)- PQ, many, om. ds (R, 38, dat). many, om, aad AQ, nearly all, lat, 3, after. RP, 1, 14, 86, 49, 79, 02, 96, Be. pr, am, attor. RPO, nearly al, 3, infin. RQ, me, Garpdoorrac; (at. ?). Q, many, pr, eg, ry viv. AQ, many, 3, sing, Q, many, alter. AP, many, Be alter abrir; (9 alter pairs). RQ, many, (2), ofros. A, wome eg, ob RPQ, ms, 9, Af. Q, 1, 36, 97, &e,, om. 4,79, 9, e9, 0m. many pref. ti. RQ, many, somel, RQ, most, pr, eg, om. ad pqwur. AQ, most, lt. 3, sna. AC, am, om. ©, most, pr, sing. RCP, 38, after. RACQ, most, g, eg, (pr deviates), om. arf. RQ, 7, 14, 38, 8, add. RACQ, most, lt, 3, om. atriy RACE, 1, 49, 91, 95, &,, ef, pron, ACQ, mort, 3, with following ; (38 neutral). O, mort, uapyapirov 5 (A, ~ais; CP, ras). Ay 69, Nov. RO, mans, genit. RACE, 35, 36, 79, 67, Be, g, am, 3, ine @, some, om, nearly al, 9, el, 3, om. oov. NACE, 95, pr, an, om. cov. , most, ef, pps.APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION, Resprxos o” S—eontinuad. xvii, 15, waiovres, NACE, many, lat 16, eat Aéyorres, P, many, pr, eg 16, obat bit, RACP, many, (85, 87, tar), Int, 3%: 18, rarvér, ROPQ, neerly al, of, 18, om. rairy, RAP Q, mas, pr, 3 18, [2r]éBadov, ACO, nearly all, 19, txpagar, AC, 95, €9, %: 19, al Aéyorres, PQ, most, 9, em, 3: 18, obat ie, ACP Q, most, (36,87, fr), lat, 20, nal of dxdorohow, RAPQ, most, pr, 19, 21, pidor, PQ, most, g, (pr?), dln: 21, om. & arf, ACP, nonrly all, lat, 3: 22, addmvyyor (R, 85, 81, 3, plu): 22, om. nat dur) wihov . .« dt, R, 88, 87, 98, 98, few, 3: 28, nal is... rt NCPQ, nearly all, ef, am, , 23, dari eo4, ©, et, am: 28, dar} winds, O: 24, alua, RAF, 1, 88, 79, fow, la, (22): xix. 1, Bégabelore Birguss, ACP (8 om. 4 84fa), few, og, (9r om. 4 Bivopus): Sj al of boBosneros, AQ, mse, lat, 3: 8, nap al Raurpdr, 1, 36, flow; (A axa. Q, many, of, 3): 8, rob ydpov, AQ, most, pr, eg, 3: 9, wal Néyes por otros, APQ, most, lat, 8, Adyou, AP.Q, mss, lat 8 of dyfoo’ A, 4, 48 8, rob Oco8 belore dot, APQ, mos, Int, X2 10, nal xpocerionea, B, 73, 79 1, ahosjers, RQ, most, ef, am, cf 12, bs $f, A, 85, 86, 87, 91,95, he. lat, B: 12, om. évépara yeypaypioa ral, AP (3 om. farther), 1, 7, 36, 79, e, lat.: 14, om. rd detore iy x9 obparg [rod ofpared}, RQ, 1, 7, 35, 98, 79, 87, 97, &., 14, BBdupvors, Ry 152: sal nab, 8, few, 9, el: . Boropos, NAP, 1, 88, 98, 79, Be g, 17, Bor, N36; (AP, 1, 98, 49, 87, 91, 95, 96, &,, lat, a): Courrm Resnrros. Q, many, 3, pref. nal. NACQ, many, g, 3, om, nal , mans, sel. 4,10, 9, omer, ©, 9, eg i. B, few, of, impt. RPG, nearly al, g, (pr), imp. RAG; 1, 95, 87, 95, 80, pr, ol, om. nal R, 36, 95, few, semel. C, few, g, om. nat oi. A(ihvor),C(undardr oy (molarem), 3p (8, Aor) RQ, 14, 92, ine, ACPQ, mss, lat., codmorav. ACPQ, most, lat., ins. A, 26, some og, om. NPQ, mss. cf, 3, ins, NAPO, mss, lat, ¥, om. door. , most, plur. Q, many, 9, 3, after. RCP, om, wale RAR, fow, of, am, om. nal. RP, 1, 36,79, fow, 9, om. R36, 88, 98, fow, om. nat Ady por R, 3, add. pov. RPO, nearly all (at. 7), 3, om. art & 1, 38, 49, 79, 91 after AQ, nearly all, Int, 3, xpoommoas. AP, 1, 79, &., some og, om, RPO, most, om. Q, many, AP, many, pr, 09, % ina, APQ. nearly all, lt., 3, nominat. APQ, most, pr, am, 3, om. wal, Q, most, pr, el, 3%, sn. Q, many, 3, om. \ Chie, xix 6 (el ol ney.) a8 fn.exexviii Rasnimas oF S—ontinued. xix. 18, xal punpir, RAP, most lat, 20, per atvod 8, NP (A, 41, pref ot), 14, 98, 49, 79, 91, 96, few, cl, (pr, am 2): Xx. 1 dy rf xeph Ny 98, lat, 3: 2, om, 8 mdavir rv olxounéiny Skyy, NA, 1, 70, 95, &e. It 4, xOua, RA, 1, 49, 79, 91, 96, Be (lat?) 5, om. of Aocrix . . . xidia Er, R, 7, 14, 92, fe, 3: 6, xQua, A, most, (lat?) : 1, Grav rehea, 8 A, most, Is 8, mévra, B79: 8, & rais, BM, 85, 87, 92, few: N, 78, 79, 152, fow, lt 9, dvd rob Ocoi, PQ, many, g, «9, 3: 10, Sov, 8, some, some og: 11, xd abrody R, 38, 3 12, neyddous before nuxpovs, NAP, moet lat 13, dpye trav, RAP, most, eg, (@f?), 3: zai. 1, BrjAdor [-o»], RAQ, 88, 92, 94, 97, & Pr Aug.) 2, ix 108 obpared before dx} roi Geet, NAQ, most, lat. 8, ofpaved, PQ, nostly all, vf, 8: 8, dade, PQ, most, lat, 8, per’ atréy [eal] Zora, AQ, many, g, eg, 3: 3, abrais [-Gr) @eés, A, og, 3; (BP, 79, Be. Ocds rd): Bt 8, nal owayayet 4, om. dn’ airav, RAP, many, lat, 5, nawrd dolore mdvra, RAP, 1, 35, 38, 49,79, 87, 91, 96, &. I 5, ina. nos before ypdyov, N'P, many et: 5, uarot belore ayfuvod, RAQ, many, lat, 3: 6, yéyovar[-aow], A, 38, Iren.; (41,94, yéyove: Tat, fact et) 6, 276, PQ, nearly all, 6, Bow, RAP, many, lt, 2 1, aids wnporonfou, RAP, 1, 7, 8, 49,79, 91, Be, lat, 3: 4h fora, A 1, poe vids, APQ, nearly all, Lt: 8, eal duaprodois, Q, most, 3 9, iv ripe before viv ywaiee, RAP, 1, 95, 38, 79, 87, few, lat., 3: APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Covrrm Reaomros. Q, 14, 86, 38, 92, 98, om. x Q, most, 9, 3, 8 per abrod AQ, noarly all, 2 rv xeipa. many, 3, in. Q, most, 3, pref AQ, many, lat, ins. RQ, 14, 38, 92, few, 3, prof art. Q, many, perd A, neatly all, lt, 3, om, AQ, most, lat. 3, pref. rd. AQ, most, 3, om. nat ‘4, 79, few, pr [Aug.], om; (om. clause, APQ, most, of, am, cf, % add. wal. APQ, nearly all, lt, dated [-@, or 4). Q, few, after. Q, 7, 14, 92, &, pron. sing. B, 85, 87, 98, &c., 9,9, sng. P, 1, 49, 79, 91, 96, &c., after. RA, 18, 7, Opévov RA, 1, 79, 92, few, plur. RP, many, pr [Aug.], ores per abd. RQ, 1,7, 38, 92, 8, ef om Q, many, ine. Q, many, 3, after. AQ, many, oem, 3, om, , many, ater. NPQ nearly al, 3, yéore. A, 88, 99, lat, ada, lpi. Q, many, add. Q, many, Siow airg. NPQ, mse, lat, %, pref. airés. R, 14, 98, fow, 3, pov vide RAP, 1, 49, 79, few, , 7, 49, &e,, after. Ala x. 21x,APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Reapivos ov S—continued. 221.10, dd ro8 Ocod, NAP, many, lat 12, ral ent rois mudaow dyyidous Bs8exa, NPQ, mes., of, am, el: 12, driyara abran, 12, yeypanpéra, X, of 12, [ri] brépara ro BiBera, AQ, many, 9,09, 3: 13, dvarodjs, NAP, 1, 36, 88, 79, few, &: 18, Boppa ... vérov .. . Buopir, PQ (R, B+ B... 8), nearly all, vf, ol, 3: 15, wai 18 reixos ain, RAB, some, lt. (9, om, abrijs), % 16, door, NPQ, most, g: 16, xdudbor, RAP, many, lat 17, dpéronoe, RAP, many, lat, 3: 18, om. jy, AP, 9, 3 19, nad of Beuddiot, R, 1, 7, 85, 49, 79, Be, (6), oh 3: 19, al 8 Beirepos « «wal 8 apéros, Re: 21, BiBeca papy, AP Q, ms, g, 09, Lip [ deft]: 21, nat ixacros, P 21, e€ dds, NA, nearly all, lat, 28, air yp) RAP, many, lat, 3 24, dipovcr, RAP, many, lat., 3: 24, om. wal rv rou, RAP, many, o 24, om. ray tray, NAP, many, lat, 26, om. fra ciotMuoe, RAP, many, lat, 3: 21, 8 roar, Ny 7, 38, 90, 94,97, 98, Be, (gf), 2 x2i.2, robs naprods, R: 5, dea 1,7, e.5 (RAP, 95, few, lat, fr): 5, oby Efover xpeiar, A, lat, 3: 5, duris [eal] Acyvou, NA, 38, 79, few, lat., 3: 5, Hlov, RAP, 1, 85, 38, 49, 79, 91, 96, 5, trois, PQ, nearly all, eg, 3: 6, etre, RAP, many, pr, 9, 3: 8, om. we, AP Q, mss, lat: 8 Bréroy beloro dxater, X, 78, 79, 12, few, prt 8, four nai, RA, many, lat. 32 11, rat 8 purapis jum. fu, 8 Q, most Int, % + 14, rovotvres ris évrodas abrod, Q, nearly all, g, &e, Cour Raapinos. Q, many, (27), de 7. @. A, some #9, 3, om. APQ, ma, lat, 3, om. pron. APQ, mas, 1g, 3, ereyeypoppéra. NP, many, pr, om, 28 Sydpara. , most, plu. Asam, B. , most, om. A, some, pr, %, 09, add. eal. , many, 3, add. Bideca, Q, many, om. RQ, nearly all, pr, og, ins. APQ, many, am, om. wal, APQ, mos, lat, 3, om. eal Bor Hh, om, BiBexa. RAG, mas, lat, 3, om. al, PQ, 79, 92, pref. x. Q, mung, air} yap $. Q, many, add. atrg. Q many, eg, 3 sn many, 3, ins, mans, ine A, fow (wosiy), PQ, many (wo‘aw), pr, , om. art APQ, ms, lat, 3, sing. , many, om. RP, 1, 35, 49, 79, 91, 96, &e., pres.; (Q, 7, 38, &e., ob xpeia). PQ, most, om. gurés kal. Q, 7, 92, 94, 97, 98, om. RA, 25, et, prof. de. Q, many, 9, Aéyer, B.3, in. AQ, most, 9,19, % ater. Q, many, add. 5re, A, 1, 35, 68, 97, few, RA, 7, 38, eg, (pr hiat), edivorres rhe orahac atriv. +P Aad, eal 6 (rdes)—ad fo.oxl APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. Reaprves ov S—continued. x2li.15, gaAdv [#Aéruv] before roxiv, AQ, many, , Pr, 09, Bt 16, dx, RQ, most, 3: 16, 8 xpaivés, 8 Q, men, pr, X 18, ee 91, 96, &e.: 18, winds, RA, most, lat, 3: 20, om. dry By 21, Xpurreb, Q, nearly all, g, «9, 3: 21, dreor rir dylan, Q, most, ¥: 21, dyjp, .Q, nearly all, am, ef, 3: Sed before & Oeés, N (A om.) 49, 79,» Coonan Ruapinas. N, 85, few, 9, after. A, 38, 79, few, A, 95 69 pref. xal. Q, most, lat, 3, after. i (or om), by, , some, pref. deed. AQ, mas, eg, 3, ine. . RA, 26, om., (pr om. vor.) 1 wdvrer (Ay 9, (el add. bur), om, rr dar). $y some eg, om.APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. oxli Il. The following is a collection of 215 readings of S which have no support from the MS8.; but only from mss., or Latin, with or without ¥: together with 27 supported by % alone (242 in all). 1, Readings (49) of 8 supported by some one or more of the met.,and of the Latin versions, (18 of them aloo by 2); against all USS. 5. 8, ada. raéra, 7, 16, 9, 09, % 11, & 84, 85, 98, 72, 67, pr. fil 2, Og without pow, 1, few, pr 8, 8é, 36, pr. olBas Wala, 1, 36, 49, &, Tat, 3. dm. bs, 1, 94, e., pr sna. v3 BoBNov, 7, 36, ef, some eg, 3°. rf yi 1, few, pre ‘ov olvor before 18 Dhar, 86, pr, 9 om. tis vis, Samm, dorjeucay (lorieega), 38, few, 9, 3 eyes aasopirs, 96, 38, few, g. om. jer, 13, xérrpa ty, 1, 7, 28, 85, 96, 88, 79, 87, 90, 92, &., og. 10, xai # &oveia, 1, 86, 79, &e., h, pr, og. 18, rob oxdparos, 91, 95, Int, x. 8, duriy jrovsa, 7, of, cl. BL 6, Bolan ber, 1, fom, 9. 8, & [rails] jadpas, 1, pry 3 10, xepicorras, 38. lat, 3. 15, @0i, 28, pr. 19, Bporra al dural, 14, 28, 36, 8, 78, 79, 87, 97, 9h, % wi. 6, dye, 88, be, 10, te ro oipavt, 95, 9, pr. it 10, dds, 89 (95, 81, faye, oo 3%, 2¥. 4, «96, 38, 49, 95, 96, few, eh oh 3 ts dyyehos, 1, 85, 96, 86, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, e,, some eg, 3. 5, nal [6] Sows, 1, 36, 95, few, of, Iyer, 1, 85, 86, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, fe, pry eh 12, ins, dyyedon, 28, 35, 36, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, &e., et, el. 11, ina, &yyedor, 1, 28, 85, 36, 49, 79, 87, 91, 96, &e., ee. 17, ds, 1, 14, 28, 49, 79, 91, 92, 96, &., lat, xvii. 8, & [r3] BuBAig, 78, 79, 95, lat 8, mdpeors, 1, 86, 73, 7, 152, fow, 9, 16, rovjeovow ainiy efter yonrip, 84, pr. xvii 8, om. 6 Océ, 98, 96, for, pr. xxix. 1, om, Ss, 1, 7)'38, fow, ef, 3. 1, 1g @eg, 86, 47, 152, pr, og, % 18, waderas, 1, 86, 49, 78, 91, &e., lat xx. 4, ras yeas, 4, 14, der before Bévares, 49, 91, 96, fow, el 14, om. 9 Ar) r08 ops, 1, 94, Be pr[Aug.} a. ZH, ual 8 goonip, 1, T, he, pr, el 11, rai, 9, 950g zai. 5, dori, TH e.g, om, 3 11, al & abby, 68, pr. 12, wari 13 ipyor, 73, 79, lat. 17, tnt. nad after dpxiebo, 88, 46, o, 21, fuse, 30, fow, lat, 3. 2. Readings (91) of 8 eupported by one or more of the mss., (15 of them alo by 2); against the MSS., ‘and the Latin cersions: i, 14, Aevnal dp Spay eal Ss, 8. 17, bri robs adas, 72. 11, add xeipa, 1, 28, 91, 92, 96, fow, 3%. 20, om. ras xpuods, 97. 1, om, éera before Avxvisr, 88, 69, 97. 9, éavrovs before TovSafous, 28, 73, 79, 3. 10, 8 &udpodos before PédAew, 38,,95, 3. 18, prof. xal to 8 pdpros, 68, 87. toxlii vi APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. dre re pipros [how] riorés, 152. 18, ap! tyr, 95, 18, om. Srov 8 Saravds xaroucd, 3. 20, adinas, 26, 96, 3. 24, om. 8, 31. 2, eehypopiva before i Spy, 40. 12, om, nov ater 1G vag rob Oot, 11, 28,58 15, om. brs, 28, 162. 8, opapiybor, 14, 3. 8, add torés [oie], $4, 95, 68, 87. 8, ins, icaape, 68, 87. 1. Ddov, 35, 87. 5, dvoiga, 18, 3 5, om. deré, 73. 5; trot § oppayis 5 xpi, 28, 73, 79. U1, ddory airar, 28, 78, 3. 1, nal xparotvras, 28,73, 94, 3. 5, dybvero, 68. 1. byévero before ds, 95. 11, &perbor .« &g6cr, T, 28, 79. 12, ral Loxoriaby «bx aire, 35, 68, 1, dnl rie yi, 8, 97, 3%. 11, drodser, 49, 98, 1, 8, 28, 49, 79, 91, 96, fow. 5, Bora, 88. 5, Bd aiross, 87. 8, om. nal after Srov, 1, 7, 14, 35, 86, 87,92, tow. 12, dedpowr, 38, 97. 8, atrots, 17, 36. 8, om. ir, 7, 28, 73, 79, 162, Sn, Li, abr, 43, 47, 87. xiii, 2, om. ordua (2°), 38. 12, moujou dimer, 34, 85, 87. 12, nal wovjoes, 34, 35, 87. 18, eal woujou, 85, 87. 15, nf daéve 208 Onplow nad ovjoen, 14, 73, 97, 31. xiv.18, om, Méyor, 14, 92. ¥. 6, d& ro6 vaod before ol Exorrer, 4. 6, dei va orf, 28, 79, 79. xvi. 1, drt ey yp, 28, 78. 2, dat rly viv, 1y 28, 49, 79, 91, 96, &o. xvii.18, davrir, xvi 11, 18 dvopa rf Of, 91 15, adogsrm, 1, 2 18, om, wal guorud, 12, 152. 17, plar yrs abn, 98, sreréric, 18, 96, 31, 78, 7, om, wad before iva py pine, 182, aad tr, 85, 87. Trwovs, 95, 3 crow bit, 35, 87. ‘ri Aapmpa dmjABer, 1, 79. 15, epfoovow of fuopos, few, 34 om, wal before neypve.y 1, 19, 182. em. eal vis... cheb o0t rs, 14, 92. teddrnoes, 81. Kai perd, 1, 86, 8, 49, 79, 91, 96, &o. am. nal before Beirepor, 98. dif, 73, 79. ory by 98. sabe [xal] Aaupé, 1, 86, 78, 79, 182, 08 alpare, 88, rly ofparie, rot after ipar., 87, 152. fins, dow, 18, 82, 39. 1G @uG al 7G Xpuors, 38. are drehéotn, 152, (1, -Gyoer). 108 xpoosrov avrof, 95, 3. om, Sct, 94. om, NO (2), 1, 7, 88, few. om. [ran']vldn, 12, 78, 79, 94, few. 8 addres aris (1°), 7. 18 ninos ads (2°), 18. apxnBin, 95, 68 al card, 98. , 7, 88, 182, few. 5, dee, 1,7, many. 12, ard 3 ipym 78, 79. 16, nal 5 dari, 7, 85,48, 79.APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. oxli 8. Readings (75) of 8 eupported by one or more of the Latin versions, (19 of them also by 2); against ll Greek MSB. and mas. : 410, oddeuyya Nyoveas, b prs % 14, om. deve, Br Hi 5, om. ob, pre 7 om. arg, gy eh 8, sis exhyoias 3(Zspr, lt. 8, rroxeay 00%, $, 6 28, napSian, pr. Tis ladnoias Odadedgeas, 9, £9. de rar, pr Ti eewdnoias Aaobicias, lat, obs, py 9. admire, 3. bow, 69, 3. ‘om. xp. ‘om, rai before 73 tor, pr. 9, Se Bova, ef. 4, nal Nas ris ogpayibas atrod, pr. 9, dBorres, pr. 8, ral Boy irrow xAopér, pr. 9, gudfe, pr. ‘vill 11, oe Ay08,, A pry in, 7, 1 Snolopa, 9, 3 17, rob eréyaroy, lat. 18, ral dr3 ray, cl, 3. = 21, om. ofre dx xiv whendrow abr, pr. 2.11, reat before hats, el, 3. Bats xi. 8, tba xpogrreie. pr. 8, xby wareby, 9,09. 8; poriuars, py 69, dnp. 16, Beodewwer, am. 19, om, abrod after vag arm. i. 2, spelen, am, fy int roy, Bry He 10, ine. nad after bndyes, pr. 10, dees & wax 2r, SY 10, br nal drorrenBjoray 9. EV. 6, int nal botore Mayxpén, oe 1, om. xpos, pr. xvi. 8, iu. § dace, 9, h. 16, owrdgey eb xHi.15, a4 be, pr. 18, om. tor, pr, arm. 14, § drone, pr. 11, & rf Gadtony, t,o, % 20, eigpaiverd, pr, 3. 28, rai gapuareats, lat. six, 1, Seer rola, pr, og 2, xan, prog 6, Byun rodXn, pr. 6, om. § Oxi, pr. 8, dors ater Bcaulpara, 9,69. 20, cal Btw, arm. xx. 4, # drt lat, xxi 6, elird wos (24), of. 8, j dorw, lat., 3. 14, om, da8exa before dwoordhovs, am, 18, xpralon xabapod, pr, am, 3. 21, xpvaio wabeped, pr. 23, ine. éori, lat. 21, om. ris Ges, pr. all. 8, 275, am, arm, 8, ere, 09, 2 17, om. 3 60a, 9.exliv APPENDIX TO DISSERTATION. 4, Readings (27) of & mupported by B; against all Greek and Latin tects : i. 9, ovynowenis tpiy. xii 16, B00. 9, af ty yoo’. 13, pédoros aired. 19, 5 for &. 4, 12, ry Bfciar botore rip Bloropor. Hi, 8, sin, al below Bod. eM wep oo» xO, xvli.19, péas eal eGyara, vill. 7, San for ayer 16, boos ruc 8; névewr av nropéror 18, iv oxpereysérow 18, réw oadxlyyuw. Ex, 4, ras werehenopévas. ix. 3, om. doveiay. xxi. 3, abrois Ocds. 36, ine erg 08 iv wm, |S 9, tele rod rerun EN aeeeee 5, om de belo abNOTE. oxy NOTE PREFATORY TO GREEK TEXT. The following Greek Toxt of the Apocelypee in ofered oa a substitute fora Latin or other ‘translation such a9 is usually subjoined toa version of a Book of Seripture into a language not generally faniiar to Biblicel students, In constructing it, I have taken as basin tho “Revised” Text of 1861 (in preference to the “ Received,” which is universally admitted to be exceptionally unsatisfactory in this Book), altering it throughout into conformity with the resdings which the version S appears to have followed. In the great majority of the cases where there are variants affecting the seus, including nearly every ono of interest or importance, the reading which the translator had before him is determinable with certainty. But there remuin not a few instances in which the evidence of the Syriac is indecisive of ‘the reading of its original. ‘This is ao, of cours, in most (though not all) eases of variation of arthography ; but it occurs, morearer (in consequence of the Limitations ofthe Syriac tongue), in variations affecting—(1) the case of nouns, as between genitive, dative or accusative after éri— (2) the tens of eorbs, as between aoriat and perfect, or between present and aoristparticiplo— (8) tho use of preporitons, an between dé and dy or between intertion and omision of &>— (A) the presence of the article (which howerer 8 not seldom is able to express more awe). Tn all, such instances, I havo retained the reading of the **Rovised,” and have pointed out in a footnote the ambiguity of 8. Tho text of 8, as it has reached us abounds in superfnous insertions of the eopulative conjunction. These I have mostly retained, but it may be that I have overlooked some of them. ‘They eoem to be unmeming, due merely to the idioeynerary ofthe tranlator, oF (not improbatly) of the scribe. T have accurately ropreduced the interpunction (except in ono or two instances, to each of which T have called attention in « footnote)}—inasmuch as, though in some places evidently ‘wrong, it some to hare been on the whole carefully and consistently carried out. In the few instances where the rendering is vague or erroneous, I have not shaped the Greck into conformity with it; but have given the text which the peraphraso or mistranslation was rosumably intended to represent, adding an explanetors footnote. ‘Whore error of transcription, admitting of obvious correction, occurs in the Syriac text, have rade the Greck represent the reading as corrected, marking the place with an asterisk ( # )- Where error scems to affect the Syriac textwhether on the part of the translator or of the seribo,—such as to leave it doubtful what was tho reading of the original, I havo rendered the Sprine into Greek, marking the doubtful words with an obelus (+) For the corrections mado, or required, at the places marked with * ort, the roader is referred ‘to the Notes which follow the Syria text in Part TI.oxlvi NOTE. In tho Footnotes subjoinod to the Grock, I have not attempted to give anything like a ‘completo apparatus critious; but morely to indiato tho characteritic features of the text which aunderies 8. T have accordingly pusood over (generally speaking) without remark such of its raadings as are attested by uncial evidence, except where the reading is an interesting ono and the attotaton thet of « single uncial. Bat I havo beon careful to note every one of ite readings ‘which is unconfirmed by each and all ofthe uncials without exception. (Of this clas (of non-uncial readings) many arv absolutely peculiar to 8. ‘These do not for ‘the most part commend themselves as deserving of consideration; and I havo therefore judged it suficient, without forming a complete list of them, to pat together, at p. Incvi at ag. upr., such of thom as soom to bo in any degree noteworthy. ‘The rest ofthe non-uncial readings recorded in these notes, are those which have the support of one or more cursives of one or more Latin texts, oF of 3}-—or of some combinstion of these authoritica, All such readings wil be found accurstaly ogiatored and classed in List IT supr. (pp. oxli—ealiv), That List isin fact an Indox of all readings of tho B-toxt which have other ‘than uncial attestation. Tn like manner, List I (pp. exxr—orl) will be found to be @ completo Index of all §-readings for which there is more or los equally divided uncial evidence.GREEK TEXT WITH FOOTNOTES.ADDENDA, CORRIGENDA, AND DELENDA, IN PART 1. Page 4, notes, column 2, Line 3, after 3 na yy 5; text, 31, » 188, 4, 119, for 48 ‘ada (prefixing +) 49 7 yovaina cov read yoraind gov 1 28, before fxedyolas add ris vy 18, for last 9 18, after v8, re 18, after mts, 10 1, Before 3 1 20, Before 3 8 for duxpds 1 15, Before with 3; after 94 by Ay before AML 1» 18, after So 1s after mss, 2 for eg 115, for MSS. 1» 10, after P TL, after reading. 11, 18, Before 87 1» 18, after So wy 14, after 98, 12, efter mn, road third add ty, add aud pr ‘add (with 7 prefixed) ada (with 19 profxed) read Yoyods dele parenthesis dd and 3 add 80 3. aia 3, and aaa 3, reed am road dele Q add P om. sentence dele 35, 36, add 3, raed 49. die parentheris ‘add and g and alnang, ATIOKAATY¥I= H ETENETO EIZ TON AFION IQANNHN TON EYAITEAIZTHN. 1. *Awonddjis "Inood Xpiorod, fv Boxer air 6 Ocds, Seige ois Bovdos avrod: & Bd yeréoBar ey rdxe Kal dojpaver dmoorcihas Bid 108 dyyédov airod: 7§ Bothy abrod aledvvp, ts euapripyoe ro déyor 100 @coi, kal ry waprupiay "Inood Xpior0d, dea ede. 3 Maxdpuos & dvaywiexav" Kal of Axosovres rods Abyous iis mpodn- elas ravens’ nal rnpotvres 8 & abrf} ‘yeypappévar 3 yap xaupds eyybs. Mladwns ais énr& deedqoias tals & rp Avigy xdpis Spiv wat elpirne dad 6 dv" Kal 6 Fur wal 8 épyspevos, kal amd rav éwrd mvevpdrov & sévdmov 05 Opévov abroi, xai dnd ‘rabr) With 3, and og, and mi. 7, nd a MSS. and most ms. omit, 4, 4) 8 and 2 aro not decisive us batwoon & (of (CQ nd moet met) and ry (ot Anda few); bat are lousy aginat deve (fre. supported by Pandatew). 6. dyerdr] 80%, but all rock authortic have ‘hin and the folowing participle in the dative cave. ‘abwr) Or or. pep an all Greek: 3, ver. de) Or dnd: Syrine has but one equivalent for ‘hes tno prepotitions. "Ino0d Xpworod 8 pdprus, 6 morés, & mparéroxos ray vexpav, kal 6 dpxav trav Paoidtey ris yas 6 dyamiv yas Kal Mwy suas ee ray dpapridy jpav & 76 alpars abrod* kat eroinoer juas Barve iepav 1G eG nal warpl aizod airg % Béfa Kal rd xpdros els by aldva ray alévev diy. "180d pera pera rav vegedav’ ral Syovras abzby wévres bpBadpol* nat ofrwes abrdv eexévrnoay nad képovras én’ aizby micas al gudal Tis ys. val xad dprjv. "Byd eps 7d A ral 13 0, Meyer Kipwos 8 @eds 5 dv, wat 8 Fr ral 5 epxdpevos, 6 wavroxpdrup. *Byd 6. duds] Or dur the Syriao being ambiguous; ‘but lei more probably indicate, sin ere and bots in tho parallel pesage, v.10. updo] Or laparaty._ No other uthorty but 3 fox adjective: so note on Sp. tax. ‘sirg] Or with X only. ‘hr alive} So x, and 2d (but 400 note on Sy, tat). 7. Boras] So 2, with w and a few anthoritin, but epprently 2 alone supports ederesapdahya tal dp] 8 alone aut nal, 8.82 B) Sand 3 writ, Olph and Tow, °ATIOKAATYIS. "Todovys 6 aBedgds Spay kal ovyror- vovds Sudy é rh Odiger wai ey 7h Soper} 7H by "Iqo0d, eyoduny & ah vjoy 1H xadovpéry Wdrpy’ 81a. riv Néyov 105 @eod, Kal Bud ry te papropiay "Inao’ Xpurros Kat eye- vopny & mveipare & rp Kupiaxi peydyw ds oddmyya déyoveay" 18 Brénas ypdyor els BiBNiov, nab méuov ras éwrd dnndnoiass els "Ehecor' wat eis Zpipvay" ral es Tépyapor rat els Ovdreipa rat els Edpdes nal els draddrgeray xai cis 1s AaoBixetay. Kai eréorpepa Bérew riv dari aris Addgoe per? duo’. nai émorpébas, eIBov éxrd duyvias wxpurds' Kal &v plow rav duxnidv no Sporor vig dvOpdwour wat eBeSypé- vov moBijpn* Kal repietaopévor pds roils parrots aizod Lévqy xpuosy" 4 82 wedadi) airod nal al rpixes airod Reveal ds Epiov’ nal ds xiv" Kal of bBadpol abrod ds Ade supds: Kalas of mé8es adroit Spoor xadnodsBdvy & rapivy mervpapéry’ al 4 dur) airod és gov) WSdrav woddav. Kalié Equv by rf Bebe xeupl airo’, dove pas éwrd: Kal éx 108 ordparos abrod *foupata dfcia\ exropevopérn’ Kal 4 dis abrod ds 8 Hdios daiver & rf Burdyer abrod. wal dre Bor abréy' 17 Greoa emi rods mé8as abrod ds venpés: xal nne rip Sefidv abrod xeipa én’ bud déyuv, ph $oBot bya cis & mpiros Kal 5 doxaros. 9, evyeonarbs bude) 8 and 3 loa in. pronoun dr} bron] Beto b., most Grosk cm. dvr All inn Bartels do lo newly al the veratng, the excoptonn being seth and 3 [475 Dat ot} ‘dr “yesi) (0) AN clo exoept 4 om. = (3) 3, tot love, sbjcin Xperg? Q end moet ‘of ey (including arm) agro with ‘Xperei] So Q and ost rut, and 2 and most versions? but the other Greck copie, and lat except Prand erm) om. 10, wal Eyerduqy] 8 alone in. wal. soparj] Lit, ef pais eubBdrov: but ax thin T place copa in tot. ‘edivrrya Nyoores} 802, but all el genitive, ‘except hand pr corrector of give Adyoorr, but dow not alter edAmryyer- 11. A] So ms. 36, 88,72, 875 and pr: alll, 5. ‘Zadpres] So (alone of Grok copie), andthe beat taxa of oy [including am]; all lay 2aprar. Binilaly 8. 12, Adee) Lity 8 ‘hdyee) So P and many mat: nearly al the reat, and lat Adve (4 doubtful). 13, Sposn olf) Or dp. olde ity be dnl ood 8 (not 3) urally. Arends Bualpa teal Geb] All lan owl alo (exept 3) abo, 14, al epixes abd) 8 alone ina. pronoun. ‘al ds} 80 ono me (8) only all cle, Aevedy ‘exoopt band pr, which om. Avweal an well cropoutry] So 3 (though using w diferent and a fow mu also Ia. and tber ior perhaps rersponrgs (rer) with AC ‘gsinat rerepopone (ro Jol PQ and moat euborton ‘Doth 8 and 2 teat the pp. aaelting to xqheohiBdry (gender doubtful, not (as pr and apparently and ey) oeanlrg. 8 alone om. ds bafore drape 16. Feor] The Syriac exprenin (ame fe Sand) would miber = fx (or en), but sometimes Bet xl abrot) More exactly x. abred vf 8 uQ. But the Byrae idiom requir manifest gloe, probably ofthe Syriac. See note on Br. text. Allele inn Soropor before fs, 17. det] Bo ma. 72 only: Wand ma. 13, ls; all ae apd ‘xepe) Soa fow mat, and 3: the ret om. dr] Lit, bts.tenn sweat & Lav ead dyerduny vexpés’ kal Bod Gav cpt es rods aldvas ray alévey dpsv' wat exw Thy whey 19708 Bavdrou Kai rod gBov. ypdyor of 8 Bex wat & cio nai pddher so yiveatas perd raira’ 73 pvoripior ray éwra darépuv obs elBes ent ris Beids pov wat ras éwrd duxvias. of éwra dorépes, dyyedor rav wr dexdnordiv dot nal ai Muyvias at tera ak xpuoat as Bes, end eerdqoiar clot, m1. Kat 76 dyyAy 1G & éxednoig *Edécov ypdyov, rd5e yet 5 kparév rods énré dorépas ey rij xeiph abroi* 4 mepurarav & péoy tiv uxndv rav xpvodv' olba ra épya ov Kat rev émov gov Kal riy bmopoviy ATIOKAATYIE. cov Kal én od Biv Baordoas raxots’ Kal éreipacas rods NMyovras favrods droaréhovs vat ral oie eat Kat ebpes abrods yeudeis’ kal Sropory gxas’ Kad ¢Bdoraoas 81d 73 dvopd pov: Kal ob xexow‘axas, AN Fw xard oof, sre ryy dydmy 4 cou riy mpérqy adiinas. prmnsveve 5 adlev éxnérraxas kat ra spare Gye woinoor et 88 px, exopat 04 Kal kurjow Thy duyviay cov, day pi) peravofoys. ada tobr0 dyes, Gre puoeis 1a epya_ raw Nuwodairay & éyd pod. 6 exuv obs, dxovedrw ri 13 Hveipa déyer rails éxednoiais. kal 1@ mixin. Béow dayetv de rod Eihow ris Lure, 5 lor ev 1G wapadeley 108 Geo’. 18, 4 Gerad.) A comma i wanting after Cor Possibly 8 read 8s before dyerduny (and % likewise): ate ute onthe tna Wedea ef] Bo, wih nod many man, and at; the natn. ‘Ar] Or eka: al el Soa alae df Blone & tfore hi Word. rb in] 8 with ma 97 om. vis xed ae {hi word nd (ln) fou a gata er Treanor) T mgt oo wameasing. clon hich i air th word te cbr] So P and many ma, inaiag 1, ih tert 1 Kal) Allee oy xs sg lactic a oig ee tart. br be op hes tpt by 4 Of "Epic, by mx 6 (which borer rede deanery aed, ws. 1x has de Bade xo 5 ma. 26, 68, 81, 8.x. alret. ‘exe Bo ime. 38, 60,97; 3 and the ret prefs bev 2. ctv] So Q and many mas. and lt. (exept ‘am and arm), nd 3 [but £ with #]: the rst om. ‘8. enrlerar] Bo me, 61, and AC [one]: bot HPQ) and mort mony deorlaras. Kecoracés, ‘= having grown scary, onoure John iv. and ie there rendered (Pah. ued HIkL) by the verb here ‘employed by 8 and 3. T therfore prefer pert. 6. rmudrere] All loo exsept pr ina. ob aftr ‘his verb. ‘erberncat} So apparently 5 ase nate on Sy. text) with Pand somo mot and 9 and vg (erin); foe rérrowes (-r}of the other MSS. and most mat, (Prsand 2.8 lous om. wal perandyco, alo (in next ‘oatece) de rol eben abr. 24) Lit eal al 24 (and similarly verse 16, ‘The scribe doce not correct thi redume ancy, by obelsing, an he hae done, iv. 4, is. 10, Se 21, here 24 te the superuous word, ‘to) Lit, det of, and ao in 16. (74) Al cs whys. 1, obs] Lit, dra and wo throughout 8, and 3 arise (00 pr here, ewes). ‘eel eG rtére) All els om. et, which prbape cought to be abused. bw) So wand few mas: the ret ald ab, ‘with 3, pr, but not g, and og (om but aot ofATIOKAATYIS. Kal r@ dyyAy ris eeedqotas Zpipyns ypdior, raBe Reyes 6 wparos al 6 dxxaros, bs éyévero vexpds Kal 9*8lnoo olBd cov riv OXipur Kad mi wroxeiay cov, adda ahovavs et kat riv Bkaognuiay rip ex av de yovray éavrods "lovSaious flovBaio kai oie eaiv: adXd owayay) rob woSaravd, pyBiv goBod & pédas adaxew" tod dre 6 BidBodos Baddav e€ span ds gudraniy ba meipacbijre’ Kai tere Orijur judpas Béxa. yiveoBe morot éxps Bavdrov' kat Béow splv ro orépavoy ris 1 ais. 8 Exuw ods, dxovedra ti 73 Tivedpa déyer tals éxwdyoias. 6 vuxév ob pi} dBuunOj éx 105 Oavdzov to8 Bevrépov. 1 Kal 16 dyyOy 19 & deedqoig 8. wr dexdyetas Zasprn] Bo plas Smyrna, and og invert the words); A confirms so far as to lve Xelprys (but with vf dr prcoding and dexdyelar following). with meet othr authorities rads rit be nlp erdgctas. ‘Gye 8 (wo not on Sy. text), a pinta, opromnts (av, but I trot this us blunder of the scribe, who wadertoed the sentence sbeurdly, “who ‘became dead and alive” Probably the want of inten ponetion in the parallel pemage, 18, aro from {ike misunderstanding. ‘9. oI8d con} 8 places aov after rhy 6h. a8 the Spr idiom roquzen. All exept g and ey om. ov after riper. ‘hv ix] So 2, eae only H, Mont authorten, however, in. de without ri. ‘eerads| Bofor “ood, with mas 28, 73, and 18, and 3; but 8 alone om. eat ‘Hloetia) Probably a mistake of repetition on ‘the part ofthe Syrine nerbe, 10. 4 BidBedos Bdrdan] 80 2. The Grosk copie place uh varb rt, except mes 38, 95. Spat) So Q end most mms, and 3 and moet ‘vrriont: the otbor Greek copia, an pry Sepa ‘yloeedeeworl. « bir) Balone plural. 11, Baer} 8 ins. pei» fr and wo in vee 17. ‘ 817. Tepydpov ypdpov, ride dye 6 dxun civ Bowaay ry Bfelay iy Bioropor olBa wo xarouxels: Sov 513 Gpbv0s rob Earavé Kad xpareis 7 Svopd pow’ Kat obx apriow riy wiorw pov Kal & ral judpas dvrdiwast kat 5 pdprus pov & morés* &r was pdprus pov mords bs dmexrdvn wap’ Spar. AX dou ward gob éhiya, Gre exes eet xparotvras rhv 8Baxiy Badadp’ bs Bidake 1G Badan Bare oxdvBarov Sximov rév viav “lopapd gaye eiBedéOvra Kat sopredcas. obras 1s Exeis nal od xparoivras ry Bibaxiy Nixohairdy suotws. peravénaor oy" 16 a B8 pr}, epyopat cor raxt- Kad modewiow per’ airay &v 1 poudade 108 ordpards pov. tral’ 8 éxav obs, 17 12, 1g br decdnolg Muprdaos] 8 alone: but pr ives ecleiae Pergo (7 tnd a7 invert). Tho Oredk ‘opie give vhs dy Mey, tend, a8 don 2. All lee except 2 place the words ‘ipear) Bo A.C, ma. 01, and 4, fe.: but xP Q, nary all mes, 2, and ef om. al, (except pr), eabjoin [ir] al ported in each ease by many mes and versions, ordinary g deviate alightly from em. ‘lrrviar] Sas pts, but aalight emendation (1ce note on Syr. text) given its real reading (as in some mas and A), which in alo prowrved in 3 [pi ‘bat fd aa 8). ‘The entre vor looks a Sst eight Lika the rout of complicated cofiation; but wee nota on Bye. tart already refered to. ‘ald prey) 80 mn, 68, 87: all le om. al. Sra ndprvs pv rerds} 80 ms. 152 ony (but without no). "Bee Supplementary Note, p40 infr. ‘udr} So ovo ms. (95): all clan dative, [Noto that 8 om. tho ret of the verso with ms 38, 14, adage) So (apparently) both 8 and 3, with Q ‘and many mes de. for @ideore. ‘gereir) So w ACP: and many met pref sal, end co 3 [4np; 105, with some mae}. TT. teat? 8 fen) Dele nal: aoe note on Sy. tertyaa. dxovrdra ri 73 Tveiua dyes tals deedqoias’ 1G vixdve Bbow ex 708 pdvva 703 Kexpuppéror' Kai *Bdou' abr *Yridor Svopa xawev yeypappe- vor’, 8 obBels olSer et wt d hap Bdvar. Kal r§ dyyddy 1G & exednotg 7h & @varelpos ypdypov, réBe Neyer 5 vids 708 Geod, 8 Suv rv bfbahpdy bs Gddya. mupés, wat of qéBes abrod Snow xarnodsBary’ old gov re Epya nal ry dydmny cov xal riy miorw cov: xal rv Biaxoviay cov al viv Gropoviy cou" Kat 78 épya gov ra eoxara mheiovd gore ray wo mpéruv. aX’ Ew Kari oof odd, 4100 dove) () Nota that 8 om. abrg boro ‘hess wordy, with none ma. (02), and g, but not pr, fad met forma of oy [aot am): gainat 3, and all ele. (Gi) 8 and 3, with pr, arm, end other version, na. ‘the prep. (probably dx, but poly dd) again the majority of authorities. Bat w and mae. 36,81, ave de: P and other mas be, ttl "Bore? abrg) Correction for fever arg alrés); a0 notoon Bye text, ‘jeer Broun wuurby yexpsuadror] () 8 hes genarty-for ¢. by an enay mistake of transcription Seaween two very similar Byriao word, the wrong cone baring boen reposted from yore 10. (i) After ‘Vitor 5 om. dency, eal dl rhe Yager. But thia {aul of homactleuton may an naturally be etibuted to the Gronk orginal as to the Sy. text, T do not ‘eineert the words, (i) The rendering of 8 (a it tow stands) Impliaa $. dojuarot xawed planter ‘But this hanno support, andi voemauolely that the ‘anslator found it in his Grock. I rogard it asthe rine sribe's vain attempt to make senso of his cf the vere, and Irstor what I presume to hare bon th trnulatr's text. Sen nots on BYP. ‘xt, forthe matias treat in this and the previous he 18. vf dy dexanelg of dv @.] In roding 1, 8 a supported by Ay abo pr, and 2; but nearly all fgren (oguiot 8) in reading deedqolay, instead of dr deennete xj except A, which om. ‘bpberndr) All els have pL, and most add 8, 162, and lak, om. pro. ATIOKAATYIE. dru dgpixas rip yuraixa cou'leLéBer, 4 Moura cauriy mpodiru evar, kat B:Bdone. xat arg rods euods Bothous mopvetras, kat ayeiv eiu- NéOvra. Kad axa abr xpdvov els a perdvo.ay, Kal ob Béder peravojioat de ris mopvelas airijs. [Bod Bédhw 22 airiy els xdivny, kal rods pores ovras wer’ airis els OdBpw peyddqy, day pip peravojowaw ee riv épyav abray. nal r& réeva abriis donrevd 23 & davéry Kai wioorrar wicas at dexdqoiar sre dy eye 6 epevviv vegpods xal apSiav' Kai Siow dpiv éxdory ard 1& epya Spay. divas Ipow xaruoridoy) Lit, bn xerrodlBwror. 10, gov) All nw ht pro. 'n ho Sint and at fnstanco and met (olding 3) fer bropar. To {he romaaing thre 0 Grek exhely pte For {he poutn ofthe Sint wor (belre vd. py) bm nota 9: ala ep ii. 1, 16. ‘rhalard dori} Rather om. dry, as all le ‘tl lsa support for AXfye of rec. and og (oot am): ‘hile all the other MSS., and most other suthoiin, including 2, and om, om. altogether. eens) So 3, with me, 36 and a few other I ee pron ‘4 Atyors] OF Ady oF rh Aéyrcer tow) With w oly, gaint 3 and al ela, 21. ‘Urperdos] All day Tre peraveyy whe thay 8 ropeetaloy. Gp.vi nut nt). 2. perwehewos] Or oor the Brak (wich Sand 3 gv) may sand for ber. ‘The Gres copie axe divided, ‘r] Bora, with A anda fow ma. (1 36, 12, ba)y prop om, orm By ad ef bata al), td other venionn the rt abr osuding {easept 9] andy. [Tchandrt wrongly ad om). 23. qobeorral| Lit, yudenone. Proeatften stands for fate in yr sapte) All plural except pr (Stas addon in arg = eal redlew fie werk oh fpr tne of which T Bad bo taco syria de} 2k.) Allo, exept ms 81 2d 2.ATIOKAATYIZ. Aéyw toi Nomois rols &v @vare/pois* Sco ob exours rv BiSaxiy rairqy olrwes ode Eyrwcay rh Baba rob Zaravi ds déyovew" 25 0b Badd eg’ Spas dddo Bdpos. 8 obv ere xparfoare axpis ob av fu. seal 8 vuxdy wal 6 rmpav rd épya pov Siow aixg eovoiay ent rav 27 €bvav" Ta moipavel abrods &v piBdy oiBnpf, Kal ds 78 oxein 7a Kepa- bunds owrrpiBere obras yap Kay’ selina apd rod warpés pov xal Bdiow airg riv dorépa tiv mpaivér. 298 Gav obs, dxovrdrw ri 13 Hepa mL dyer rails eexdqoias. Kal rf yyOg 1G & kxxdnaig LépSeov 25, Sob] All elas, wade 5. gpa) Or tas (Geka fs pave see)” Te excludes the reading of PQ (and most man), sorrpBheera, inasmuch as ‘corrpbheere i ious. But posibly there is an trvor inthe Bye. tet (2c note on it). ‘tres pip] Forde. Salons TIL. 1. 46]. 803, and pr: all elo, rs. 4&6 tewnnelg Adptewr) AU cli, do ipterwe dewrgela: ekopt 3 [pt dn), which ox. deed. ‘eal fr Bropa) BO gr; oF nal bona Bri [or Sr): all ela Br bona (without wa) {carl bi] BoB alone. ACP, and moet mat, at and 3, om. eal; Qd some om. rs. bet = erly Thom 8 i) . me gam 4 ypdipov, réBe Meyer 8 Exuv rd ewe aveiyara. 103 @cod Kal rods ewrd dorépas: old cov ra épya rab br Svopa exes wat ore Cis ad Sra vexpds el. Kal ylvov ypryopiv" al ovjpifov ri Nourd & téeddes drofavcit ob yap edpnnd oe Sr menypopéva r& epya cov evémoy 109 Geo’. prqpdveve was FRovoas al cngas* riper eal perarénoor. day 82 wi) yenyoprions, Hfo ent a8 bs wdéarys: Kal ob ph os olay Spay fw ent of ada Fo Mya Srépara & Zépbeowr & ote eudhway rh idea abr" kal mepraroiow édmdv pov & A fhusdier Aotarcr] (8 perhape needs to be corrected by omitting & prof (to note on Sy. text); but it Inplice the reading & which all else Ihave (exaept 2, which reads o, with robr Aewoée precoding). (i) Ther a some confusion af text here, {but whether ia the Greck ofthe Syria, ite hard ay), Teultiog in thin mined and unmeaning roading. “Mpred ve br] B alone: all elope only. ‘rernaponira 7h fpye eve] All eae bave cov [ra] tpya ment except one mn (40) which places stork a8 8, before 8 frre. ‘78 Gud] Sou few man, bo: the rest ald pow. 3. ponalvere) Som. oy, with w and ove mx. (14), she emt eh: asin thr MS, a 34} Bo ma. 36, tel ob br} 80 om, do} and 3 (but with *): agua A san, oy (erm, de.) and versions, Which om. di of. ‘prée] Or prbey. 4. Tyo] All ln, Erase 4} Or of: 8 and 3 ao inconclusive hee, srperarote] So om only (orm has perf), for futare, 5 alone hat inden (for wer), nnd eal (loeb) bore fe.mt 514. sreveois, wat dfiot cow. & may obras mepiBddderat iparious hevxois* rai ob ph eadeifw 1d dvona aired x ris BiBrov ris Luis. ral épodoyyjow 73 svopa airod eémor 705 warpés wou Kai évémov srav dyyéuv aizo’. & exuv obs, dxovedra rt 73 Uveipa déyer tals dexdqoias. 7 Kat 1G dyyéty ris exxdqotas Gdadrgelas ypéijor, rdBe Meyer & dyos 5 adybwds, & yaw ras wdeis avid: 8 dvolyar Kal obBels wdeler sal wdelay Kat ob8els dvolyer olBa ra tpya cov ral od 8SuKa erdémidv cov Oipay dveyypérny, fy obSels Btvarar weloar airfy dre paxpay Exes Sivan Kad erjpnods pou rv Aéyou Kat ote aiprjow 7d aSvoud pov. wat (Bod 8:85 ee nis cwaywyis vo} Earava, x ray Reyévrav éavrove "lov8aious evar 5. spiblarered] So 2, with O only: all cle sepbaharan “arlo) Or bay with all Genk opie, 8 ‘om, while 3 in, th pox = dere andi 4 /t-: bat hia fs not conclave on to the Greek, for thw Byrne verb bere wed in seldom followed by a prov don, In fv. 4 however, ther ts good Greek {thority for omitting d. ‘noneyhow 7b dro) Lit dof dnipes: at ‘ore on te contury, the prop. belongs tothe Byr. ition. 7. rie ledger @.abrgelat) All Grsk copes, most euthoris); Dut in such ease Byr. ie Sado tive. ‘8. eh fpya ens] Or eov rh lyre 3, and (alone ATIOKAATYIS. ral ote clay adda YevSovras* 180d roujow abrods iva. FEouc xal mpoo- rxevrfoovaw énémov tiv woBSy cov" rat yrdoovras br. ey aydmnod oe. Sr eripnoas tiv yo Tis tropovis pour xdys oe m™mpijow a 108 meipacpod rob péddovros Fpxeabas emt ris olxoupérns Bdqs, meipdarat rods Karoixoivras emt ris ‘Vis. exopar rays pares b Exes, ba pndds By riv orépardy cov. weal 8 nixdy rowjow abrdy ordhov & 1G vag rob Geos Kat ew ob pi EOD ere Kai -ypdywo én” airdv 15 Svopa ro} Geod pov, kat 7 Svopa Tis modes ris Kawis ‘Tepovoadeju’ 4 xaraBalvovoa dnd 108 @e08 pov" ral 7 Svopd pov 7 Kawdv. Kal 6 Sav ofs, dxovedra rf 73 Mveipa Aéyer rats éxrdnotars. Kal 76 dyyay ris dxeAnotas Aao- Bixelas ypdyor, réBe Myer 5 durfv, ‘of Grosk copay) place ov lst: but o00 note on ie. alot) B and 3 slone ins nal hore and 0 8 (ut not 3) atthe beginning of vere 8, 12,12. 9. de rae) All le, except 3 and pr, om. de oes... spenorteoursy} OF Reet rpeerofewers. For yracorvas potibly yrdew ta to be eubtnted (with most authortie); but the intere punetion of 8 favours fu, which mas. 16,36 give. 10. rod repecnad] Alles profs ris Bye. 12, fog Ovei) 80 8, with mx 36 and two ether: 30 ST he for he Bn wire ‘rir rdkser) AIl dao add rod Od now, except {and ¢fow man, which om. part of entence. 4 eeraBalrowra) Or § earaBalre (with Q and rmott mun). After thee words, 8 alone om. dx [ad] ane 14, fs deedqetas Aushcefas] Most Grosk copen, aod 3, read rfp do A desk; ut pr has weleae Landes (7 and og invee)- 7 4ATIOKAATWIS. 8 pdprus 8 mods Kal adds, kal 4 apy} ris xrlceus rod @cot 150184 cov ra epya’ obre yuxpis dobre Leords: Spedov 4 Yuxpds Wis 4 cords. nal xdsapds el? Kad ob Yuxpds otre Leards: pédhw oe wr épéoas ex 108 ordparés pov. Sr. Dyas Se mhovoibs “elu Kad me mdovrnna xal obBér xpelav Exo" Kab oix ol8as dr ob ef 6 radaimwpos al ddeewds, Kal mraxds Kal yypvds: 18 cupBovreves cos dyopdoas wap’ uot xpuotoy werupapévor’ &x srupds ba, mourjoys, Kal idra Aevxd ba wepiBdrp, wat ph gavepabi 4 aloxiry tis yunvératés cov". al rodospiov Eyxpicar tra Brémps. sm arr, aya obs Gad Ady nal raiBebo’ 19 Gireve ofy wal peravinoor. Bod 20 formxa ext riy Oipay Kal xposo dy nis dxotoy Tis puris wou Kal dvolger Thy Oipav nal eloeedoopar ral Bemnfow per? abrod «al abrds per? dod. Kat 6 vixdv Bdow abrg 2 rabioa per euod & 16 Opdvy pov ds eyd eixqoa nal éxdBioa pera 10 warpés pou ey 78 Opive aired. & Exav obs, dxovadra tha 1 Uveipa Mye rails exehnotas. Meré. raira Bor, Kat i8od Oipav. weyyuéry & 16 obpavg Kal 4 gor} fw jxovoa ds oddmyya Addnoe per euod Méyww dd B 8c nal Seifa oor 8 Bet yerérbar al § pct) Bo w alone of Grosk opin: nosy All elo om. nl 18, obra guxplt) Lit, ob pnp. All le exopt ‘mas 28, 163 nu be before the words, ‘4 yuceds] 8 alone ine 4. 5) Bhs fa, ih ray rept rk subjunctive. Tho Oreck copias have oF wr: aad fe! ros 16 eal Amp) wala poole to 8; but probably fiom a erbe's eror (to note on Bye. txt). ‘This being corected, 8 voud Br smply (with ove me, 238). and moet ead obror fru; 8 br intended, or obre simply. 17, drs xhodewr] 8 and 3 ine the prot = Se: (with AC and many mas, against w PQ and many others; but thin may bo merely idiomatic, and i nat ‘conclasive as to the underying Greek. Phebe Pius] § has oF, but 20 doubt by transcriptional eer (of ve lttar inthe Syrian; n00 ote on 8yr. tot). ‘tdts) With A.C; or obShes (with xPQ, and eary ll mas). But 8 and 3 incline to o8, ‘eel yes) Allele ina. wal rophds before or ster, thas words. ‘re repBdip] Lit, epiBerlets, and v0 2. Furia} 8 alone om robs bptekuods oo ater {hia verd, Tho omarion impli that tho translator id not read 1 fyypeor (an, and some mas, and re.) The roding dyyaiat is mupportd by » A.C ‘nd tome man, but hey do ct sete the question ‘rhuther to accent it sind o (ot as 7,26) 8 gives impera. (with 3 and lat), guint dygyiew ot ev, a, and tre drzplen (-p] of Q, Bo. 1 oft] Bor and vg, for Bros dd [orf], (rave) OF Gpdmeer- [6 Bia 19—¥. 14). 20, drole] So 8 alowe, (3 doubefu): ll other suthorton read dvelfp, except, which han drlfe. ‘Though the Bye ft. verb might an well repreet the Greck wbjunetve, th intrpunetion of 8 shows that the fab meant, ‘a eloehebeopai] 8 alan om. br abréy aftr ‘those words. For wal ibaa the rapport of w Q. and many man, and prs agaiat AP, and other (which +. fellow}, aaa g andy, and 2. ‘dh All ele, IV, 1. gerd) aloe om. § npdry after this word. theerye) 8 and 3 only; ep. 4 10: al oe, on Spr. text); the reat Aahobons, Aahobens, oF =e (ave, abr] Or Abyowe. 8 use infin, which iswie, aperd tara, ral ebflus ¢yodpny & mveipary rai iBod Opévos éxerro & 7G obparg: Kal ext r3v Opsvor sxabipeos xat & xabripevos* Suo.os bpdce NBov ldomBos xal capSiou™ at Tpus xuedsbev 105 Opsvov, Spovos sépdoe cpapdybav. Kal kunddder rob Opdvov Bpévor eixoo. Kal réo- capes’ Kal emt $8 robs Bpévovs, dixoot Kat réocapas mpeoBuré- povs KaBmnérous’ — mepiBeBdrpe- vous iwarious Neunois. al emi ras xegadds aizév orepdvous xpuaois. seat & rav Opévay exwopesovrat _ Bpovrai nai dorpamat nai gavai. al drrd NapndBes raudpevar évdmioy 108 Opévov' af clow era mveipara 2. al ebtder] 80 P and many mes, and verwons: ‘the ret including 3nd lat (but ote) om el. del vbr pier] Or del rod Aplroe. Grock copie frequently vary as fo ease of nouns after de, sno Syria ia indocve in such maton. ‘3. Adee] Hera, end with the tro following nouns, 8 and 3 use tho profix which denotn the genitive ‘at posily the dative (which all Grok copie have) ie ‘meant. ‘The genitive i given by ag, but dative by et ‘ewedter] Or bed, and win next verve (where however the Byr ifr slighty); also invert; but in yer 8 the Spr. definitely implioe xvehdter (with alee). Syst) Or pote. rapdyter} $0, and one me. (14); but moat rrk copes anda, ead epaperSirg, which prhape in what 8 and 3 roprsent, no equalect adjective existing in Syria, ‘4. tpiros} So P Q and many max. (with store [eal] rdevapes following: w-A and one oF two man, piso (but leo with rdevape). 8 and 2 ure not ecaive, but seu to favour noite, "$8 8 inn. 3, but with ¢- naroayAeveis} OF do ie Ay ta 2 and many suthoriton. "8 andar indciive har; ow note ut fis. 5. sir dpbrur] 8 only: allel singular. Bporral wl derparal nal g-] All clo place Aerperal iat, but difer as to postin of 8. and g. ce ATIOKAATWIS. 108 @coi" Oadacea sarin dpola xpvordddy kai & poy 705 Opdvov Kal Kindy 103 Opivev, rlowapa Léa yéuorra bBaduiiv Eumpooter xal smurbev. 1) Gov 73 mpirov Spor déovre al 1 Sebrepor Sor Spovor pdoxy kat 18 rplrov Gov éxov 7 mpéow- ov Gs dvOpsmov ral 73 réraprov Gov Spoor derG meropéry ra réo- capa (ia ty Exactov abrisv dards: Exuv dard ra bvixuv abro’ kal ewdve, mrépuyas &€ nueddber" al Eowler yeuovow 8h0aXpiv" Kal dvdzavow ote Exovew" typdpas Kal vurds dé- youres’ dyios dys dyios Kupios 8 @eds 8 mavtorpdrup, 8 Fv Kal [am., &e.]: the rest & for of, with 3 [! mp: i oot dl, ‘rand etext. dra repara] 8 (0d pebape 3) feour the nino here (tot ¥. 8 afr) of te atl bors fed Q, and many man) AP, i ‘a inaree) Tho MGS oat ag oy, and 2 pots rma: Lvith nw or tro other, ar, Ghrr the chr rca a died. 4.°03 Gar sh opr] Ale 509 pe ier) Or peta ere, Br lotpeeel So Aru, 30 a fo, and at. (deity thn rt moti mb (8 @ end), Sr rad ftom (2, ith om) 1 lerae] Alen pros eA fll opin satng inthe By. beor ta woda ‘y eevor] Bo m mn 38, and (9; thot sos teat be ‘ei se, wh iu te pres Geer) Lit a x gon, Sor ego, E55 ro dryer arose fron] A tongs eraphran, perp frm He. 27 (LEX, for do Ua ale ge ‘now Or rnara a re wih oF more sam; Pt mot mu ad al MSS, ad ot Daye] Or porn kal evimuov rod Opévov 6ATIOKAATVIE. 96 dy Kal 5 epydperos. xat Srav Bc 7a révoapa (Sa, Bde Kad ryiy Kal etxapioriay 1G xabqpéry emi rob Opsvov, nat 7G Carr els robs to alévas ray aldéver dprfv. Meooivras of eixoos Kal réowapes peo Btrepor exdmov 708 Kabnpévov emt rob Opsvov, Kat xpooxwrfoovew es robs alévas rév aléver duiy 16 Larre kal Badodor rods orepdvous abrav 11 €vémov ro Opsvov déyorres, dkios 8 Kipws pdr nat § @cds qpav AaBety ry BéEay Kal ry rypiy Kat Ti Strap sr od exrivas 7a advra’ ral 81a 13 Oud cov Foay ral derlaGnoay, v. Kat Soy emt riv Befidv 705 xabnpévou éri rod Opdvov, BiBhiov, -yeypappévov Evaer Kal Eber” Kab rarergpaywrpévov ogpayiow énrd. 4 by eal & dpxdyuros] Hero, and similarly xi. Wand avi. 8g. 6.) L supply & before thee pati= oreo set) the MES snd et ma ae oly tthe tnng af Sy te Fog Sy mae ay dora tp ak ad pradem atari te; ep prety ier] Bom 8,61 aso sg ie) 8 te ak Tee] om aod mn 3 ad 96; ad in et vee sd aya Te arb s Gv lean ta se mp trac t's probly coal 1 nope ar) Or Kine fade 8 eine ope” Ppa vb OGdqud eve) At Sretsght, ho rendering ot 8 mosey iene or het isavcl our. But etna Sy tr Fluted eevepeent) Bo re mathe rt and th HS oe Sth) Only ive (6 67 i 8.6, kal eBov addov dyyedov loxupdy + mppiaoovra ey guvp peyédp, ris ELios dvoigas 13 BiBNov Kat Noat ras ogpayibas abrod; Kat ob8dls 5 Pvvaro ev 7G odparg ob82 & aH YH O08 dmoxdrw ris ys, dvoias 75 BiBNiov Kai Mora ras oppayibas airod at Bdémew ard. wal éxdasoy 4 mods, Sri ob8eis d£vos ebpéOy dvoita 1 BiBMov rad Nioas Tas ogpayiBas airod+ Kal els &x rév mpexBurépay s dlre por pw} wdaie od dienow 5 Maw ék ris duds "Iovba, 4 pila avid: tavoiga 73° BiBdiov nat Niwas ras ogpayiBas aired. nat Boy 6 & ploy roi Opdvov rat ray reo- adpuv User xal rév mperBurdpar, prior dornnds ds logaypevor, Exar képara éntés nat bf0arpods ded: ot elo ra éwrd mveipara 708 Geo’, tr poof] Or por without ty. 3, oi84 (ul) Orobre dy 28) All lo have dal vas 7. teal Aires rhe agpeyites cbr] 8 alone in. All lo ofr, oF ot, for we ‘rir cépeyitas sired) For tre tlrd. 8 i hero supported only by pr. ee] All ele Ney Ge) So wand ma 14: the rat, 8 de. ‘tarlfe = saat Abrus rds) Thre must ‘be some error here: ut whether inthe Bye or in ite ‘Grok rigial in doubeful. Soo note on Bye tert In reading dole (for dite of WAP, Ke. orb tome og tarts [e; but nt am or arm], ‘ppeyiat} Allele, except me. 78, profs bed, 6, sor aperBerdper] All ele pres dr ploy. ery) OF <4r? also Eyer or or. st ales) Or H siev: the worda reprveting Aptexsate and eveiuara in 8 tnd the rendering is thus the parallel expreion in are of same gender+e, 18 drooradddpea es waver riy 1 Yi. nal Abe Kat eDnge 1 BiBNov de ris xerpds 108 xalnudvov én 708 8 Opdvov, wat re dae 73 BiBNov, ra. réocapa (a Kal ot exow al réa- capes mperPirepor Execov evdmov 108 dpriow Exovres exacros abray, ibdpav naj guddyv xpvoqy yé- povoay Oyuiapdrav, al cow ab 9 mporerxad rav dylwv, qBovres giv rawiy wat déyorres: dfs ef Aafely 13 BiBNov Kat Noa ras odpayibas abrod drt dogpayns xa “spaces pas ev 1G alpari cov 1G GcG, de wdons gudfis Kal daod toral vous Kat éoinoas abrobs 1@ OcG jpdv Bacdelay Kad iepels ‘abea the gonderofitaantecedent,Iprofer other, with yA, and & fow mat, 1, 38, 87, Bo But ep. vers 8. ‘rh AsecreaNbuera) Tho vote forbids uw to suppose What 8 meant 12 connect thie pop. with eterna and I therefore writa it neut (a2 PQ, Be) sredpara, not mae. (as A). 8 fevours th Q) rater than pet. (with w A): and {Be iron of art. (with «few tne), though the 2M3S.,and most man om. [P Ait, the, fo = 9.) 1. AiBAlor) Tho MSS. and nearly all an. om? Dat mam 7, 3, jot an alio ef and some tora [include ing arm; bot em) rg Lows 3 [bat with *]. "xupde] Bor Seid, which all ese give. 8, brie) With 3: al ehe om. (ap), which teal fi 9: Glarves) All Greek road eal love, alto at. (ut pr, centanten 5 eonatan) and all ‘gedds) Allele tld wel padwrns. 10, Baardelr wal eps eal Beet) Evidently a ‘confation, probably exiting ia the Grovk orginal of 1 (nim anth,): Baril eal leper in ead Uy Ay and Int; BaerAean wal epariey by mi: Bae dee wa a by Q, and all wun, and some rerio, 2 included [P Air)” ee not on yr text ca ATIOKAATYIS, wal Baodreis, Kal Baoredcovow éni ris yi. Kal eBoy kal jxovea ds guviy dyydduy modddv Kinky tod Opdvov' Kal rav Liwv nal rév mpecBurépur' Kat qv & dpiOpds abrav pups prpidSev Kal yuuds XddBuv" Kal Méyoures durg peydhy, dks el 7d dpviov 73 éodaypévov, aBeiv ry Bivapw Kal mdodrov Kal copiay nai toxdv Kat ry Kai 8é€av Kal eboyiay. ai wav xriopa 8 & 7G obparg nal ey rH yj Kal Sondre Tis vis, Kal ey 7) Oaddoon 8 dort nal 7a dy abrots wévra. Kal jxovoa déyovras 1§ Kaly- péry emi 708 bpdvov Kal 7 dpriy, 4 royia Kal 4 ryt) wal 36a 11, 41] Sow, mont and beet man, and 2: thereat om, cindy) ‘Vouily moehdter, an ree, though weakly supported: bot the B30. favoury ricky. (mops =» xouds) 80 2: all else plural 12, kal Aéyorrr} Or ral Adyooe. All eae Bare [gorrar oF Neyirrer, dom. ele ‘jr af] Bo apparently 8; though allele give ule tev With ey Mos it to be read (with A), ‘ther than Afr (with w QP bia}, and ell man.) piv 1. 18. dy 4p 9] 80 700, with a fow many pr, and some other versions againat 3, 9 and e7, and tho ‘thor authorities, which have bl is 73. dr rj tandcay] With w lone of Greek copan; ls 3, and lat. The reat (lowed by re. del ris fasdewy T ders) 8 alone, P Q [Tisch overlooks the former) and some mus rad & ders (00 roe): A and many mas, devl only + w anda few ms. om. both (08 ‘oe’. ‘al evura Ayorras] AP, most mat, and the lax (except g nd arm) and wort vs ‘with arm, and perhape g, supports 8 in making a new ‘sentence and oven pargraph begin with sal and in trating th following datives as connected with ‘éyoray, bot a part ofthe aserption. aAMNOKAATYIS. kat 7d xpdros els rods alévas ray waldver. Kat ra révoopa {oa Déyovra. durjv. Kat of mpeoBirepo Vi. érecay kal mporerivqoay. ai elBov Gre syoike 1 dpviov piay ex ray anti. odpayBov' Kal Frovoa évds de rév reaadpuy Léuv déyorros, ds 2 dav) Bpovrav, épxov Kat ‘Be. fovea Kat eBoy ral tSod trnos Deveds* Kai 3 xathipevos én" airéy, Exuv réfor nad 80 air oré- davos wal e6iBe vexdiv *xal Sines nat twa vuefop, 3 Kal dre syoige rv ogpayiba rv Beurdpav, jxovea roi Sevrépov Léou 4 déyovt0s Epxov. Kat é&FdBer twos muppés" Kal 16 xabnptvy ex? abréy, 2860y airG daBeiv rv eprmy ex tis vis, ba addirous oddfover 2 eal feoor] 8 oa all elo om. racial lege nal tra chap] As pol 8 gives lt.) ned tal nade nal» = fn mm 82, 36. Tn dene in mbatatd for tra recep, and thin reading, of cours, saplod one ‘menber of the conate reeding. ‘Pouibly, bowove, the rctrer al nerf Smerely repecents two alternative fora (he former supported ‘by 3d, the ater by 3) of rendering tho patil. Ho, the onufation ia de to & Syria verb, not to the Gresk orginal.” Boo note on Sr. text. 4. Tero] All ln profs txtor Tre} So Q and mot mun and versione: but WAC, some mua, % and at. and me, rei el ‘seltere) Ot edger. 6 dretre eoperis 4 vpra) So 8, and siilerly sn, 28, 78,19 allel, rote ry epperte ry epee. ‘itt So and many mae ganda [ol with vagoe & ral &80) air® pdyaipa peyddn. Kab Sre Hvoiyn 4 obpayis 4 7pirn, xovea rod rpirov (dou déyorros Epxov. wat 180d Enos pehas al 8 abripevos én’ airav *éxuv Lvyov' & rh xeipt airod. Kal jrovea doriy ee péoou ror Udav dMyoveay, xoin€ otrov Byvapiow Kal speis . xotvixes xpibijs Bqvapiou' Kal roy olay Kat rd aor ph aducfops. Kal dre joke nv odpayiba iy rerépryy, jrovea fury rod Wov eyorros épxov. Kal eBov Tamoy xdupivr Kai roi xalnuévov exdva aro’ Svopa atrrod 8 Odvaros” nai 8 q8qs dxodovbel airg’ Kal 86 airg efoveta ent 73 réraprov ris ys dmorrdvar & pongaig rai dy Nipg nai e& Oaviry’ wai arm, e.; not am}: 3, and thorat, roi (pr bate ter) nal er. “tyor Gedy) 8 han By (oyb Seo not on Sy. taxt for thin conection. ‘6. gurfy] So 3, and Q, and moet mi and ver- siona: Hat wA CP, tow man and at (exept pr) prix dr. de ploow sin] Allele, ds whey 13x revedpun. tow tnt 8 he. strife her, fw mee, and 3. ‘br slay nal rb Por) 80 000 ms (36), and lat, oxcopt g: 3 and the other autores place rb trate Ot. acheye) 1. Geo) Alleles prt rerderv. 8 sel eter frxor yrwpér] 80 pr only: nouly all las [el flr} eal od tenor xrwpl eb xabyutrov- «Broun abret) Or, 7 Soqua ‘8 alone: all lie §eabyadres Gedo abred) ity dt adele. drone] Or deanatee {dty abr) 80.0 aod most mat end sll ver soon: the other MS, and mas, have (ty aao oid ray Onpluv ris vis. Kal dre poke thy odpayiba riy wéunrqy, Bor Sroxdrw 105 Ourvaarnpiow, ris uyas ras Copaypéras Bud rov Aéyor 708 @cod, Kat Bid viv papruplay 10'Inood, fy dlyor Kat expagav govp peyddy dMyovres tus mire d = Beonérys &° dyios wat ddnOvds, ob xpiveis at éxBixels 13 alua pdr ee ray aroixotvrav ent ris ys: sat 860 éxdory airév rod} Devers nal ppéOy ba dvarasouwras Gas naipod xpdvor pexpérr dus ob mpabiior Kat of oivBoudor airy kai of aBAgot abrdv of wéddovres va dmorreivea@ar os al abroi, Kal Bon sre *ivorke\ rv odpayida riv derqy, nat Soeiopis' wkyas eyévero® ATIOKAATWIS. al 8 fhtos wedas éyévero dos Pordicxos' apixwos* wal 4 cedsivn 8hy eyévero air ds lua: ral of dorépes 70513 otpavod émecay ent riv iv, ds ouK Bédrovea rods ddivfovs airs awd dvipov peyddov ceopérn. ral dy obpavds *dmexupiobm\, tral’ és BiBNia diocovrat: nal way épos xal maga vijos & rod rénov aizay ecuriqear. Kat of Bardels ris ys peytoraves kai of xiiapxoe ai of mhoveior Kat’ of toxupot, Kab ms Boidos kal eesBepos, Expupay favro’s ds 12 omftua Kal es tas mérpas rév épéuy' nat Myovor ss rois Spears nad vais mérpais wévere 26) ands, wal xpiare pds dnd mpordmov roo dpriow dre #MOer 17 5 bed ie Sylar] Lit do tal (2 bed 208 14): but (0) bed in this snae a no exact aguivalent 4, 8 Syriac and the stop after Gardry soem lntended to indicat the change of preposition (0) the word which stands for tnploy ia capable of plural meaning. 8. rhs degeyaivas) Allele, roy depayndrer. 0; butthroe mae, havetyeod Xpur- Boje few authoritin, ave Sedorg, ts A.C P and many mes.; but Q and many ‘tbr have sbassmply. deta) All de a ara Bernier} Or serra Ter nap] Or pany Fy which ll ei ed fo afl Or tently. BE SOREL 8 Hr ance pttig, rts “end) 8 han gr, x srita’s err betwen ‘wo similar Syrino worn.” Sa oto 0 By. oder] 8 rprsntadewdn but & change of one inter nthe By. on te of) rere eden. ‘ie Or arg: 8 alone ine 18, Gn] Sowandn. (Tan oforels. Opi ‘dsdovre) 80, with 4 end ome mex. ‘The other MSS., wome may and la, followed by re, red pédier? many man. Barobon (ed) Bo 2, with wand to mas only. ‘The Syriac preposition in 8 and 3 reprecata ded or dx, rather than érd which iv the reading of the other Grek authori.” Bee note om vrs 8 Urinee nepdder) Rather do. exept, but for ‘thi adjective thor iano evidence. 14. *drexuploty) 8 has a verb= dry or Anerdey + ‘but a thin hanno suppor, and is epparently due to intake of the Syrae serie (by transposition of two lettrs—eve note on Br. text), I restore beeper. ‘eal bs] Rather porkape om. ral las anmp- ported), and read the following words in sing.: sce ote on Bye. text. ‘alevorra] Lity ealyéyear (or ing). AlL lan have cingular, and (onooptporhape ms 182) pop. ‘riea) 8 alone ine. deohtyear] 5 nd uae bere th same verb at tor cvnptoy in lat vere, Pomibly they read dvedede yeas hare 08 mt 96), and eadevonéry there (as and faa. 12). But this verb = nro 5, opr. 18 af lexwpal] Or pouibly of Bavaro, an rec eda (with doubtfl authority); It af Borda 18. spoedaos) 8 lone om. roi cabaret 108 Apdrov eal bb vit bps, ater this word. asATIOKAATYIZ. 4 twdpa 4 peyddy ris bpyis airiy wat ris Bivarar orabiivas; vi Kal perd roiro Bor, réowapas dyyOovs tovéras en ras rlowapas ‘yorias ris yi" Kal xparoivras robs réooapas dvduous ta pi) mép Evquos emt ris vis mire ent ris Gaddoons, prire ent wav Bb8pov. 2 Kai Boy ddXov dyyedov dvaBaivovra, ded dvarodiv fou, cxovra. obpa- iba @cob Livros: Kal expage gavfh peyahy ois rlowapow dyyedous ols 2866y airois dBuxjioa ry iv Kal 3 Thy Bédaacay dNywr, ph dBucjonre niy viv wire riv Oddaooay pire 1a Bé8pa, dxpis ob ogpayiowper ros Sovhous ro @eod ent ray perémov abziv. 4 Kal jeovea viv dpQydv ray AT, ated) 8o 3 (Unp; not dl with WC and one (38), and at, except pr: all lan abre ‘VIL 1. eal aperaforer) 80 mos. 28, 73, sw om. als Svinoes] The Greek copies, except ma. 38, ina. ofp yi after this word, and to 3, he: a fow ei cig rmsd eke of (te, ‘2. AraBalorra) Tho Syr. texte slightly ynowe- ‘ain (ace note om i}, and may be reed either an pre- terta, or present pep. If the foramr is adopted (© br dda) it may imply thatthe original of S had SaBiore (with ma. Ly and ree) But 8 often noe ‘rot. for peu. plep 4s in th clowaly parallel paanag, vii, 1 Ryreer wetabalrorra is rondered uw if it ‘were 84 cardby). I therfore retain. AaBalrorr, ‘310 aealy all” 3 ie doubitl. rerehsr] Bo A and one ms. (90); 40 too x0 Linh. ‘obra Bedpa) Li wale (rp {cpr of] Or Kuper eimply (ep. far ob, vi 10), ‘Tho Grosk copi vary here and av. 8; i 25 they fing, xvi. 17 thoy om, of. “ merom.g. Logpayiopévuy, ixarov Kal reooa- pérovra nal révoapes xiuddes, ee adons gudfs "lopayd. ‘Ex duds 5 "TovBa Bé8ena xididBes ee gudys “PovBiy Bé8exa xidddes: de gudgs Tad Saibexa yudiddes de gudfs 6 *Aorip, BiBexa xudBesr de gudfs NepGadi, Sd8era xididBer de uXjs- Mavarh, 3dBexa youdBes" ex gudijs Zupedv, BdBexa yidudBes* 7 de duds "Toaydp BdBexa xdudBes’ dx gudijs Aevt 3iBexa yudBes’ ex 8 gudijs ZaBovdély, BéBexa ycdidBes" de duds "Tworp, BuiBexa xudbes, de gudjs Benapir Bc8exa youd3es Ledpayvopévor, na pera raira lBov 9 Sxdov odiv by épBpijoa abrdv ob8els Baro’ ex mavrds eBvous kat gudjs xal Lady Kal ~ucodr, snd versions ot 3). 4°8 alone om. deyperenins Cor] after the sumrals; but a fw mur om. them ad togtber. “iepeta) 3 reads “eperAroy! all ee lor “trai. 7.8 (wth ath. alone) om. toppers (a) ‘erate the rt.) and fan ony fa ern 8: 8 ‘50's bere, bt om. frm we 8 (ith pr) Te. {cutter every ibe (thoes), wih «vary few many find gy but all MSS. and’ most mans 1 9 [ outta, twice only—hore and vere 8. Nota that (enalno 3) favours the pling Nap et (oand,prkap, lo Maree (ond i Yom 7 “tengte (0'@ and tary mn) an 8 transpose Tachar and Lev. Sm. Levi; we Bote on Spr al] 8 alos ine note on Sy, txt, yaar sone) Bo by with pr and eter forme to (bt not) 7, he 3, ad te Grok general, ave el ob hor ob, bt C om. Do Be dpdaten ind] Li, oe dpa are. Gp. nto on eB wr. “pentr) Or plan, al ela except prvm. gov 2. dorires bvdmov ro Opévov Kab Srdmov 108 dpviov, nat wepiBeBdn- év01 arohas heuxds* Kal goivexes év torais xepolv airév* wal xpdlovres dovj weyadn nat héyorres: 4 cwrnpia 1G Ge spdv rad rh xabqnérw ent 111708 Opévov xat 76 dprig. Kal mdvres of dyydo clorjxecay Kiedy 05 4pévov xad rv mpeoBurépuv Kat rv rerodpur Lswrr kal Execov tvmioy 1708 Opdvov éxt ri apéowna airav wadeyovress durjr 9 88a Kal eidoyia Kat 4 copia Kat } edxa- proria ral 4 ryt Kad Bivoqis kal loxds 7G OeG judy els rods naldvas rav alévey div. Kal awexpin ls éx rév mpeoBurépay Réywy por obra of mepiBeBdy- péro. ras orohds ris Neuxis tives telot; Kat wéBer #Oov ; Kal elpnna aing: ip pov od olBas. ral evires] So apparetly $ and 3 (with wAP fand some mon). But the Syrian (at also Latin) ia {inconclusive bere; and pomibly deréras (of @ and ‘most ma.) may be intended by both; of deréran of C and ms. 38. ‘ea renBeBdudrel} Or ovr, Tho aceusat. is read by WACO and mort mut, and ? the nominal, ‘by P and a fow mos; also by pr and oy. The ine serton of eal, in which 8 in wapported only by pr, fod other carly citations of e,abema to indeata that ‘hia pte. ia meant 1o be of sume caso atthe precoding cone. But the Oreck of this page in (if the best copies may be truted) 0 ungrammetical that one cannot draw any certain conclusions as to tho text. Gelnces} Or eas. 10, edGorrer «ral porn] Or xpowes« sat Ayer But for Adyourr there scemt 1 bono ‘Rutorty; nd Atyerrer with wal profzed sooms to ‘require npdGerre, though the Grosk evidence for it in alight, and for eal (which 3 om.) lighter. ‘el 9 wat} Kal ia peel to ATIOKAATVIS. elné pov ofrot clow of epxdpevor ee ris Odipeas ris peyddys, Kad Eway ris oroh’s airy Kab Aeixavay aizis & 16 alpart rod Apriov. 818 roiré elow evdmoy 70815 Spévov roi cod, Kai Narpevovow airG jpdpas Kad vuerds & 7h vag aired Kat 5 Kabyjperos emt 108 Opévov oxqvisces dx? airovs' ob wer 16 vévovew ob82 Bupjoovrw ob8e Hh log ex abzods 8 Fios, ob8? wav Kaipa’ Ste 13 dpviov 73 dvd péooy 108 Opdvov mopave? abross: kal S3yy joa abrods &t Coty ral ent wnyas Udrav” eal éadeiper way Bdxpuov ee rév dpGa\udv airdr. Kal bray joke rv odpayiba vu. Te B3suqr, eyerero ory & 16 odparg, ds iypidprov. Kal lov rods + Exra dyyOous of &xémoy 10 cod dorjecar Kat &60nvav airois 11, Atond of vere, 8 alooe om. xal xporexirarar sow. 12.4 bdeyle nal] AIL eae place those words Delors 4 Bite. 14. elpyes) Or eer. 16, 8, with me. 36, om. fr after bth eeodeovrw and topjvevry, supported in the Ast caso by and in the wcond by Pand a fow mas. (1, 9, 38, e)- ‘AQ and most mus ine in both places." agrees swith w 279; but with Q], an €0 aleo pr and ey but g with P (0 Ait, wil 14-17} oBh bDD wf) Or wld ob 11, Gel Gabo uel det wxyds) 8 alone: for Geir x. (USB, most toe, lt. and other versions), OF bt Gear x. (some mon); 3 doubifal. Hereei} 8 alone om. & Bde afr thin ver, VILL. fro] Ordre. 2. slerfewes} 8o 8 and 3, woported by g, and sa, 38 and a fow otbre (with varying orthography). Al lag have Gerfeass (pr and op, stants, which is indecisive).AUTOKAATYIE. 3 bard oddmuyyes. Kal dos fOe wat eoré6y ent 205 Ouraornpiov’ Exwv ABavurdy xpuooivr Kai £886y airg Ovpudpara moda rais mpocevyais 1a0 dylav wévruv, ent 7d Bvow- soripiov 73 eximov 10% Opévov. av¢Bn 8 xamvis 77 Oypiapdrow rais mporerxais trav ayia, ee xeipds 51700 dyyéhov evdmioy 108 Bead. Kat cDgger 8 dyyedos 13 MBavuréy, Kab eyfuurer aitd ex 708 ups 108 ext 705 Ovrwaorpiov, ai Bader els viv ‘iv’ nai tyévero Bpovral wal gavat kat dorparal xai ceopés. 6 Kal of émré dyyehou of éxovres ras énré: oddmuyyas, jroipacay éavrods va cadwiowar. Kat 5 mparos éodd- muse Kat eyévero xdhala wai mip i, O08 lone oats reer ar the ais eporwoyatl] Lit dp sae apy and wo in next vere; Put av it seme probable that 8 trate the dative as instremental in both place, think it boat ‘ot to tranaata the prefixed propsion. 2 [dm pi ‘but Fdoubetally] woe tho ame prefix here; but next vore that of the genitive. 8s lone in omitting {ha Bde [Bdep, oF 86] befor thee words. “Grewerdpor] 8 aloe om. add 1d pee 6. 100 dl a6 Goeaerapiy) All elas om. red dl 1. dr fer) Or art Bo 3 [Im; for which das dr bpd} but 4p, with al lay ty eluant. The ‘words fuer: and lars might reedily be confounded; Wrgoyoer} So 3, and a fow mun: the ret san. gros isis] All le have xdwpée instead of rip pir but pouibly the 8yr. noun ie meant to represent xépror xropls, ax Mi. vi 39 (Poh. ‘note on Sy teat 6 ‘ee pewrynin ey Bar ad EBdiPnoay els Thy yi ead 18 rpiroy ris Yi karexdy’ «at 73 tpirov rév BéyBpav al was xépros ris yis karexdn. Kat 6 Bevrepos éoddmoe kat eyévero as Spos péya xasdpevov éreoe eis riy Addaccar’ al éyévero 2 tplroy ns @addoons alya’ xa} dmddare 73 pire advray viv wre auras’ rv dy 1 Oadéaoy 7 éxov Wuxi. Kat 13 rplrov rév whoiaw BuebBdpn. Kal 6 tpiros (oddmure, kai reer ex 09 obpavoy dorip péyas xaspevos bs daprdy rat Gneoe emt 13 rplrov gov worapav kat émi ras yas rév bSdruv, 13 Svona rod dordpes déyeras 4 AywBos: al eyévero 13. spire arexdn. 8. Beérepes} Without kyyetat following: 00 sone, tndrere bs} 80 ws. 96: all le om. 2dvee. irubuorer) So Q. aad many mas.? the other ‘Grack copies and nealy all the versione (aching 2), prox rol Frwwer] All ele, 4840, which perbape 8 intends 9. dover) 8 and 3 alone is. [2 with *]- 1D gor] All lan 18 Exorre ape] So vee, lth @ and many man and lat; the other mam and versions (inelading 2) have lara. 10. pier) All ls add Kyyoen: so vero 12, and ink, mwnds) The word hero used in 8 umallyre- presenta gad, and in the only other place where A. ‘ovure im Ape. (i. 6) it a rendered diferent. But owe no reason to doubt that A. was found her in the ‘Grek orginal: i na word which seems to avo bad to proper equivalent in Byrne, and in usually tana ‘erated not only by 3 (shore) and ATK, but by Pah. TL. d*aporter) 8 clary distinguishes Kurs here from Apiviay in nest weatence, Soo next note.tiv SSdrav ds dypivOioy Kal woddot trav dvOpsmay dnébavory sre ere 12 xpdvOnoay ra S8ara. Kat rérapros eoddmice, nat ewdsiyn 7d rpirov 708 Mov kal 13 tpirov ris oedivys kal 73 rplrov av dorépuv’ Kal eororiabycav 18 rpirov airév' rat % jucpa obx Epawe 7d rpirov nairis ral } vOE dpoias. Kal Grovea évds derod meropévov &v 1G obparg déyovros’ ota} oat oat ois karowxobow eat ris ys ee Tis govis rév cadntyyer rv tpiv dyyOwy tov peddévrav oadnifer. 1%. Kal 8 wéunros dodhmoe, Kal elBov dorépa ex 709 obpavod wenruxéra amt ris ys, Kad B6Oy airg 4 wrels 4s Apter) () For by all ela, except and 2, road es (i) A fow mom. (7, 28, 79) agro with 8 fn ruling Kfurtor «Ayton nearly all ela read ‘Ghoter (for -wr); # lone of Greak eopien rede tho latter word in both pace. ‘rs drupdrbyear rd Bure) 8 alone, for de rar dram, brs brpbroyear. ry denorirbycer} OF ly, whichis the road- the threo mos (36, 68, 87 which (wth the Cm. \ndrens (Cod. Coislin.} and the Amrenian version) fupgor 8 in sabtituting eal with indiative for foe rath te bt aed nd a radi. 3m a Ty foe enor [Ja denote: [eal] § fade oh ‘odry [oF gun oF gain}: in dp more sklflly, fre 18, nal fuavea) All lan prix eal lr. ‘78 siparg] All else necovpariuars (slenar), ‘which probably 8 intends. Op. xiv. 6, xix. 17. ‘Aéqorvor] All elas add gurj (aerdap]. ‘ris earouceserr) Or aby eared ‘Tis povit] All che rar. harder fori except 3 [dnp not 1], which rade vis gure re ‘rir eanetryer) 80 3: all cleo vir etd erm. D ATIOKAATVIS. tiv gpedrav ris dBiooov. ral dveBy xamvis ex tov gpedrur, ds amis Kapivov peyddys xasopérns” kai éoxoriaty 8 dos nat 6 diip ex 108 xamvot rév gpedruv. wal éx rod amvod &dBov adxpibes els ry yrs kat &840y abrais eovaia fy éxovew ot oxoprion ris pis. Kat eppéty abrais iva pw} dSucjowee rv xéprov ris vis nal nav ydupby oi88 Bé8par et wi rods dvbipdwous olrwes oie exover Tv oppayiba 705 @cod et rév perénov abriv. wad 260 airais ta pi) dmoxreivwow abrovs, aa Pacanabjoorras pivas wévre rat 6 Baganopis airav ds Baca- vopds oxopaion Sray néop ex de- 1K 1 ey em. 88,91, 9h tani es "Gp 1 ogc) sa opera By nd nex so tT nndgr ser) 80 for mn (8,3, be} ai yan A may may yd foi te ver flo by ty ae men) ame tt 2 nome the fem, following P and mowt san agaizat in all ‘hee places A ls fom. in vere 3 and 4 only; Qi vere 6 only. ‘ Ecover] All eae have dy for fry and all (except 3) add Ufonelay ater Kxeor. 4. Mcfewet] Or -eowe. ‘eal ris) Neatly all ln, 0383 (a8) ir, Bsa) All ca, nie Bstpor. stra} 8o 3, with Q and most me pr, and 4 (eh with moat) tnd other versions: the other MSS, afew mie. 9, and em, arm, om. 6. faranetfeorred] OF tee Alleles prefix fre, ey t="] 8 alone; but the MSS. and many smu reed” (by stacin) dep without del: agninat ‘ral, which the other auboritea give (except a fow ‘Bus hich bave wap) Cp. vi. 16, where one tempted to conjecture raiey for wiep és in view of thin page, and alao of Emi xix, 10 (LAXX), "ATIOKAATYIZ. 6 Opumoy. nal & rais siudpais exei- vax Uynjrovow ob deOpowes ror Oéivarov Kat ob pi) eSpwow abrév’ rat émbyyuzjoovew dnobave 1hed$erar & Bdvaros dn? abriv. Kal 73 dpolapa rév axpiSuv Spor Trois jromacpévors els wédepoy. rat ml rds xegadas abriv ds ore gavos Spoor xpuog’ Kal rd mpscw- wa atrav ds mpérwna dvOpémav sxat dxov zpiyas ds rpixas ywarxdy’ onal of 88érres abrav ds Medvrwr. Kal clyov Oépaxas ds Sspaxas oSnpovs* Kai 4 gov) trav mreptyov abrav ds dort dpu roxdrray els aédepov. at ms obpas Spolas oxopriy: al xévrpa 8° & ais obpais abrév kat 4 eovola abrév aSiuijoas rods dv- Opémovs piivas ive. kal Exovew 1s dr airéy *Baoréad riv dyyehov ris ¢Btovow § Svoya ‘EBpaiort *ABaBSiv- wal ey rh ‘BN Qnxp Broun exer “Anoddav. % obal a2 pia depdbev, 180d epyovrar ere Bvo obai, Mera raira 8 éerosis dyydos éeddmoe. nal jrovea doviy pla, && rév revodpuv xepdrav 103 Ouraarnpiov rod xpuood 70 évémoy rod @cod Ryorra 1G dere ayy 6 Fovy tiv oddmyya, doov rods réo- 6. ob nh epee] Or ephovae (or we) ‘pedgevat) 8 and 3, with @ and mont mot and owed by reo; agnnat gute of AP (8 porn) and afow mu, flowed by re. 7. bualogs} All elt 'F8 dpodgare, except 3 retain th plaal, with all the eter authorities. ‘The swonl by which ‘spdewra la hare rendered is hough lun in form, the wav equivalent of epdewror, but 4 ond ala, at here forthe plural 8. alyer] Or Foor (an vores 10 and 1, but not 19); but for tia rading there i here no authority. ‘Aedrran) So alleloe odd fear, except ms.73- 2, pans. OGpacas erbypis] 8 (not 3) writes thee words singular (ep: vere 7, eréparet 10, exoprig} All ln plarl. (C hat, 102.8.) ‘al wérype tH dr] Tho Bin obelizad io ‘The rating wal lrrpa dy ia supported by many mes. and ersios,Jaclading oy, Dut fx doubtful. But ‘the MSS,, many mae, 3 and other Yeon, give ea) tdorpa ual by. Tha reading of re, al eberpa to, fs weakly supported. tea § lovee abrir) Afow mas, 36,70, e.), 1s ‘hy and pr, and oy (ch, with arm, 5 not amy Be.) ‘ive al: tho rst (including all MSS, g, and 2} om. ‘prs and, hate bobean’ 79, Rant “Berchts] The word in 8 represents Kyyedor: Dut ast fers from that which reprvents arate by Insertion of but single letter, {teat it a wer error nota on $ bron Lit. i Srona abred]. One mu. (18) ‘aada ab above, and o (with abrg added); Bp and 4, e14 nomen, as leo 3 [47 p), AP Q and mort wae, Ihave only tone abrg, and’ 0 9; also 3 m (with wal praised). "AaBabb4r] Seo not on Sy. text "Doogrrj == "hroddor] (0) Lik, opr 80 oy sds laine + sterminane (and aniatly). (€) Two mae. (49, 98) rad (an 8) dvehiu = Lec. ‘Seo note om Spr. text; and ep. verse T4 (Aber). 12, 18. Mord radra 8 devon] This reading ie eup- porte by w alone of Greck copies and eopt lone of ‘erslons. Qand on me (14) Buve Kal pra rae +3 many mus, Merk rabrawald»«; but A Py and moat suthorte (including 3 and y end ey), fllowed by Feo. connect werd rabra withthe precoding vere and plac fll stop after, with Kal following. 14. Adyorre] Or = 3 tor) Or op txarrs, but for hia there la Title authority—and Tea (if any) for eye of ee.regaat capas dyyedous rods BeSepdvous eat TG worapG 7H peydiy Edppdry. 15 xat AvOnoay of rLowapes dyyedor of romacpévor els rv Spay xat els Thy tmépar wal els roy iva wal els tiv enavréy, ba dmoxrelveot 13 16 rplrov raw dvOpdmov. nal 8 dpiOyds ray orpareypdruv 05 temuod, Bvo popidBas prpd8uv jrovea tiv dpi 17 Oydy abrav. Kal rods xaOnuévous en aizév Exovras Oéipaxas supivous* al tidewBoy BeusBy Kat al xepa- dal rv Temov airav, ds keparad Dedvrav” kal ée 708 oréparos abriy eeropeteras wip Kat Oeiov' rab 8 xavés. kal dnd rv spidv warydv tovrav dmexrdvOqoay 1d rpirov ray thy udp] So Q and many mae. and Dut mest om. ale rh te 16] 8 and 3 alone ine the ‘rooston in hao ple 16. oP frat) Lit rp fdr, but for hi ther isn support exep pr ‘nodta) 0 3 (with Walon Alles bave opdbery with ot without Bn (or ue) proba. 48, and 3 [4 £9; not n] the punctntion shows tat ‘he word i regard a cctv, fa appoeion with ‘i intel. 1s al ob eaPyuoon << tzorrs) 8 omit the opening words of thi tre, nal obra alBor ror Fr fron of Hpdoe, This tx, wih tie onion, Father prea eal of eatin «= fgore [ot Sroon.Sro note on Bye text Bat T think i best {o tra the omiion aa canal (whether in the Syria {init Grer orginal) and to aee the rst of the rent txt voaltred. Aa it thor wand the acct omy bo regarded a pendent. open wipron) 8 (oot 2) wie thee word in ingle: op. vo 0 Stor baa) it, eapyttve Ono: all las have bcotvns ral Ou. See nota 00 Be ten. Sr Sere andr] 8 oe is. pron. 05 erduaror) All Grek copia as lao asd the other vrionn; exept the ih 8: ep. mart roe wal Qaor al carr) All cla severe the Da wich pond” ATIOKAATYIE. GvOpeimav' nad dx ro6 mvpds Kal ex 708 Geiov wal ex rod amet rod Eeropevondvov ex 109 oréparos airdv. 4 yap ovata rév tema é 19 1@ oréuart abrév Kal dy tals obpais airdy, kal of dowel rév dvOpdimav 20 ot otk admrexrivOyoay ev rais why yais ravrais, ote perersnoay ex 108 épyou rar xeipav abray, va pi, mpoorunjoovar 72 Baydnia Kal rd eBuda ra xpd Kal ra dpyvpi rat ra xaded eat ra Eohwa kal rd Nibwa, & oire Brérew *Bivavrait obre deotew otre mepinarely, wala ob perevénoay éx rév dévav abrov kat éx rév dappaxeuiy airay Kal ex ‘Tis mopveias airy. pston of these two nouns here; and soa vars 18, ‘The colon ie euperuoun, 10. eal Arb» wal Ue ro0 rope) 8 and 3, and cl, ‘lone bave nal in tbe former of thées two plan: 8 ‘one in the later. de red lov] 8o 3 with P and a fow mas. and 9 erat om de ‘de rod revved) So 3 with CP and some of the ‘same mas. in lat, and g andy [eh Be; not am oF frm: th rest om. be. 08 evduares] Two met. (81, 96) hero support 8; lao lat ot allele lar 18. ydp] Lit, fru 4! but for thia reading thre iano mpport. duet: abr) All elo ad substantive verb ‘ipais abrir] 8 alone om. the concluding lao; a pip olpal» .- Ace 120. bre] Or od. ‘0 typos) ll lao plana, ‘peorerbsove] Or ewer Ulhore Aldre) 80 lone: allele reverse the poston of these two adjective. ‘irarrai] Or *Bivera. 8 alone om.; but as ‘hia appear tobe acidental, T supply the word, tre meperaray} Lity § repereres. 21, ade Sy. toxt. seprlay iva] All els (except pr) add tre de rie ehenpdran abrir.ATIOKAATYIZ. X. Kal eBoy doy dyyedov Kara Baivovra ee 108 obpavod mepiBe- Brquévor vepéhy- wai 4 Tpis ent Thy regadiy abrod Kal 1 xpbow- mov airod ds 5 Frios, xal of miBes 2airod ds *oridoi' arupés Kal Exwv & nh xeuph BiBdapiB.oy dveqypevor Kad exe tov 68a abrod rbv Sefibv ent ris Oaddcons, srbv 88 ebdvypov ent ris yas’ Kal expage garg peydhy Gonep Meow pordras al sre expager dddy- ay ai ri Bpovrat ais éavrév ‘savais. Kal dre €édnoay af éwrd Bpovral,fuedovypdgew. Kalixoura guriy ek rob obpavod 10d EBESuou Ryousar, odpdyiroy 8 eddnoay ai éwrd Bpovrat rai wi abrd ypdyys. adrod XL. 1, Kyran] All lo nd iene. ‘evdhe) 8 has here a word = Sotpane, which, however, I tke to bo & misreading (oe note on 851. text) on the part of the Syriso serie forth similar sword = evihoy which I therefore rertor, ax read Uy roost: bat me. 38 ban evStey, with 3, am, arm, Be. 2. far] Or eer. 3. rab». ora] Som, and one ma. (7) and 45 prom: + all ela, inclading 3 and oy, give seus 4. oi 488du0e] Or hy 188duqy but no other authority supports the inotion of ether. Te ia un- ‘certain whether B meant fom heaven, the sevonth [rlee,” or, "from the abrenth heaven.” Pouibly ‘Smargioal reference to vers 7, oF lateral tranaferenco ‘rot, haa here eept ito the tet. 3. abre) All lo plural 6, rir) Lit, gape: Buta not on Sy. text 41] 808, but all ela om. “Probably the Syriae pra» Bs hasbeen inertod by mistake, and the word Coght tobe cblined. ‘es agree with w Aya fow max, and ef ia omit- ‘ng al ry tdhaneer tal rh dy ein agsint the ‘other Grek copies, , ands. pbs abe teva: fr) 8 places fr st; but 2» nH. kat 8 dyyedos by Boy éorara ext 5 ‘is Gaddeons nat ent ris vis, bs Fpe tiv xeipa aired eis ov obpardyr Kat 6 Spore & 1G Gaur ls rods aldvas rév aldvor' 85 éxrize tiv obpa~ viv wal ra dy abr, wal rv iy Kal 1a & abni, Sr. xpévos obe Cova Ge CGdaN & rai spdpaus 705 7 EBBépov dyyddov, Stay péddy cadmifew, xal éredkoOy 13 puor- pwov 709 cod, 8 eimyydhuce trois Bovdous airoi rods mpopriras. Kal gav}y ijrovera ek roi obpavod 8 médw dadodoay per’ euot wat Me youray’ Smaye hie 73 BiBrapi- Biov 73 & rij xeupl 108 dyyédov 70d foviros emi ris vis wal ext nis Goddoons, nui xardpaye aitd Kal 9 there is no Gronk authority for that arrangement of the words or for any except that which Ihave given, xp obdrs Hera, an all MSS, and nearly all me ‘The liter i followed by 4, but Ite clear that S moana to separate fr from bea alto lt. 1 Shand) 8 hus oie, but thie ie evidently due to ‘the aecidental omission of sngl later by the Syriae teribe. Bee note on Byr. txt par] Allele adds for 45) So. fow me.; again, which in read by Al other copes, and version (4 included). Perbape the pronoun in 8 ie meant to repreeat Bra pouble reading, but unaupportod elawhere. ‘cyrrbvet robs») 8 ia Bore indecisive, (1) between act and mid; (2) between accu and dat. Ser] 8 any me: tesros 2. (ambiguour; she lat). ‘3. gurby feoveu) Une me. (7), andr, and e (et, vith arm, ej not am] suppor this readings agalnet Al her copes snd versions, including 2 and am, hich have § gard faves. ‘7 Babar +4) All le aba vey pdoor. ‘Fie tedderyy) All ele ranpone. 8, wal rardpaye] AIL eno proGr” (with slight ‘varaton) asl ArfAter pb thr ryokan Adyar abrg Meir nut) Bubheplbior al Ney pa, AdeXoo smucpavel cowry KoiNiay wou' adn’ dv 1o7G ordpart cov dora ds péd. Kal daBoy 1 BiBrapiBiov de ris xeipds 705 dyyétov Kat xarégayoy airs: rat fy e 1G ordpari pov ds wade yrvws Kal dre ipayo airs ém- ri xpdvOy 4 Koide pov. Kal dMye por Bet ce wédw mpopyretioar ext year ral avis Kal prdooas Kad x1. Baoidetor woddois. wat &46y por rddayos Spo.os paB8y" nal elorieer 3 dyyedos Mywr yeipar wal pe- tpnaov tov vady rob Geo, Kat rd Ovovaeripior xai rods mpoaxwoir- aras & airg. ral rip abdiy ry Lowber 10d vaod, éxBare tober kat pi) abrhy perpiops dre 560y rois vere wat ry woh ry dylay warjoous sivas reooapd- +++ gov] All lee read gow before, and the mole. erat} All eo a8 yond. 11, dye wa] So P and many mat 3 and of and oy (eh with arm, &e.}, ke-: but the other Oreck (0 Aint, 3.10313), and aim, read Abyovel nt. Bat ee ddr) Lit, Batral one nda ples: but aso note on Sy text 1 ‘ives wal basis) 80 el (not am or arm), and 3 vith de before Assit allele place heir St, XI, 1 wal elorbaat 8 Ryder) So 3 [but # poe figee], with @ and severd] mmm; alo erm. The ‘other Grock copes and versions (acuding a. except om), om. 12, rhr fouter) So wand a fow mes. (1, 35,87, ‘ba: nearly ll the othr authorities have rh tae 4, Blas Sle] So apparently 8, and probably. All eae preBix a tothe former word; and’ near all, except to the ater. ATIOKAATYIS. xovra Kai 8%. ral 8éow rois Bal Képruot pov iva spognreicovew, udpas xudias Kat Biaxooias Kat Eijnovra wepiPePrnnér odexovs. obrot cio Bio adaiar Kal Bio Duxviae of evcimoy 709 Kupiow raois tis vis dorares. al et ns Geder aBucjoa abrots, wip éero- pelerar ex 703 oréparos airay kat xareadie. rods exdpois abrav" kat Sons Bede aBuxjrar abrovs, otra Sei abrods dmoxrarBivar. xa ofror gxouee Tv efovaiay wdeioa rv otpardy, iva wih Bpéxy verds ev rais judpais rijs mpodnreias aizay" ral eovoiay exour oxpégew rd ara els clue al *mardga\ rv vv & xdoy mdyyj sodus day Bedjowrr, Kat Sray red Kal urmpd- rekeovew abrfy] One ma. (34), and pr, place ‘hase words thus 3 with most authors after tpn ‘mondrgy and some in both places. ‘ris edpeat) Lit, vhy edpea: bot 8 uniformly (ep. aie. 18,21) rondere this pla Gr wop(] So A and many mas! the rst (p- ported by lat.) om. dr. But the prep is indiopenablo {In Syria, and therefor ia provnce (in 8 and 3) i ndecnive. 80 agala, xvi. 2 Ur] gong 17. Race) Lit, Bdoee (it tho poiting of B ia to ‘bo trated). ilar yréune abrir) 80 one ms. (6) unly two (25, 81) have yr. ated, omitting wan: nowy all el (Gnchudng 3) play. (or 77. ale), omiting bra (A; and g and ep, om. the wanda betwoon prdyqy aired 04 eal tors rainy] 8 alone ins. end Or Kxpe of. Soo note o redeetheorrat) Or ew as x7. 8 18, 4 mds) All cle profs fer, except pr and VILL 1 nal) So may at, ad pr ng: at MSS, uy td ee clog» ted) ‘2. dv garg nerdap]{) The MSS, and mot man, ‘ty and mont voaona red lex belo (Eft) ur (ith or without &) and om: weydg. A few me (5, 1% 15), and give bath adjntivn Al ol tog P ad fewer ‘which 8'Teavon out ix the tra reading, and that tho other is glou (xreina explanatory of fpreor) that Ina rep into the text. Son note on Sr. text. 3. rod ebvou) All lan excopt pr add (with 4, most mur, and pre (with P, some mat, and 2) oc eabettat (with Ay am, arm, de.) rab Crna. rendre) Five mi. (18, 26,37, 73,78) vupport {hia reading the other Greak copie have wéx{rJowsn, ‘The 87 (or sore, oF bear), lay Bieramé. ‘ob explooes) Tho word in 8 rather = vir aslas. The By. tat (te note on it) weeme toner fsmendation ; but there is no Teun to supect any ‘sition in the original Geek, 4. fou wb AdBare] 8 with ma 162, om, wal be- ore these words (which, with some other vers, ind recy it placon before de sap sh. abr, thus ‘aking this clause dopendeat on, not parallel fo, fra 6. Unghie ale coneATIOKAATYIS. vevoe 6 Geis 7a aBumjpara abris. SdwdSore airj ds xal air) dreBune’ kal Simddioare abnj Sinha kari 7a eye ainis ey 1G xornpig $ exépace* xepdoare ainj Bundoiv 1800 eégacw kavriy Kal dorpn- viace roocirey Bacanopiy Kal révbos’ bre ey ni rapbig airis Reyer dru xdbqpas Baotuoa, Kal xipa ote epi: Kat wévfos ob mh sia. Bd rodr0 & med Mudge for ow ai myyal dx! airs. *Odva- ros wat arévflos, xal Nyyds* ral ev mupt araxavOjoerar’ Sri toxupis oKvpios 8 xpivas abrjv. wal wdav- covew abriy xat xéyovras én’ ax Tiv of Baodels nis vis, of per’ ab nis wopvesoavres Kal orpynid- cartes, Srav Brénwor tov Kamviy + the rest read [rd] dora and Ut ab, ado g, and eg (exept arm); (pr doviaten)- ‘Berdabr] Obeerv the interpuntin, peculiar 12 8, by which Soeedr in diconnoctd fram verse 6 and jeined on to 7 Boe) Lit, 4g Boor deorty) ‘So many mas. the MSS. and other suthoritin,abrhy: 3 deviate. ‘osobrer) Neatly all dln add Sére abr. 8. ae abrir) All le om. prep. edvaron| 8 baa hae the word which = xavr4y, but the oma of «eagle eter from it (ee note om Spr. text) restores Odvror. ‘Képos] Bo mae 38 and a few others, and pr. Al ele stbjota,prai,orsubatitate# Gar (2) 9. whaienwewiabrhy} Oraraboorras, withoutabrty, ‘which P and a fow mus (I 1 80), aginst allele, ‘apport in subjening ‘rpyndecrrt) 500201600 8p ext. 10, Ui wb gor} Lit, de rab pdBon. So ver. 16, tea Moor] All ln, Aborrer hal] Tor, an mu, 6,877 nearly all ela i. dr maf] Or nf without prop. a8 moet. em. 5-13. nis mupdceus ainjs: dx paxpéder 10 doryxéres 81d rv éBov 05 Ba- eanopod ainjs nai défovew, obai oat otal } mékis peyddy Bofudiv 4 wdhis 4 loxupd’ dre & pug Spe Frew 4 xpiow cov. kat of Eunopor nfs ifs wdasooues kat reOjgovew ex’ abrijv’ Kal roy ‘youov airy ob8es dyopdtes obxére ‘ouov xpue0d Kat dpydpou Kat XiBay myuiav, Kal papyapirav Kab Biooov al mopdipas, xal aypuxdy Koxkivov, al wav Einov Ofivev, xal av oxetos Aehdvrwor, nal wav onedos ex ov, riywov rai xadxdv xal oiSnpov, Kai pépyapor Kad ewvdpapor kal Ovpid- 13 para al pvpor ral NBavoy, Kat oboy Kat Eaioy Kai ceyiSadw, Kai mpoBara Kat trwous Kat péBas, nat 11. whadeooes wal eertheovei) 80 Q and most suas, (omiting «A. and ey but the other MSS., ‘some mst, and, whaler eal rere. al rhe yan] All ela, Srv rb bua. 12 Rider vigtan] 803, and pr: CP, Altus afer: WA, 9, of Ben Alten rn. mat, and #9, napyepon ‘Blcoes) Ot Bwretvo. Soe nota on Spr eat. erties) Or warp ipee ‘rpecdr) Al ano ype wal _preceou) aloe. (i) AIL Groek, and 3, write adj in tuperative; But It a positive, a8. edebr eal eit, ea udp] Ali elo genitive, 13, Sorduapar] eC, some a, g, am, ad ‘erovs nal pitas, nal edpara] 80%: but nearly sil eae genitive, except ma. 96 Qrzor); pr deviaon.emt 13—21. todpara Kai Yuxds dvOpdmuv, Kab 4 érdipa cov 4 embupia ris xis cov dmfMley dnd ood Kal dvra 1a Mapa wat rh dapmpa dejdder a8 003, wat oixér aird Brépas’ ssat atta ob i) edpyoovew of Epmopo rovruy of mhovrjoarres dx’ ainis, dad paxpdber orjeovra: 3a ry g6Bov 705 Basanopod wainjs” wdaiovres nal mevBoivres Kal Réyoures’ obad obat 4 mdds neyddy, 4 mepBeBhnpén Bicowov kal opdupoiv al Kénewa Ke- xpuowpiva xpvoig al dovs ryutovs Kat papyapiras’ or pug Spq spnusty 5 rocvires mhoiros. ry wai was kvBepriirns: kal was 8 ext rév mhotav ént rézov mdéwr, kab 14, § dete] So pr all eae rad rs desoala. ‘ris exe ooo] Q and most men g, nd oy (eh, veh arm, Benj not am) and 2, wupport in inserting ‘ev hare? but only Gro (85, 87) Jaa, as 8, both here tnd ahr brdpe. ‘rh Asuep Axfater] 80 to ma. (1,19) fel~ lowed by recs th rst A. brah lao om. and connect wbeérs alr store, or ipheus, ot ~eps]-— Powibly 8 bere pre- serves the tru ext and the ret have lot the words by Fomaoteleutoo. A and mas. 36, 38, 98 pla aled ater ob uz bat C PQ, Be, an above and 1, sikeoe oS] To ths epoing the ep usally placed (o CPU, and most Tat, but arm deviates) after th ver, and cor with of ta. 8 in eupporte by 2, and af 136,87, Be): WA, Be, leave the connexion al Adyorres] Bo Ten, with P and many sas, pr and eg but the oer MSS. and mas, g,and 3, om. al: afew mas. om. both word ttexperwpira] 8 alone for wal wexpermpéry (4, )- “But mes. 1,78, 162, om. eal Gand mis 1, 38,7, ATIOKAATVIS. > vatrar Kal don & nj Oaddoon epydlovrar, dnd paxpéber tornoay al exdaveay airjy Bdéwovres Tov 18 kamay ris mpdoews airfs. Kal déyouar, ris suoiw rf wédee Th peyddps at EBadov xobv entry ras egadds abriv: eal éxpafay walovres Kat meOoivres Kal dé ‘yorres: ovat obat 4 dhs %,meyehy’ & § edotrnoan of Exovres 18 mhoia & rf Oaddvoy ee ris tyudrqtos airis Sr. wig Spe pnpdty. &b- 20 gpaiveade én’ air odpav? Kai of Gyo1 wat of ddorodos, kal of mpo- Gijras, bre Expwer 6 @cds 7 xpipa Spay & airs. ral Fpev ds éea rév dyyéduv rav loxupiv NBov és pworov peyay, wal Barer els rv ‘marreriras) 80 %, oF poeily orat, which in the reading of @ and neatly all mas, and of ¢ and ey But pr and other version, with the other MSS, have mnt. 26, 73,79, de, aubatate (0) taj tir wheter wxdar. OF the Hat, g and ey support réver [but et, Be lacwm for loewn): pr anders, wper mare narigane (oc Suppl Wf teddvey) Bo et and mot ‘meri; arm, mari}: all Grek, rhy Odnarear. 8, Uedavewsabrfy) Salone! there fepefer(- punetion and” diviion seem to requte Afyooe S ‘lone; allele plep, with or without wal. ol Berra} All ele pre deren. ‘br thor} So ree, with PQ end movt mer ‘ALEtn), and g (end prt): but A has by pihorer and © be pwnd, and v0 og, moleem. There in a trace aATIOKAATYIS. Oddaocay dywv' odtws Spyrpare Bribjoeras BaBuhiv 4 peyddy smd, Kab ob wih eiprous er. kal gov} eBdpas Kat oddmyyos kal taihyrav’ Kat povorniy, ob pi) 23 dxovo Op é& aot Ere’ kal $s Mixvou ob wi arf oor ere’ Kal dur} vupgiov nal dav} viugns ob wi dxovaBj ev aot ev Br of Euwopot gov foar of peyioraves ris ys’ Sr & tals dappaxciais cov éddvnoas wdvra 2478 e609. Kal ev abry alua wpognrav kai dylav ebpity rév eopaypéruy x1x. ént ris ys. Kal perd raiza, Frovea goviy peyddyy dxhuv woddav & 1G obpavg heydvruv, Addqdoviar cormpia nai 4 Béla nat 4 Sivapis xem, ata. 6 1G @cG jpdv bre adnOwad ral 2 Bixasae at xploeis abrod sre expwe Tip wépny Thy peyddy iris pepe Ty viv & vf wopveig airiis, xat EBleqoe 7d alua tov Bovhwv abrod de xeipav airs. Bedrepov eipneav 3 @dmhovia, nal 6 Kamvds abris dxéBn els rods alévas ray aidvev. ral Exegay of eixoor nat réowapes 4 mpcoBtrepor Kal ri rércapa toa, kal mpovexivnoay 76 Oeg 7G xabr- pévy eri 1 Opdvy Neyovres’ div Amoi. Kat guvh dad rod 5 Spévov déyoura alveire 1G OG wav advres of Boddor abrod Kad of GoBovpevor 73 Svopa abrod: md tes of puxpol perd rv peyddur. Kat 6 sf the prot of gmiive placed before the noun, bat pred i inserad In 3p): al, ~ Gh'vord reproenting 6 a eiten by an eterdnaght (Gut prime mans) on arg. Tt seems therefore a8 {18 a at at writen aupprtd ndhrer (withoat by). ia] Or ebpp 8 alone? all ala ape. Op. rene 16 mr. "2. edgar Al el apy. ‘ianeren) Thin dig ie pty eapatd by (lone of MBE.) and two mu. (5,67), which road aketryer a doo Xl de, senna: and all ‘ca he word ast of ihe our gen feldgrde al pooeur) Alls invrt thee sein, T sels the former word th rendering FB being abcare,poubly representing bir bes note on Sy tat ‘Note tat 8, with Hipp. CAntihr, 42,om, (ater) oo watncef hn vero supported xo {ho fomerof th tw, by ma 14,02; oa Un inter, ‘yw and soe many ineudg 38, 6,8 0d by 3. 23. ger) 8 andi 0 ths reading (0), rather than 9g (rer). tr] 800 (alias of Grek cops); and wand aon, orm, to. nob of all ol bel “serh vivitar) 80 C alone: ll cle om. pork ‘is gopsey} Soa all Grok ingaa. Geidrgrar) 80.67 al el, narhtyear ir dnpevsrer} All Se pes eal rarer. 1%. ‘XIX. Kal perd] Some man inching (1, 36, 38, 179; .), support xa, lao wume verona: but 3, with ‘the MSS. and most man, lat, eo. ‘gorde] The MBS., and mont ma, and op, proix det 3, et, anda few ma. (1,7, 38,80.) om.,a8 8. Syawr werade] All Gresk copie’ have sins les al 5 gb rtd op wre ar, ‘76 0 un) So tes mas (96, 47, 162) and . Asian) Bo 8 (tthe pointing ia wo be trusted), with two me, 78, 10: for draBala (re, of all MSS, ad moet mas A few have Urdu, and 0 3. “4. epeeBtrepe) 8 (oot 3) favour the position of thin word after tho numerals, but not decisively. 6. gurd) All las dd. &5A0e OH, ural «= {Uxpater)belore or after deb [de] rob épdrowe ‘> bona abot) All lien. +9 Bro, and rend aby (pr, Domina). ‘Fdorer of papel} All la om. dvr, for ‘which two or three me. subetitute wel. (Note that © pit here Soaly)- nerd ray peyddur] Cp. 2 18, ot perdi. All ee, xe,4s guvy Bporriv toxupiv deydm rev @dpdovia. ‘On eBacieoe 7 K¥pios 3 mavroxpdrwp" xalponer ral dya\dudper Saper ry Bdgay abr, br Idler 8 yapos 708 dpviou, kat 4 yur} atrod Hro(uacer éaurjv, Sxad 8880 adr ta mepiBddyrar Bioowov rabapsy Kat daympéy® 13 yap Bioowoy ra Bixauspard sion rév dyiev. al endy po *ypdpov"s paxdpios ot els 73 Seimvov 108 ydpout 70d dpviov ela? Kexdy- 6. gerby dx) Bo one mu. (38): 2 and neesly all dn be porhr: afew, and et, om. a bare, Bxher wou.) All ela singular, exoept pr. Reyberar] Or deqetewr; of Myerres. Ankpredta} Obacrv the full top sot after this ‘word, lnving’Or: tobe wnnected with vers 7. Kips] () Al le (excpt pr) in. eds after, or for, thie word, of debs 8 before it. A seemingly later Band has interned the equivalent of #@edr in 8. (G) WP, moot ms, 3, and all lat, add jaar, bot A and afew om, 88. T. xalpnar] So. mas. 73, 162 (for xalpaper): th folowing dyariper being ated an Pree, per] () Or Bbeoner (or Boomer) (i) All ‘la prof cal: the omiacon oft by 8 ie comaatent ‘with its treatment ofthe precoding verbs. icaphr wal Sawrpér) 80 Te with a fow mae, (1,36; alin 7, 79,162, but without wa). Tho MSS. tnd the other mun 2 tod moet versions revere the fonder; @ and moot mus. andy [e, with arm &}, ‘eain wel but the ret om a 40 of and an Bo. ‘a Bucerguard dor] 8 favours this poution of he vor which i that of reo, with many nae, and 4 and rot eg [including om)” The MSS., the other {Bens 2, and 7, als ar, place it afer rr Ayla "8. tedr no] 8 only but perbape the Byrne ‘ere han wrongly inserted the fal letter which tmarks the lund,” However the reading isa pouiblo (no, the plural verb nding its wubject in versen 6-7. ‘Al elas have Ade or et) pe ‘*ypdtor) 8 bas here a word = Inus no other authority): but by restoring «leer ‘which no doubt hus diopt out from before ity we (which ATIOKAATYIE. peor, Kat dre wor ofror of Myo of ddnfwod 09 Geos Enezov Eumpoober rav woBiv atrod kat mpooerivnea aing’ wat dnd How po, eivBoudss ov elu rab rav dBedgav oov rav exdvrev Thy Hapropiay "Inoot 7 6 poo- rirqoor paMor 4 yap papropia “Ingo ort 73 mveipa tis po dnreias. Kal Boy riv obpardy dvey 11 ypévor, Kal tod temos Neuxés* Kal 5 xabjpevos én? abtov Kadovpevos muords at adnburds, ad & Buxaso- doi. Kaito recover ypder, which allele give, except one or ‘rome. which om. Boo notoon Sy. text. fates elf] All ela of, omitting eat. "od pdaoe] 8 ropreseia rp Dacorlas, which ‘bs neither approprateneu ner authority. By changing ‘one of the sx letters of the Syrine word (0c note on yr. text), and traneposing two other, we recover 109 rduow which nthe rndingof AQ wud mot man, Hand pr and ey; bat which the rest om. ine] So 3 here, and in next vere: all cle, ‘bya in both ples. 1 Daytorl] A with tro mes. fou al, which apparently 8 iatends to represent. All dle om. 10. nal spocertryen] Bo P and mes. 78, us, sporewen. oh ebrbocsbs eon slat) all ‘Tho copiee of 3 vary as to the Interpuncton, both er dl, he era rt hat cept {which inthe present peoge is neutral gv fentore witht my sap o'er bt ‘pemages disconnect x4 from Spe, and either isle 4 of attach it to what follows, If s0 attached, i smart be understood as = none, and nut in ite Proper foroe an = num? Thoee wodifeations of ine {erpunetion, andthe interpolation of pao (which alone ins.) after sponcéracer, are apparently due to Aoctrinal preponasions in the minds of trandlator, for scribes, All other authorities consort py few adding recep. ‘4-789 napronle"Ineof] T neglect the comma ‘which 8 unmeaningly places afer the words,ATIOKAATYIS. wovtyy xpivee ral modepe? of 88 bBadyot abrod ds $rE aupds' Kab emt ry xepadjy abrod Siadypara moddd’ uv Svopa yeypappévor, & wobbes olBex a ph adrés’ ral epsBeBhqutvos iudriov BeBappévov & apary wai xadeirar 13 dvopa wyaizod & Adyos 108 cod. Kal 72 orpareipara 709 obpavod jrodovber airG ef tno evxois' kal &vBe- BeBypévors Bioowov devedy Kai 15 xaBapév. 703 oréparos abrav exmopederar pougala dfeia" iva & airg wardfwoe 18 erm" Kal aiz’s roared airods ey péBSy oxdnpg* nal airds narel ry Mppdy tis Spyiis r08 @cod r08 wavroxpd- topos. xat ee emt rd ipdna airod émi rods pnpods abrod, svopa verpappévor' Baodeds Bardéor ‘ral kiptos kuplav. Kal e8ov ddov dyyodor torira & 1G Hhigr ai Expager & gavfj weyddy, Myar rois Spréows rols weropévors & pecov- parjpary *Beire\ ovrdyinre els 1d Beinvov 18 péya rob @eod, fa ddynre odpxas Paoidav rab ‘odpwas yududpyur wal odpxas loxupiv' nai oépxas tenav, Kal ray rabnuévev ex? aizovs' ab 12, rast] So A, max 36, 36, 87, and other, 3, and lt, He, flowed by re. the rst om. de. Grona yerpenadoay, 8) 80 AP (and w pasty) vith some me, tnd Yenions including lat, followed by reo. Some ius. give tho words in plural: @ and ‘ny there havea condato reading (duare yeypen- ‘ndrs tal Broun yeypanbrr, 8) which 3 adopts [but ‘rau tho plural words with *]- idea] Lit obe- 13, BeBaundror} The verb wed by 8 soma to re present this word, wbich Ie road hare by AQ and ‘owt mn. (followed by re.): but poaibly ft may bo meant for paperrondver (P), oF reppepanudrr (Hy ‘or some other ike form; v0 the at, and 2, repreeeat ‘aprinkie, nt dyed. trainers) Or afuars: and so gar, vor 17. raneire) So apparently 8, with wore mm. (1, 20,70, be) and lat. (which oe-fllows): for xéeayras (otra) ofthe MSS., and moet man; 3, dedae ‘rot elpared} 80 one ms. (98); oF a wdpandy (os 8):"3 with ll lo, [4] dr 19 stp. ‘rem Aewoir eal Bedopdrer] () The inter- ‘punction apparently requires the Greck to be thu fond; unlom wo preter Accel’ nal doBebyuior. For i, and wo pr, and 1g (et with many copies]: 3, « fer it [out 2 ‘There is some appenrance of feraure in 8, after dia. But wA P, ma. 1y 38, 38, 10,0., and’ moet versio, including y, and am erm, 6, om. Hevouas. Op. 16. lrg] Sell, erjuer. 80 8, doubtflly alt lm, fom. ‘rerdtesi) Tits, Aroerevwes (too note on S31. tox). “Al eae rad the verb ia sing. but the plral {in comintont with the reading ebro (upr)- ‘rir boyy) All Greek copion (with minor varia- tons) probe od tov rob Coued [eal]; and vor. and ‘mont versions, But ef rade vin only before ives; tive the words which 8 om. but om. rr dpyat. 10. ra Tadrie abrei) 3 and all che, #2 lade and all, except mis, 87,162, om. arab [which Tach. (on the veatment thet were) on His thigh.” 17. iter} Sow and one ma. (38) and some ver- siooa: ree. witty AP and many owe ead Int, Toa: two mun, fre Gor. Q, with the other mac, and 30m, bth Byrd) Alea, except mn 5, pro ws, ea); m0 note on Syrtaxt, Or perhaps eal is to bo retained, with eine before its Tee and some texts of ep (el; ot amy 5 erm om Bia, aan odpras devOlpuv xat Sovduv' ral pupa Kat peydduv. 1) Kal dBov 13 Onpiov ral ra orparesyara aired Kal rods Ba- ones ris vis xal ra orpareiuara abrav ownyudva noua: riv mike por, per 70d xabyudrov ext rod Yrwou Kal pera rav oxpareyndray soadrod. Kal émdey 7d Onplov, xa per? abrod 6 yevBoupodiirns 3 moujoas ra onpeia &rsmov aro’, ty ols ewddvnce rods daBérras 7d xdpaypa ro Onpiov Kat *rods mpooxivowvras\ 7 elxévt abrod* tai xaréBqoay Kai ¢BdiOnoay of Bio els ry Nywqy tod mupbs iy 18, drqetépur] (All Grock copie except mex. 3, 162 and movt verone (including the lt. and 3) ne dvr bafore thin word. (i) Al! MBS. and most su ina. ve after it. 19. wal wh erpereiuera ebvod] There is no other evidence for these words an bere placed: but A.and {ee mis inthe folowing wntece (eal robe Basseit ar ris eal rh exparednare alvin), read aired for ‘Sirgr. Appareatly,thrafore, wo have here « confa- lon, poably derived from the rock original of 8, Perhaps, however, belong othe Syeas having. {ny inertion into the Syriac text of an altorant rang ; and the fact that 8 uace two diferent ren- ‘erings for erpervinara in the teo members of the $0, obe oc ther (prbably the former ae expererudran) 804: all: 20, ja’ abrad 5} BoP, ‘xpoertrowrras] So all authorton. 8 no doubt « blunder of the scribe, eae Gorrer By a correction (not very Wont) of the Syras, wo can make it roprsent al f(yeer eal, which would Garren (co moto on Byr. text). But an this oo ‘oubital remedy, Tretia the reading of 8, with bela, ‘rhe xapéry] The Syrio equivalents for ‘Mary and ip aro alike feminine, and thus 8 nd 3 o ATIOKAATYIE, awopérny wal Gelov' wat of t82tar Ronot dmexrdvOnaay & i poubaig 108 Kabmpévov ext rod tnmov, rp Ldboson ex roi ordparos abrod: rat évra 1 Spvea exopréeOnoay de rév caprav airav. Kal dBov xx. Wor dyyedov xaraBaivovra ee rod otpavod Exovra. Ty wdely ris 4Bio~ cou" kat Ekvow peyddyy & nf xeiph abrob. xal éxpdrqoe tiv Spdxovra 6 + Bpus 8 dpxaios és dors BuéBodos nal 6 Zaravas nal Byve airdy ydua Gm wat eBare airy es riy Bvacor nal iedewe nal eodpd- pow trdve aired, iva ph marion advra 13 rm és. Mera rata *BEN are indeiiva her, betwen Q and the man, which rad shy rawr [Alerq), and the other MS8., ‘which read vir eumpdrys (ot, sopds, though the geder is wrong). Lat. (xcept 9) have iis ardent sal tear) So. erm, abphori: all le, tay, 1, eal of tH" Aver) Tho His euperfoows; but the aeribe or coretar has neglected to mark i with the obela, at elaowbere (to iv). Taupy it. ‘H estoiey] Lit, (8 and 2), dy of dope xoubry (or, a8 retny deropevondry); but all. Gresk {hen to give aoe. plop, and om. dr. EX. 1 ite] So afew mee. and verona: 3 with at, and moat le, om. [P hat, xx. 1-0 drop xupl} So wand me, 38, and and at. the ret dl rv xsi. 2. 4 bye d Apyaier) B and four this reading, ‘with A sons, But they do not exclude the sccus, ‘hic al clan give. ‘3. dora 8 alone ina; op. vere 8. A] 8 alone om, after this word, Exp reheet sa xt fry (0.7, fr), evidently throng home telouion with previous entence,— Fs « «fem. ‘Hance it may be inferred () that 8 read fry aftr, ot balre, Kvn (au roc, though with no vertain ssuthorty)? (i) that the emiason was in the under- Tying Grek, for the homant. dows ot appear in the Syria, ‘a 8 ropreeets ane, by an evident clerical ‘er of oe leter we note on Sy, text,ATIOKAATYIE, 4 Nioat abrbv puxpdv xpsvor. Kal elBov Opévous Kat éxdBuray én’ abrovs* Kal pipe &880y abrois xal ras yuxas ras menehenwopévas Bid ry papre- piav "Inood Kat Bud bv Mbyor 70d cod, nat ofrwes ob mposexivqoay 1 Onpiov 0088 riy elxéva aro’, ral oix daBov 7d xdpaypa ent 78 pero ‘mov airiy, % ent ras xeipas abray, tot noar al éBarhevoay perd 108 Xpuorod xdua gry. kal abry 4 dvdoracws % mpéry. pandpios rat dys 8 tun “pdposd & rp dvaaréee rf mpéiry’ xal ext rosray 8 Bevrepos Bdvaros obn Eyer éov- clay ad, dwovrat lepels 1h Och kal 1G Xpuorg, xal Baovetours ax, o10. pe? abrod Qua er. Kal dre eredéaty xQua erm, dvbijaeras Zaravas ek ris duhaxjs atroi nal éedesoerar mhavfjoa dora 1a 26m e rails rkooapes yurias ris yis rey Tey wal Maysy rat owayayedy abzods els tov modepor" dy 6 dpiOuds atrav ds 4 dupos ‘is Oaddoons. wai dvéBnoay ext 7d dros ris ys, Kal éxiehevoay rv réhw rijs wapeuBohijs rav dyiav Kal ri adh riv ryamnnérny wat naréBy rip & 108 obpavod dnd rod cod Kad. xarégayer airovs. Kal & BudBodos § mhavdy abrods €BAxOn els Thy Nyrqy 708 mrupds Kat Geiov, Srov 18 Onpiov xai 6 Wev8onpoprirys. Kat ‘beat Alelae passive with pron. bforoor aftr 4. tds terehenwpivas) 8 and 2 alone (by omit “irwer) Lit, desir ore, but on last 088. itd] Or 12 pireror] Ot ri pardren. ‘The MSS., sas, 3, Be om, alray ater thove words, 19) So at: all lo wal. sha xeipas) So ma 04 andy: all las, angular. ot] Orr. All ela, eal, which perhaps ought to be restored here, See nota on Sy a3. 6, Note that § and 3, with wand many man, om. he fist clan (ol Aoceel » « - fry) of tia vere, through homceate. with last er. al) 8 along: thre mae ead Bu: all ela om. tara) 8 and 3 supply Zerr (end wo in vere 6, after pacdpes; also (her, but notin ver 6) lata; but I eit to infer that it was inthe Grek. 1. alps) 8 gives here, by ubwitation of ator for similar ong, word'= vapbr. I restore the proper reading, Bee note on Byr. text. a see det) All clue om. wal, (Leglect « auper- ‘uous culo i this eemancs). ‘16 049, 16 Xpierd] So ms. 38: al alan gent ) SoA and toany mos, without rd: but ‘ore 7: 3 in. in both pines. Yrendeta) So me. 162 only (sy plural): Al sae Sear revved 06 (Q aod ome me) gerd Ope 8 =] So wand me. 79: al else om. is] 80% and a ow met, for i Uy ra ‘omayayrir] SO, and a fow mas (73,70, 15, e.):"a with the rut om. eal. Of the lat, #, sod! am and arn, have of congrgsuit; tho ret, of congregai ‘ctvv) So the MSS.,and many mua, 8 end 3 favour the pron which many other mat. om 8. rhe eth sip eapinBonéy vir brian) 8 alone: All clae have rhy eupenBohy ran dy. merely; except Gand one ms. (07) which add afer ry rap. roo By seal thy eth rip yao far nporing 8. ‘rb rod eet) So Q and. many’ mas. and version including g and arm: P and many more rman, 3, and og (am Be., and ef), place the words before de a5 ebpared A pr (Aug. De Cet. Das 6 oh p+ Marw (ere 10) 10. roy) Atr this word, A PQ, most mat 3, ef, ‘and moat o [et with am, 8; not arm he) od eal But with me. Vand. fow, and some Yoon, om.Racancbjcovras yyépas Kal vuxtds tals rods aidvas rév aldvur. Kat Bor Opdvov péyay devedv’ kal roy Kabjueror exdve aired, ob awd 108 mpoodnov abrod buyer 4 yi xal 6 obpards, xal rémos ob etpéOn abrots, 12 kal elBov rods vexpods rods peyddous eal robs puxpods dordras evimiov 709 Opdvov' Kai BiBdia tvoiyOycav" Kal Ao BiBNov yoolyby 3 dor ris placus’ Kai éxpiOnoay of vexpot ex av yeypappérww ey 76 BiBdig txard 7a épya airév. nal Boxer > Bédagea rods vexpods rods & abrf al 6 Bdvaros xat 5 ¢8ns @Buxay rods vexpods rods éy abrois’ Kal explo kcagros airéy xard 1é Epya abrav, 14 Kad 6 Odvaros Kal 5 g8qs BdyjOnoay als thy Nuvqy 08 mupés obrés ‘sear 6 Odvaros 6 Bedrepos’ Kal et ris obx edpéby &v rf BiBhy ris Loris ‘yeypappévos, éBdjOy els ri Npony 11, rdw) Bo 3, with w and me. 38: for roi ryoodrov abros] Sand favour th iner- tion of aired (ep. eérar, verse 8) with ma. 95. 12. apiece] 1 BiBNlg] 8 alone: al eae plural. 13, tobe dy sivas) Mather perhaps rods ra! (ot 4) aires, but no other authority eupporta this Uepitn feaerorebrdp) Slovene. wbrar. All ‘le rea the verb in ply except wg, which doviats, (Unda [ut] de sings). dere] The MSS. and most mat place this word 28. And fd pam Be; not armor of] und 3, ubjoi, at (nd ofthis verse, lary 00 op TEXI, 1. obpene aor] 8 writen plural, 2. elder) Sade airty, plonantial 8. seqréea] ity emai -AU autorton give fot, including ep (ch e.); except » whi denruey, With 340d 7 and om (Lebitew). A mare ‘change of pointing would make 8 agree with % on ATIOKAATYIE, 108 mupés. Kat dBov otpavby xawdy xxi. kal yiv kauri & yap mpiros otpards xal } apérm yf defor kat } Oddaowa obx Eorw En, Kal riy wdhw rip dyiav ‘Iepovoa- + My xawrjy, eBov xaraBaivoveay ex 108 otpavod dmb rod Beoi rowa- opérny &s vipdny Kexoopnperny 7 avBpi abris. Kal jrovea puris 5 peyddns & rob obpavd deyovons, Bod exp) rob Gcod perd ray avOpdimev Kat oxnvesoes per’ abrav’ ral airot dads abrod goovrar Kal ainds 6 @ebs per’ abrir Kal goras avrois @eds. Kal abrds efahelper way + Baxpuov ek av dpGaduar arav' kal 6 Odvaros obx doras rv évbos bre Kpavyf ob82 mév0s fora én ent rh mpéowwa airs. Kal dmp\dov wat dnd por 6 Kar 5 pores ént rg Opdvy’ iBod Kawa woud advra. nal elné por ypdijov" ofro. of otre er abrdr nal fora] 8 alone: AQ end meny sat, 2, and lat (xcept pr (AUB ])y ne abr tra {Ber tera per airor iets Our] Bo 8 and 3 [F with * sone A das tray Oe who [oot er}; By Boy and arm, Ons sbrér? WO, tou a, Be Om ards edi All elo om abd ro with A and stew min, and oy [except arm), ian 6 Ons tttr the verb: but the other Gon opig, and the ‘rbvor) All Gronk tarts ad ote. tnd 6. fever fs del rh pbewne abr. Mal dear] 8 alone all clay fovan fer [Br] wh steve dfater (-07] ‘Tho reading of raprventa Grosk, not Syriac, variation (tt for fr, ‘tpbewre for epire: p.m epdBere)- 1. ated pot (ba) (1) Allele om. war. (2) Bo ef (aot om): has stew without pa all la, Aly [oe] ‘etro) All Greek except ma 94, and moet a, prefs ir. “ATIOKAATYIS, 6 déyor murrol Kal adyOwoi elon. Kat dliré por yéyovay. ey 73 A wal dys 13. O H dpxi wal 73 rédos. ey 1§ Bupavre Béiow ex ris wmyis 70d 1WBaros ris tuijs Supedv. nad 3 vuxav airds wnpovoprjees raira’ Kal Zoouas arg Beds* xa Zorrat por vids, 8 Tole 82 Beidois nal dwiorois, Kat Gpapradots cal ¢BBedvypévors ral Govetin, nal Sappaxols xal mépvors kat cBuroddrpas al maar roils WeuBéor, 1d pdpos airiv ey rH Riuvp rij xawopéry mupds nal Octov, ¥ torw 6 Oivaros & Bevrepos. 9 Kat fMder els ex vax éwrd dy- your tov exdvrav ras teed guddas ras yeuotoas rv éwrd myyav rav oxdrov'. Kal ddgoe per’ euod Aéyu" Bedpo Belfw oor rhy wudny 6. rhrarar) So A, end ma. 38 (yeydrerw) ee vith man. 41, 96, and lat, yfyore (but se Suppl Not, P48): 3 andthe ree, ylyore. dyb 7) 0) Allene ox, dd. {Neu} An oraare in § seems to indicat that « pronoun = aing (which Q and imany mes. in. after a), was at fat writen after the verb. es Goh) Lit, 05 Garr: 03. Cp-xxi. 1,17. 1. eal d] All lao om. nal. eayporonterd) Al ole om. abd (a8 A maces aa rlpras: exept 9, which Om. wal spree Neary all ele dative. 11, sal gourd airy) So some mae apr and most vernona but the MBS. and moet mar om ela, “ wa St. Thy ywaixa 705 dpviov. Kal dmjveyné 10 pe e avedpare én’ Spos eye Kab Wdéyr wat BekE wow ry who ry dylay “Iepovoadip, KaraBalvovoay 4 108 obpaved dd 108 Beod Exov- 8 gay riv Bétav rob Beco Kai S guorip abriis Spows bp rip ds ldomds, xpuoraddilorr xovea 12 réxos peya xal yma Fxouen. ww Navas Bai8exa’ kat emt ros mu\dow ayyadous Bé8exa* xal brdpara abrov yeypappéva & don 7a dvépara cov BBexa guddv"lopaxd. da’ dvarodfs 13 aaves rpeis’ Kal dad Boppa m- Raves rpeiss wal ded vérov mudaves pets: Kat ded Svopav avdaves rpeis. al 13 reixos is wédews Exov epe- 14 ous 8éBexa’ Kal én’ airdv Badexa Brépara rav dmooréhuy +05 ‘Tod. . and og (am, arm, he. 5 not of), and 2 which reade thoes words diferenty from allele, aint). ‘rualy} So ma, O4, 9 and og: all other Greek, superative; alo pr, and. Op. xvi. 12. (br Vows} A fw tau om. by tho rst read br Alty ders. ‘eperanniore) St be unos apverdary. Similarly 3, and 00 ef, (eu erytelom), ke. But ‘thoes are no doubt mere artifces ofthe tranaatae to supply their lck of an equivalent word, ent donot Indlate any variation inthe Grock text. 12. txeoes (i)} Or Exon. sbrar] Sow: allother rock copieend atom. ‘yeypetntra) 80 alone of Grek copiaa; and 0 44, and arm, have seripta* the rat dneerpapndre far] OF Kxor Areerénwr) Bo (rr, doubt): the ‘Orv, (owith arm, Bo.) %, and early all ele,met 5a, iseal 6 Naddv per’ duod, exe wérpov rddapor xpuooiv, tra perpion Ty wemddw ral 13 reixos ales. al 4 aéhis rerpdyavos xeirax’ wal 2d MiKos abris Soov 15 whdros abrijs. kat uérpnoe ry wodw 1G Kaddpe, Ent oraBion Bi8exa xudSuv 7 binos abris xal 7 mhdros abris Kal 11d ios abnis toa dori, wal éuérpyce 1 reixos abris éxarby xal reocapd- rovra mnxiv, pérpy dvbpdmov & dor dyyddov. Kal 4 &Sdpqors rod relxous airis laoms Kal 4 réhis xpueiov rabapod spoiov bddy xa- 19 Bap@. wal of Gepédior 708 relxous ris médeus, NiBors rysious Kexorpnnevor ATIOKAATVIS. rat 6 Oepédwos 8 mpiros iaoms. Kal 8 Betrepos odmpeipos. Kal é rpiros kapxndév. Kal 8 rérapros opdpa- ‘pos. Kal 5 méunros capBérug. Kal 8 20 eros wépBiov. Kal é ¢B8opos xpuors- dios. Kat & &ySo0s Brjpuddos. Kat 8 Bars rowdyB.ov, Kal 6 Séxaros xpucémpazes. ‘0 évBéxaros SdxwBos. 0 Budécaros duriGeoos. Kat of 8-21 Bexa udives tall BdSexa pap- ‘yapiras, Bls dv’ els: cal Zeaoros ray muddvav fv & dvds papyapirov. Kad 4 mara T8N ris wédews xpvoion aBapod’ Ss bados thy é arg’. Kat vabv obn elBov év aimp. ‘0 yap Kiipios & Gcds & wavtoxpdrup airds vads 15, pdepov ndrauor] 8 alone: the MBS, and most mut, Ey and 7 read nlryor xdiquor: 0 fow imu, prper waddgay (00 0 [ey with ome.) tmenoerem herandicom) © eee tute, abd versions, followed by ret) wdiauar only (end 0 arm); pry srandinam ‘ad mmmarem, which comes near to the ‘ding of 8. ‘thy xin) Allele add el roby woddras airs, ‘but @ and moet an. om, nal 1) eigen ards. 16, rerpdywvt] Lit, rerpadre. sb eadror abe (bin) All la, except (in the fiat instance) maT, om abr: and all except ma, Tom. abrir acond > whee. . ‘re eeddap] Or & 9 wadduy. 17, reeeapdeorra) 8 aloe fale to ad reeedpur. ‘nlepg) Al lo wlepr, except 3, which witoe ‘the word lara, and pase it before wnxer. 18, xporon abapat) All Gronk (except mas. 73,70, which bave dat, xpetoreadape; and vo g, and oy (eh o.]: but x mupports 8; v0 pr, and ay [oe] “polos} Or duale 3 is ambiguoae os 8: all ret Spar oF dyin. 18. eal ol Crudtn) Bo alone of MSS.) and many sma and vernon, loslding 3 and ey [e, &e.}: but APQand many mas, and em, orm, he, Om. al. ‘Aides eal) All la, arr Ady ln seal ndir) All la om. nal bere. In the ine following instanost whero 8 ins. i, « alone Groat and a, Autre [3, xed). 20. edphor] 8 writes eden: 3, odpbr. ‘erdshar} So we beve rordhay in yaad ia Xtina om lpadiaa; arm, tains; end order in Ps the ret rleing 349), rordGur nieces eal a1, 7, 381, 97, 182 and some other dndoer. Nety al el, indtrver Noto tht orcopt as above 8 given no car erence 1 othe onogaphy ofthe name of th tone. 21. tel Atos) ll ln om. thi umeuing el, shih in pobalyfntrodoced by an ero of the Brine Tesh. theraorablize iy ded aly el earvor] 8 aloe; 3 ie oabtels Pris dnt ah el tearron, a0 ie ith all en rks fears. “f) Obeid in 8 ll clo green eabept] o pr: i lel om aatie “Gp. vee 18. “ts is arf) it, deve ty br. 808 soe, enitaligily.” Or peatly [ler] 8 abies foe Bendot wep for hd er?) for Beye 0f al ther suthrne OF dy abr may havo era tran from next line, Bot there may bo « Dunder in the Byr. txt Bo nota oa 1 rds} Alle om,ATIOKAATYIS. ssainis ori. al 13 dpviov wat rédis, 08 xpelay exer ro PAiov' obBE ris cedivns va gaivwow airj 4 yap B6fa 103 @cod eric abriv. ai 6 dixvos airs dari 73 dpviov. s4xal wepunarjoovat ri 6m Bid. rod gurds abris Kal of Baowdels ris vis dpover riv Séfav els abr. asnal of mvdaves ainjs ob pi) wher otiow ipépas vie yap obx goras 6 eee fooves riv Bégay nal ar Tiy rysiy ray eBvdv els airy Kat oix tora exet wav xowsy, xal 6 oiv BSdvyna, Kal Yeibos et Ba Th yeypappioa dv 1G BiBXp xxtt, 709 dpviov. Kal afé por worapay ‘Bares Curis, kablapdy nai Naympdv sal +b dprlor] Noteth interpunction, by which, sin Q, thee words are separated from 4 eed, and oop the Bae ending oun) wih 9 ed rere 23. 25. abrie der] AML Greek, and 3, om, dort: 24, waperarkeowe) Lit, reperares. Aa so gurds] Lity ty r@ pert an eo. (but ‘with no wuficant authority): some ey [e, e.) in amine; Bate, nd am aad arm, gor lamen, ‘bter) All elo add either err (nsw AP, vorne sua. at. [67 gloria uum o nore}, oF wal [ohe) ‘Tuthy ror donde (oa Q and toa); ofboth (083). ‘ls abrir} Rathor abr: and so in vere 2 21, ob Fora: deat] All an, ob wh eletaty [-Bere] Als aint ay evre) Or parhapa wis kode. 4S roar] Bo 8 and 3, with w and many mee ‘ot resi (Ay 8), oF ror (PQ, ft.) ‘A peyasaire) Allele, mas. The Byrae i Pdle} Alla Gon XXIT I (ois) 803} li. Gree. wd 6. afaphy eal Aayepér] All Grosk road ager “ wat, 22am. 5. 3 Kpboraddov Kal denopeviperov ee 108 Opévov 105 @eod Kal 70d dpviov. al dy péow rav wareudy abris ext 108 worayod évreibey Kal Srreider, Gov luijs rowdy xapmods BéBexa> kat xard pijva Exaorov do58oiv rods kaprois abroi* kal 1a gtdda abrod els Oepameiav rav viv. Kal may xardBepa obx ovat exe. Kal & Opévos 10% cod Kai 108 dpviov & air gorar wal of Booher atrod daxpetoovew aig kat Spovras 13 mpécwmor abroi* Kal 18 Bvopa aitos emt rév perémuy airy. Kal vif obx Eorat éxet kal ox over xpeiav dards" Kal dixvou ral gurds HMov' Sr. Kipios 6 @eds tal devopedueroy] All elas om ral Ber; slo bolo dy udeq, and nerd ve, (vere 2). 2. bp wharay) All elas agular. Cp. 2 dnt od eorauad) 3 proizn wal: all els sabe stitute xa ford. dreeider cal dreiiber] So ree with some sma: for the latter adverb, A.Q give deiter (00 3, and g): w gives Geter eal and om. thence to vir, Phat. ‘rea, bnobdoin] Or west, Aroddes. fel card] All ela, exsapt mn 98, om. wl ‘rob eapnots) Bo mal le singular. _ te] Bo ma 3,138,188 86 for fs: wom or fr, au in verse 8, bat with mere ‘with many mus. and versions, om. ix Teowetypelr) So A, alone of Oreck copes, ‘wih lat. (exopt arm), and 2:'the reat read verb ia reeat o ob xp without verb ‘gerée eal Abzror] 8 alone: all eae om. na, 0d sone also om. gurés.xm. 515, dorite atrots, Kai Baoveds abrav Gels rods aldvas ray aléver. Kat dlné por obror of dMyor morot Kal @nduoi Kai 8 Kipios § Ocds ray mepdrav rav dylav mpodnrav, droarAhes tov dyyeov abrod Beifat rois Bothos atrod, & Bet yerdoBar & réxen, 1 Kat (80d épyopar é& rdyer pad pis & mpav rods déyous Tis mpognrelas ro BiBdov rovrov. 8 "By “ladys 6 Brérev wat dxovaw raira’ kal dre {Bdeya nal frovea, éreoa mpoorwrjoa ip poobey réiv woSav rod dyyédov 9709 Seuvvovrés por radra, elné por Spar pi obvBoudss eiuk; ral rév dBagav cov mpognrav, Kai ray rppodvrev ov ray ‘o: bbe MBS. and many mn. giv th ar in ft slo pr ad [with erm, Be hres) Bo apparently 8 Berar alrar] 8 alone, for Peowuloooew it 13, Baedebe vay svemrar var kyler spopyrie] Bo mam. 36,68." Thin reading a perape const. The MS8., most men, (which reas rob vefuaren, and lat, fms lor: a fw mn om, av nreondrar, and 99 te Be,” The other versions are divided. Sneerdiai All le or. 1. te vbye) Aan at vrs; 40 on (1): ll lan raxéy which perhape wo ought tread bore, the ‘ame rondering being wed for rexé in vor 20. [Note that inthis vere P defi, Sally) ‘8 Eps) Boy (om, orm Bc; not}: for Ky, 4 Bxéror tal dxotur rare) 80 and a fow sma. (73,78, 162, 2.) alo fow more (followed by reo) with raira placed bofore wal the Fst with 2, Ink. (expt pry and tory, tusapoe the participles, WBncta eal Score] All lan place fevers St. 8, alne} 8007 {oot om) boro; tnd wo 3 bere and in pext ern: all else Ades in both ple. Spe rf] Soma. 68. Bo on 3.10 ‘ATIOKAATYIE. tous robs Myous rod BiBNov rovrov, 1G Gch mpooxivqooy. Kat dlné por} odpayioys robs Aéyous Tis mpodyreias 709 BiBNov rotrov. "0 aspis yap eyyis tort. Kal 6 aBucdv dBuqodra sv Kat 3 pua- pis, furavOijra ev wal 8 Sixaios Bixaoriryy womvdre ev xat 3 dyws énacbijre en. "180d dpxopar ray’, xal § proBds pow per’ éuot nat drodiow éxdory kara 1 dpyov abrod. éyd 7d A Kal dy 73.2 8 mparos Kai & oxaros: kat dpxi) kat 1d r0hos. ard piot of mowivres ris eros abzod: foras 4 éovota atrév emi 1 Eidov Tis luis’ kal 7G main cloedes- covrat eis rip wéhw. Kal of wépvot xal of goveis nab ‘obronr) Sloe nw. 11, tal § cir) 80 mn68,8 pr: allele om. al. 12, al dvotdeo] 8 alone all lan or. inane, without eal.” By changing the partele(e engl letter) ‘prefixed to he fut. in the Syr., we can make it = fndative, aa fa the oter euthoriin; and this ia perhaps the true reading of 8. ee notron Sy. text. ‘cera 7 Upper] Teo mee, (73.78) alone have seed (pi 8 25.12, 19): the ret, with den], (oF Koray btor, or afer, ebro. The it apport xerd. 13. dy bg) Allee om. byé. For A and 0, op. .8.mprs and note. There, w reads an 8 here. ‘eal dp) Allele om nal 14. router rar drrohar alrof] So Qand aany amas, fllowed by ret 3 and (pr hat): for shire ‘rir ovekds aba, of Wy fow ma and oy. eves «+s eewhsieerras) All cl pre fre, and read sleintwew. | Probatly 8 noeds to be cor- ‘ted by restoring a dropt prefix (one ete, = fe), eo note on Sy. text. ‘rf endri] Alloa plural 16, Kalo wgres-- fe} (8 in alone in placing thin and the next two nouns before the remaining t0j—wo that St order i 3, 4 8,1, 2. (Gi) All lac (om. Mal, and place fe [8¢} a the hee ofthe passage. aATIOKAATYIS. ot dBudoddrpar eu" kal of xowol at of gappaxo,, xat was 8 t Beran’ rat rovv Wed8os. 16 "Ey "Inoods Emepija tov dyyeddy pov papropiioas ey Suir raiza eat tals exxdqoias. eyd cue 4 pila at 7d yévos Aavi8 xa § dads airod* nat 8 dorip & mpuivds 6 hapmpds. 17 Kal 13 Tveipa Kal 4 windy Néyovow pov. Kai 6 dxovar endrw épyov. ral 8 Bupv epxérbu Kal daPérw 18 SBup luijs Bupedv. Maprupd eyd marr 1G dxovorn tiv déyor ris mpognrelas 705 BiBNov rovrov, éév xan 15-21, tis emOj bt aid, embjow br indy 8 eds, ras mAqyas ras ‘yeypappévas ev 1G BiBdiy rovry* ral ddy ris d&g dad rv Myar 9 103 BiBNov ris mpogyrelas radrys, Agedet 6 Geds 7d pdpos adrod dxd 705 Eidov ris: luis, Kal ee trav médewv tov ayia rév yeypap- pévay bo 7G BiBNy roiry. déyerx paprupay raira* val épxouat raxv. “Bpxov, Kip "Inood. % xdpis 2 105 Kupioi ipav "Ineo Xpurtod pera wdvrey tov dylan dpsiy. elo xual} () Th ful stop and mask placed fn 8 before thes words, making them begin « new peragmph, are unmeaning, and T treat them as bee Tonging t the begining af the vere. (i) For xavel {eps 28.27) lle have dvs; but pnb 8 in ene ering lowly, and no variant lato be inferred, ‘tBXéeor) All else adr. No doubt the Bye. tat (eo note on it) ia wrong: but gr cannot bo reoovered from it but by rather vslont emendation. 16. d> tub) (i) All eae om. to. (G) For the colon ater thee words, oe note on Sy. tat. del als deedyelart) Lit drdesy viv dec oy, do. al babs abvod) Or, eal rob And abrod. 8 lone in, wninalligibly. 3 apeiny Aaupbr) Meat suthoriton ranpoe the adjectives, bute fow mu, place them an in U7. al AaBére] (i) The MSS, and all toro or three, ef and og (om, arm, e.] om. 1%, and ey bey ina. (i) Before the very all ina & lowe, except. (Gets) Bo 3; Lit, (ae: ep. verse and aa. 6, 18, i Adyor) Al ele plural, ut “ tay) Lit, bt, GF eirdo} Bo w with wove mas, placing ‘hove word before, not (an @ and ost man) fer, & ‘Kec, wth X and lt, plies them an @. A om. tras réncer ror bylor) 80 8 lone: all else singular Probably the serie as pointed the words plural through « misapprehension of the meaning. ‘The tranadatr tems to havo trated the following swords (+50 yeypeustror) aa agreiog with roy yor (ep. 12.27), and not (as the prevent pointing (88 ragga) with rar xdnvor. Bro notson Sy. tat. 20. papropir) 808 lone, but poly by areal cera (ane on BF. txt) for 8 papraps ng 9p) Nome a en aba Ate, exept, 21. tye) Bo ree with a fow mt, 3 at, and ber venion: the rst om. "Xpwrei] Here 8 is better support; by seary al man 3, and lat and mst versione; aga vA and one me (28), which om. ‘drrar vbr brim ara] Salone bjs bre: the tne preeding words are the reading of the mee, and nowt ther erionk. Ay with omy rede dover aly: og (os with mod] adda voi (orm, Bombs) ‘with gaa roo bln only prem this vere,SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO GREEK TEXT. TL. 18 (ews ndpros(uor}evers). This reading ‘of ma, 162 ie roorded im“ Coation of ma. of the eelaton” bythe ate Rev. W. 1. Simcox, published in Journal of Pilly, No. 44 (Cambridge, 1894), .286/7. Mr. Simoox aonamos that the words are Interpolated “er comentario." But I find no trace ‘of them in tho Commentary of Andreas, whichis eub- {oloodin 162 to theta, or in that of Arethas. Lincine tothe supposition that they ar the rvult of contin; ‘variant bre, for arora, having boon nuarted on the margia of « copy, and having thence puted into the text ued by our tale, XVITL 11d dtl wbeoy wale). Prat Nos apply suggete rv for rbror. This conectare in supported: by pr, (omni sper mae niga. XXL. 6 —(ylyora). Tn epport of the reading “yore (op. x¥i 17), am. 10,17 ave been allaged Tat cron, —both rad yore? and to only Anown Grosk muthores for qéyere ao mat 4, 0. ‘Tho reading réyoar (or Unt of ma. 38), flowed ax howe by 8, alo contrmed by th Latin of Irnases (Gana, p 898), fata mn (for rt 0 9, ry tal ep. Tho yéyore of rec inno doubt onjoctre of Hranmus based on oy; hit ms (1) rad ybyora, roTHE APOCALYPSE. PART IL SYRIAO TEXT, WITH APPENDIX AND NOTES,CORRIGENDA AND DELENDA IN PART Ii. Page 6, cal.3, lastline, for —adodwer’s read -semod certs line 9, aad em reat Ja,NOTES. 100 Line 1. The first threo letters are effaced; and the hole in the vellum (see p. 96, supr.) affects the latter part of lines 3. Aulejat0] I find this word following WaX2iso in a closely similar sentence in the (inedited) Ms., Biblioth. Nat., Suppl. 43 (Zotenb. 85), fo. 214°. ‘The upper parts of the lost letters here are discernible. 4. ys Gorols)] This restoration may safely be accepted; as also that of oo Wow.) in line 5. 6. JAX] If this word is accepted, the blank may probably be filled as in Rich. 7160 (R-F., p. 24) by the words jo. ,x2, with 2 prefixed to JAX2 at beginning of next line, But perhaps the broken word is YobsA2; and if 60, oaie,. Yn, are probably to be supplied. T and 8. Of the lost ends of these lines, the former may have been Jasoolsec, or the like; the latter perhaps , as in Rich, 7164 (R-F,, p. 28), or Layo, as in Add. 17124 (Wright, p. 43). 10. Ja] The prefix », though not decipherable in Ms, ought no doubt to be supplied here; and probably © before Jas,o in 15. 14. The illegible first word here may have been Jop, or 1.o?, a in line 12. 17. wg] The ¢ is legible, and the brackets needless. For the places named here, and lines 18, 29, see Transactions, R.I.A., vol. xxx, pp 856, 299. : 18. Japa] Here used = dominion, territory. For this sense of the word, see Wright, Cafal., pp. 468, 550; Barhebr., Cir. Eccl. 1, 8. 71, col. 397, &. (A. and L.); and ep. Psh., 2 Kin, xx. 18, 1 Mace. x. 39. Tele Lge] Sic sn Ms. usually written with oo for ¢. 22. oma] Ought to have been printed o.oo. 25. For |bso, perhaps Ja.jy2 is to be read; and for Jas, Jd, as Mr. Gwilliam, perhaps more correctly. But réais is a man’s name in Barhebr., Chr. Eecl., 1, 8. 80, col. 487. Joao] A probable restoration of a partly effaced name. 28-81. The beginning of each of these lines is effaced, but may safely be accepted as restored; also ..S in 92: but the plural sign supplied to the first word of 31 may be doubted. 29. Some letters are here lost, and a name is irrecoverable.99, NOTES, of the holy Church of God, and for the profit [and .......- ] of the brethren, studious and lovers of the spiritual life; and for the commemo- ration and good remembrance before God ; of them, namely, and of their deceased faithful ; this spiritual troasure in the holy Church of God has ‘been with diligence written and arranged by Stephen, the wretched and sinful and feeble, and wretched above all; and feeble above all; and sinful above all; and full of faults and sores and sll hateful things of sin, oe... indeed in name & monk, though unworthy; who belongs to the holy monastery of the excellent in praises, holy and elect and clad in God, Mar Jacob the recluse of Egypt, and Mar Barshabba ; which is beside (SJelach-Castra the blessed; which is in Tur-“Abdin the blessed country which is in the dominion of Hesna Kipha. But I, a brother wretched and vile entreat of every discreet brother who lights upon these confused lines; that he pray in Christian charity for the said sinner, and for my fathers, true believers and my masters and my brethren; and for my own patemal uncles, monks; Mas‘ud deceased and John and Simeon; who ministered to me after their ability. And pray ye in faith for my own maternal uncles monks and priests, deceased, Gabriel and Jacob; who also gave diligence for me in the matter of doctrine and of writing and soforth. God makes [them] joyful in His Kingdom. And pray ye also for my own masters, Rabban Cyriacus deceased, and Rabban Sahda; and Rabban Saliba; and Rabban Marnaba* otherwise Haya’; and Rabban BarsfaumJa. And pray yo for all that have taken part whether in word or in deed ; and each according to his prayer, may he be rewarded, with the Amen of those above and of those beneath. “This [spiri}tual treasure was diligently procured, in order that he might meditate in it and profit by it, by Rabban Gabriel, chaste monk and reverend priest, son of [. . .Jsim deceased, who belongs by family to Beth-nahle, blessed town. Pray ye for him, and for his fathers, true believers, and for his [brothers],* Denha, deacon deceased ; and Sahda, deacon deceased; and Moses, blessed youth. Pray ye for all that have taken part [with me] in it, whether by word or by deed. Amen and Amen.” * Or Barusha. » Or Naha. * Or brother. NeNOTES. 98 s bue’] Whether this unintelligible roading is a corruption of some word = Siavyqjs, or a rendering of a misreading [Jy] 8¢ atrjs, or the Tike, for Biavyjs, it seems impossible to decide. It is remarkable that in verse 11, © (by a converse error) seems to have read ds pas ris abyys, for kat 5 guorip abriis (see De Dieu's note in lo.), rendering aiyjs by eNSna, as here it has eX Mee = Siavyyis. For cam = 8° airijs we have a parallel in verse 24, oimass = 5:2 100 gourds airs. But as the words cas dati stand in our Ms. directly underneath (see next note), it may be that the letters cam &. have got in here by vertical transference from thence, and that Scavys was originally represented by a lost word of which the initial ee alone remains, four or five letters having been displaced by the intruders. 22. + .éam] The stop (+) here is wrongly placed. It probably belongs to the unexplained cas of the previous line (see last note). rfizarcla] Note that $ not only places a full stop before this word, but by the prefix \ makes it clear that it is to be read with rhasssale of next verse. . 28. eyshse] See note on -agim, iii, 17, and ep. xxii. 5. 27. ¢eab ocas] Probably repeated by accidental error from verse 25, in place of aX Saas. whanssics .... rsecl, = xowdy .... BdAvyza] See notes on xvii. 4 (whasercly, eeaiase), and ep. verse 8 supr., and xxii. 15: % has etaamss = x., and whores, = £3. cSrkan plier] Seo note on Greck text; and ep. xxii. 19. XXII. 1, .2aio] Probably x is to be read for a: also, in next verse, perhaps .> for a before hagse; o in both these cases being unauthorized and superfluous. However, > is not necessary in verse 2 (see note on i. 18). 2, etasea tase = dreider nat ereife'] So Hkl, Joh. xix. 18 (the only other instance in N.TT. of the Greek phrase); where Psh. (and kl, marg.) has ease awo ase av. So too Psh. and Hxp. in the pll., Ezek. xlvii.7. % here follows a different reading. 3. eset] In Peb. N.T., Hkl, and Hxp. this word uniformly = dvdOeua, to which rard@cya here (not else in N.T.) is rightly meau. 1a, NOTES. 90 after each of the remaining stones, and after hss\ ise in vorse 21, a new form of point (1) is introdueed,—apparently equivalent to =. réliaw] So in Peh., eg. Exod. xxiv. 10; where Hxp. writes rficaoo: 5 hos wotaho; Barsal., wot.aae, with the explanation, rise, réizais] See ix. 17, and note there. & has hero Lassla, not elsewhere found ;—probably for Lazanls (= yadny3dv), which however only occurs as a geographical term. Barsal. writes Lasaleto, and explains, eizaio. eéaX jon] 3, aX jouw; seo iv. 3, and note. 20. etalle Lariw = capSévue] Lit., odpBior al drug. For asic see note on iv. 3. Op. Ezek. xxviii. 18 (Hxp.), for eta. [= érvyuor, LXX]; and see above, second note on iv. 8. transliterates here. dats] For kn: s00 note on xiii. 18. reper arta = xpved\ibos] So Hxp., Ezek. xxviii. 13: but Psh. has répeoax e¢area, Cant. v.12. % again transliterates, malhasia; rather orLmata, as Barsal. writes,—explaining by e¢scoa area. ~a.s1a0\,] This form of the word is not elsewhere found, but see note on Greek text, % writes anrcaal, [dp; 7 has a for x); and similarly Hxp., Job xxviii. 19, Ezek. uf supr., asraal,, wiamaia] S here transliterates more successfully than ¥, which writes oo.masamis [so dip] probably a being substituted (after ) for 4 by an early error of transcription. Bareal. writes woohoo.) Hxp. writes chrono, Jer. x. 9 (op. & ix. 17): % here has sorseourom [d1; p pluces tho e after}, Barsal. writes wokinorts, and explains ehicas. ssamhaser’] ¥, walwhasor. Seo Ezek. xxviii, 13 (Hxp. wal, morse); see also Thes. S., s.v., and ep. note on Greek text. 21, e¢imadina] Probably © ought to be struck out, sréau\ eau] ‘The punctuation of S compels us to conclude that the Greek represented is efs dvd els. See note on Greek text; and cp. Mk. xiv. 19, where for the similar phrase ds xa els Psh. gives a 2x; and Hkl. a is 20; also Rom. xii. 5, 73 ca ls = au su (Psh.), aw La (Akl). Again Joh. viii. 9 (Peris, de Ad.), 2 aw ocours, but whether = dls naff els or dls exaeros, is uncertain. % here has ew aw.a NOTES. wat S19, rénumse] Seo note on xvii. 4. eéxiv = dapyarois] So X here; and both, xxii. 15, where the Greek word recurs. It is not found else in N.T.; seo note on ix. 21. etait = wépvows] So again xxii. 15 (the only other instance of #. in Apoc.), as both Psh. and Hkl.; and so ¥ there, but here eait=s. 9. eo] Note that the point in red (denoted in the printed toxt by +), which ought to stand before this, word, has been wrongly set by the scribe before cwarclse in next line, eehasiore’] Correct whuiur’: ep. xv. 1. ll. @d dura] So again in next verse (bi): 2, more exactly, instead of the prefix a, gives 24 here, and a there. eiewas = 8 gworip ainis] For wimas, ¥ has wisens; better— see note on iv. 5. In Psh. and Hkl. commonly, and always in S and %, gas is rendered by ima. ages] Correct mass (also in verses 18, 19): see note on iv. 3. 3 reason a we] Correct 2 [or ethasen] tazsan ware (as iv. 6): stasea is ptop., and \would be followed by 4. 0o\\,c0%0] Cp. iv.6 (sss), and see note there. 12, cela] Seo note on ¥. 5. 14, eis] For risers: probably a clerical error, = and so being in our Ms. very closely alike, But the error may have been in the Grock, wow for {ap}ov. [H. J. L.] 16, duressize] In Psh. 0.1. anise is frequent where LXX renders rerpdyovos: Hxp. transliterates, as & does here. Seo both, Exod. xxvii. 1. wert = door] 3, a eésna. Seo note on xvili. 7. 17. \gaSaee] So (with numeral preceding) Psh. frequently in O.T., ¢g., Exod, xxv. 10; also Joh. xxi, 8: in which places Hxp. and Hk. use emph., as does ¥ here. 18, etmsor =% &8dpnow] %, hasmser,—a word not else- where found. In Psh. résasaas does not occur: but in Hxp., 1 [3] Esdr. vi. 24, = Séuos, and it is frequent in other writings. 19. + eas] Observe that in this verse the point +, which up to this is used in our Ms. only to mark the important divisions of the text, is placed four times, after the names of the first four stones, also in verse 20, after the eleventh stone; and after this frequently,—often unmeaningly, ‘as in verse 22, and again in xxii. 3,10, 15, and 20. Also, in verse 20, “wn NOTES. 88 from a person. % does not make this distinction in either place, nor in ii, 12 (where S om. ¢asax ¢>2),—nor does either version, xx. 9. salsa] 5, dbis iad; and so Hkl. always renders dinjp (= fusband): Psh. mostly as S. Cp. Gen. xvi. 3 (Pah. and Hxp.). 3. eit] Perhaps eis would be better, as in Z: see note on Greek text. For eestese see second note on xiii. 6. ocpa] A letter seems to have been erased after this word. Pro- bably the scribe had first written eacpa. r¢ocaso] Perhaps the prefix ought to be omitted; and the stop placed after, instead of before, this verb. 4, Sasse = a] So Psh. sometimes: 3, sed; as S everywhere else. ctsoi = xpavy#] 2, xo, here and in the other place where x. occurs in Apoc. (xiv. 18), where S has simply réLe (probably reading fav). Psh. renders variously,—only once as S (Eph. iv. 31); Hkl. uniformly as 3. dSiwo + aa Ls] These words take the place of Aso coli etuisers = Sr. 7d apira dwfdGov. § therefore represents a reading of the Greek, ént ra mpérwma airjs. Kat dmjdGov. In this reading, the verb is to be taken as first person singular, and to be connected with the next verse,—in which 4 is interpolated after tzara, to make good the connexion. in its rendering follows tho ordinary text, but with sias (= rapf\Bov) for ealiee [but d shows a trace of 8 in its conflate reading, #55. qalte’]. 6. etopg] Written eng where it recurs, x: (@ points the word as potl, xxii. 17). Ade] An erasure follows in Ms. ; probably of the word eal. réa] For etxia; (cp. Joh. iv. 10): so £. So too Ephraim, Hynmn, vii In Fest. Epiph., 7 (p. 66, ed. Lamy), seemingly citing this passage. 7. eéasso] Perhaps we ought to correct eéaiza. 8, ees Yaral = Sadois] This word is not in Psh., 0.T. or N.T.; nor in Hxp. or Hkl.; but jie occurs, 2 Cor. viii. 20, and ré\yie, Act. xxvii.9, 33, 1 Joh. iv.18 (Psh.and, as regards the first two references, Hkl.). % has ets&¥ous\; and so Psh. and Akl. in the two places where SeAds occurs else in N.T., Mt. viii. 26, Mk. iv.40. The noun used by S, though unrecorded in the Lexx., is a verbal of exactly similar formation. lA = dyaprodois] X, more properly, ea\yis. The adj. used in 8 is in Psh, and Hkl. = d8xos (ep. S and &, xviii. 5 and xxii. 11), or (in Peb.) dvoyos, but it does not occur in &. 17; ptep. peil: 80 %87 NOTES. we oat the omission is shared by ¥ and many Greck copies, headed by 8; and moreover in that verse it is slmost certainly due to a more complete homet. (xQua érp repeated). Soe notes on Greek text. Sea] Correct sce. 4, etshase = Opévous] Here only in $: ¥, ehamias; see note ‘on iv. 4. Psh. only once renders 8pévos by etsbase (Col. i. 16, where Hikl. renders as 5 here), but both use the same word as = Kapa, Mt. xxiii. 6, &c., (by implication). amginets cule] (i) S and ¥ translate as if they had a reading, tds wenehexwapévas, unknown to the Greek copies, and to the other versions. But perhaps we ought to correct both by prefixing 3 to cules, especially as there is in the next sentence (in S) a.» wrongly inserted,—see next note: ep. however vi. 9, where S (not %) similarly has wL\ aver hte. (ii) The final letter of the verb is wanting: supply —; or (if the prefix be restored) supply o in S [and in %, make corresponding changes). celwso] Road rather gala, as suggested in last note. The text as it stands reprosents “the word of God, and of those who have not worshipped the beast,” &c., which is unmeaning. But the connexion may be, “the souls .... of those who have not worshipped,” &e. ‘cuya] Probably we are to correct aaye. So %, with the Greek. 6. eeasa\] See note on xiv. 13, r. So %, 2 aan. tad, cals = advra rd dpvea] 3, wis cals; ep. both versions, verse 17 (where see note): but in the only other place where Spveoy occurs in Apoe. (xviii. 2, sing.), S om., while ¥ renders huis. In Psh. N.T., etsy is not used ; but in O.T. often; in Hxp. sometimes. XK. 2. agate = kal epdrqoe] So E: elsewhere in both versions xparé is always rendered by sure; a8 mostly in Psh. and Hkl., in both of is vory rare, though frequent in Hxp. Wo find however wal = xpar&\Lk. xxiv. 16 (Hkl.); also also Tit. i. 8 (Psh., by implication) Hero, it is used because swré is wanted to represent «Aelw in next verso (in both versions; and so throughout, and in Psh. and Hkl. passim). 3, ésasai] After this word (seo note on Greek text), S om. to render dxpt reheo6f rd xOua én, which all else ins. Probably the previous sentence, in the Greek original (or an ancestor) of S, was so arranged as to end (as in ree.) with &,, and thus tho omission, whether in the Greek or made by the translator, would be due to the homooteleuton ért..... ér9. It is true that ad is not 60 placed as to bear out this supposition con- cerning the position of é, but there are other instances where S places -sed carly in a sentence though the Greek has ér. at the end (as is usual in Apoc.): see, e.g., xxii. 11 (quater). Yet, on the other hand, the fact that $ also om. from verse 5 an entiro clause containing the same words, looks as if some doctrinal bias were at work here. But in case of verse 5,85 Not! And thus $ is doubtfully supported by ¥, either in disjoining the negative from what follows, here, or in its contrary treatment of xxii. 9. See note on Greck text. It is plain that doctrinal prepossession was at work in causing the confusion and inconsistency,—ep. next note. durciadu] Inserted no doubt to qualify the prohibition conveyed. Tho advb. = paddov, 2 Pet. i. 10 (Poc. and Hkl.). It is remarkable that the same advb. is interpolated, 3 Joh. 5 (Poc.), apparently = pduora. 11, rhourtss = & Sixaiortry] 3, choot, which rendering is given by both versions, xxii. 11, the only other instance of 8. in Apoc. Psh. uses both, but prefers the former: Hkl., with rare exceptions, the latter. See note on xv. 3. 12, x25 eel] Here veh = obdels, for are eel (as X). 13, 4] This verb in Psh. occurs only Joh. ii. 8, = dvr\3; but elee- where seems nearly = Bdmrw (=o imbue). Perhaps however it is here = as (which 3 has), = faire, Aavrifw. Seo Thee. S.; seo also note on Greek text. 14, gexaple .wigw .cxai] Observe that by placing « stop before as well as after igus, and profixing « to the ptep. following, S seems to make the adjective parallel with the ptep., and therefore (see note on Greek text) to have read both in dative, or perhaps both in nominative. 15. cguib] There seems to be an erasure in Ms. after this word ; see note on Greek text. cass] Rather é53; but the mase, suffix may relate to _amsnas. wales = sardfwor] % uses uso, which is the almost invariable Psh. and Hkl. equivalent of zardeow (see note on xi. 6). But we find it represented by Lo in both, Act. vii. 24, and therefore are not obliged to suppose that $ read here dmorreiwwor or agdgwor. 16. mrss As] See note on Grock text, and observe that S inserts no o before Ss, and writes the noun as plural: ¥ sing.; [to Sxo, ¢ prefixes *, in reference, as it seems, to the insertion of the copulative, and therefore to its absence from § which is the only authority for omitting it]. 17. eerwisl = rots épvéos] Singular (collective); so in Psh. with rare exceptions. writes the word pl. here, and verse 21 (see note there, for the rendering of S); and so Hkl. habitually. réasax Kaeo] See note on viii. 13. axiidea] Correct aziater ob, as. Cp, Ezek. xxxix. 17 (Pah. and Hxp.). 19. «++ ebaliite] There is Grock authority for both readings, adrod and adrav, after wal r8 orperedyera,—but none forxen 22 10, ‘NOTES. a Mt. ix. 23 (Psh, and HkL), the only other instance of addqnjs in N.T. Cp. Ezek. xxvi. 13 (Peh. and Hxp.). For sin, ep. 1 Cor. xii. 10 (Peh, résastsea = poveixay] A word unknown to the lexicons: pro- bably chosen (or perhaps formed) by our translator for its similarity in sound to povoud. For ass see second note (ii) on viii. 6. XIX. 5. loa] S (not %) om. a after this word. 6. réatse] After this word, J (cursive) is interlined, apparently by a later hand, conforming the text to ¥ and the Greek copies. See note on Greek text. T, aamghdseo «2.28 (i) Note that S gives these verbs in presont ptep. (= pres. indic.); 3, in future. (ii) For the rendering of dyaA\ud (not else in Apoc.) in 8, see note on xi. 10; ¥ uses tod. In Psh., it is never rendered as by S, but often as by X; in Hkl. always so. 8. ethos] 5, Seo note on xv. 4. 9. otzere] Probably we ought to correct =a. 20h] Read sods instead of (or perhaps after) this word. cbssazhs] Correct mhobssar, as verse 7. i one of the few cases where S has the stat. emphat. the former treating keedypérot adjectivally, as both render «Aqrof (xvii. 14) by eeyta. Op. xxi. 12 (S, etaadS; ¥, camara). 10. eX] Note that 1» (= dpa) is omitted before the negative. As the text stands, r¢\ (s0 pointed) seoms = wy [wouferys]! Cp. however the parallel passage, xxii.9, where ty appears; but with a stop after it, so that ee\ (with no stop following) is left to be joi ¥ retains tw here as well as there; but its interpunction is uncertai the evidence being (xix. 10) n; ean. eel. one 4; ethan cl ore dj rts eine Phar e ‘Thus, as to (i) tert, % is against the omission here of tw: as to interpunction, n agroes with S in both places. 1 is indecisive here, but at xxii. 9 makes e¢\ stand alone. d (its triple point being equivalent merely to the single point of 8) joins -¢\ with what follows, here; but in xxii. 9 agroos with 2 p (alone consistent) makes ré\ stand alone in both places, with (..), (), after st», as well as after el.83 NOTES. xen. 1722, by Hxp,, eta& sisase = oxparnyoi, implied in etsL& sisaser rez.i épxrotpdrnyos [LXX, = dpxew rav oxparnyér'}, Josh. v.14. See Masius, Syr. Pee., 2.0. tn; and note that in Thes. S. (s.0.) this reference of Masius is misunderstood, and wrongly applied to v. 6 (udxyo.). edandsl wealio lie Le = ais 6 ent ray molwy én ténov héav'] (i) Apparently a conflation,—see note on Greck text. But eeghite ule Le may be a periphrasis for was 6 mhéwv: if #0, éxt rév mAoiav ought to be struck out. ¥ renders ar\y:rhaaats ace La [80 1; dp, ersdoada]. For Mn = whéw, seo Act. xxvii. 2, 6,Psh.; where Hkl. renders by aay. (ii) Note the consir. form followed by prep., a8 xiv. 3. eigle] Sco for this word Thee. S.; it is not in Peh.: % has here As. Pash, has eealso where vavrys recurs, Act. xxvii. 27, 80: Hk. renders as 2; and so Hxp., 3 Kin. ix. 27 [= vavrxds, LXX]. eoares-50] Note the peculiar form of the verb with suffix. 19. doimure = ris ryudryT0s airs] Elsewhere in S, and uniformly in Z, and in Psh., Hxp., and Hkl., tinue = ris. For ryudrns (not else in N.T.), 2 has ehotmsss, a very rare word, not found in Psh., nor (apparently) in Hkl. or Hxp. 20, .as A\so = dn éxpwe] , less accurately, esx LXo0; but in xix. 2 both give 3. [In the latter place, 3d has .e¢s, and § at first sight appears to read the same, but the seeming e is only a blot.] 21. ~<] ‘This word is added in marg., but prima manu. There is some trace\ of erasure before the next word, as if had originally been prefixed. ctawt = prov] So ¥ (din; p, eeawis—see last note]; and so Poh. and Hkl., Mt. xviii. 6, and wherever y. recurs. Soe note on Groek text. eéaheh .... aspiee = Bade... . AdySrjverai] ¥ more con- sistently uses the former verb in both places: see note on vi. 13. eéarcas = Spyrpar] So. The Greck word is not else found in N.T.: but"w = Spun in Hkl. where it occurs (Act. xiv. 5, James iii. 4); also in Hxp., eg., Ezek. iii. 14. So too Psh. 0.T., there and elsewhere ; but not N.T. sazh] Perhaps we ought to correct madzh (as X); see note on Greek text. 22, eeisey wiv] This rendering is borrowed from Psh. of Daniel iii. 5, where it exactly reproduces 8711 ‘3t of the Chald., = yévous povouxay of Theodot. Possibly our translator found aidyrixdv in his Greek copy, or misunderstood aiAyrav. % renders simply eises; sed for the word, Lexem aT. NOTES. 82 printed texts is attested only by later copies. See Hermathena, vol. vit, p- 290. eégans] In 8 and %, e¢gan is used indifferently = Béooos or Bécowos (reading of Grock uncertain here and verse 16), the prefix being hore the sign of the genitive. In Pah. and Hkl. it = Bveoos, Lk. xvi. 19 (the only instance of 8. outside Apoc.) But S, and apparently %, seem everywhere elec to make re Bicowos (adj.), verse 16, and xix.8 (bia), 14; and therefore probably mean egas here to represent Bieaos. etsiete] 3, tobe. reésamos = Wivov] So ¥ (dp; but J writes eserema: seizes = Aefdvrwor] Cp. the use of yw in Hebrew. %, eeliasoix (= Elfenbein). Ivory is not mentioned elsewhere in N.T.; but in O.T., Psh. mostly expresses it as 8; Hxp. as ¥. But Psh. has eélios eae, Ezek. xxvii 6; and so Hxp., 3 Kin. x. 22 (with « before the second word), and similarly Ezek. xxvii. 15, in which two places ivory is spoken of in its unmannfactured state, as an article of import. 13, exax] So 3; cp. Cant, v. 16 (Psh. and Hxp.), Esth. i. 6 (Psh.). amuses] 3, asasas, os Exod. xxx. 23 (Psh.); Hxp. —Osertsordine. weiase] So %; and so Hkl., Mt. xxvi.7; also in Hxp.: not Psh. dual = XBavor] So Psh., Mt. ii. 11 (A. not else as a separate word in N.T.), where Hkl. transliterates airéaul, as ¥ hore. céaamum] So ¥; and so Psh. O.T., passin. 14, gore = 4 érdpa cov] 2, tage. ‘Ondpa not else in N. but $Oworwpud (Jud. 12) = amore sores (Poc., and Hk. similarly) in Psh. O.T. (not N.T.) tore occurs ; e.g. Deut. xxxiii. 13. &X3] Perhaps x is to be prefixed See note on Greek text. asax = 14 Napmpd] Seo note on xv.6. The word = occurs in Pah. only Phil. iv.8, = ebgnuos, where Hkl. uses another ptep. of same verb. rele . aan gstyd] In S only: see note on Greck text. 16, sitiwn = jpnudin] 3, civ; as S, xvii. 16 (where see note). For sts (usually = xevd), ep. 1 Cor. i. 17, Phil. ii. 7 (Psh. and Hl.). 17, eeahwe wisase La = was xvBepvirys] % transliteratos; as Peh. and Hkl., Act. xxvii. 11 (where alone x. recurs in N.'T.); also Hxp., Ezek. xxvii. 27 ;—all with variations of spelling. For the rendering of 8, op. Psh., 28am. vi.3, eble\ gsinsso; 2 Chr. viii. 18, cali arssse; Ezek. xxvii. 20, iu ios (also Hxp.): but a closer parallel is yieldedaL NOTES. xv 613. 6. Raia .... wariaa] See’ note on Live, xxii. 12. eqn (bis)] (i) 3, area. Both forms are recognized; seo Mt. xxiii. 15 (Psh. as S, Hkl. as 3). (ii) Note the full stop placed before the second ease, which separates it from the preceding verb, and leaves it to be connected with that which follows (verse 7). 7. a pas As = Soa] Rather ef’ dca or ef” Soov: 3, 1 eee, which is its rendering for éov, xxi. 16; and which usually = ég” Sov in Psh. and Hkl,—also in Poe. as well as Hkl., 2 Pet. i. 13. For the rendering here given by 8, ep. Mt. xviii. 18 (Psh.). See note on i. 2. ulsdiee = eorpyriace] Cp. auxdrere [sic], verso 9: ¥ has asthe= (= orpyndoa) here, and similarly in verse 9; for which ep. igo = srav xaraorpyridowsr, 1 Tim. v. 11 (Psh., similarly Hid), In Pah, (not TIAL) La dere occur 2 Thess id, Jamon i. 6,13, i. 55 but = different verbs. ee wets = rocodror] § renders as if rovbrov, and similasly a es ‘verse 16 (the only other instance of rogoiros in Apoc.); a so there, but here resco eala (more accurately). Psh. usually gives the third of these renderings or something equivalent, rarely the second ; ‘Hd. uses both, often combined : the first is not found in either. 8 haus] Correct hase. 9, axster’] Correct aalsher (see verse 7 and note). The reading of text would however make sense,—ep. 1 Cor. x. 7 (Psh. and Hkl.), Osshesal = railer. 10. Jann exo = dnd paxpébe] So again verse 15; but verse 17, sémwot ess. % in all these places gives the latter rendering of the phrase (which does not recur in Apoc.); and so Psh. and Hkl.: but in Psh. O.T. the former is to be found, eg. Sirac. xxi. 7; in Hxp. the latter. 11, Lomlsase = iv yduov abrév] So in next verse: in both; = has eas; and so Psh. and Hkl., Act. xxi. 3 (the only other instance of y. in N.T.), reserving eloase as = gopriov. 12. eieos....thinas = rysiov... rior] So 8 wherever ros occurs, (except xvii. 4, where see note): % uniformly uses ima, as does Hkl.: Psh. mostly as 8, where r. means precious,—(but as ¥ twice, Act. v. 84, Hebr. xiii. 4, where +. means Jonoured). So too 2 Pet. i. 4, ice. (Poc., not Hkl), where printed texts wrongly give wtman = ryids; but the reading is as above rectified in our Ms., and in two others, Oo. 1.17 of Cambridge Univ., and Suppl. 27 of Paris, of high authority : that of the 1xvm. 26, Not! 80 réwot La] Possibly twats La (navrds dpréov) is to be read here; as in ¥1: see De Diow’s note in Joe, See also note on Greek text. 3. 3 Rxyen] This seems to represent senérixe (with accus.); lit,, wenépare (with dat.),—ep. verse 6, iXeeh] So E [dp; 1, 7X], and so where the word recurs, verses 11, 15, 23 [each copy adhering to its spelling ; m as 2, verse 11,— defcit in the other places]. Sassen = 108 oxpivous abris] Lit, nfs pavias abris. So hake, = Mjpos, Lk. xxiv. 11 (Psh.). & gives the transliteration cals ptasilysor’a; see second note on verse 7 injr., and ep. easyer, 4 Kin. xix. 28 (Hxp.) = oxpivos [LXX], in which place the Hebrew word is XW. This suggests that waa is to be corrected rae (from eas, as }2Rv from Jv) taken in malam partem, “luxury” instead of “tranquillity.” ‘This sense is well established for the Hebrew word, but scoms unrecorded for the Syriac, Seo for sax, i, 4 and note. Infr., verses 7,9 (where see notes), oxpyd = a Ls rer (wrongly written zr in the latter verse). Hence another conjecture arises, that talsax (= dpvaypa, Jer. xii.5, Hxp.; see also heading of Ps. x, Peh.) may have been the rendering of 8, which may have passed, by a like shortening, into ease (= etrpanehia, Eph. v.4, Peh. and Hkl.), and thence into réssz. 4. GoX poo = e& airjs] %, caase. Except in the expressions oN c= (iv8, v1), 2 aN (zi 2), aS is not else found in 8; but in Peh, and Hkl. occurs with suffixes as here,—eg. Mt. xxiii. 26. So too Peh. (not Hxp.), Jer. li.45, which in this sentence $ repeats verbatim. tee ela = ba ph... ba pif] So E (with eerou, as usual, before the former). But $ om. a before esas, s0 us to make the latter of the two final clauses dependent on the former; and thus has reason for changing from r\ to esa: while % retains a, 60 as to make the two clauses parallel, and yet varies the rendering of va prj exactly as Thus in this verse we have clear evidence not only of the connexion of the versions, but of the dependence of % on S. ixo\jOnav] So ¥. ‘The Grock verb (not else in Apoc.), in Pah, and HK. is but once (Lk. x. 11) rendered as here, glad = 1d dSicfuara airs] Similarly 3. *A8tequa does not recur in Apoc.; else in N.T. only Avt. xviii. 14, xxiv. 20, in which places Hkl. renders as here; but not Psh., which however often uses elas. otherwise. Op. xxi. 8, xxii, 11.70 NOTES. xu, Ham. 2. 11, e¢agshe] An interpolation, probably of a gloss in marg., identi- fying the ‘‘beast” of this chapter with the “dragon” of xii. 3. Gadurea] After this word Sac, as in verse8, is apparently wanting. 12. plat....anms = Aafov....kazPdvove1] See note on v. 8. hat] Correct chaos. 13, eétasg = ydumy] So verse 17 (bis), and 90 % in both verses (the only instances of yv. in Apoc.). In Psh., erase, though frequent, is never rendered as here; in Hkl. thrice, Act. xx. 8, 1 Cor. i. 10, Philem. 14, (the Greek being written in marg. of the first of these places). 14. eégas = dSimjoa] Correct eats (= vumjoe), as ¥. ‘The Greck verbs are so similar as to suggest the surmise that the error may have been in the copy whence S is translated. But in S du is never rendered by eta (see notes on ii. 11, xi. 5); and it is doubtful whether és is over used in pa. Where it occurs in %, it is in aph, hotses wise] So xix. 16, where the same expression recurs; and so in both places ¥ [dp; but 1, etatse; x fiat]. So too Psh., 1 Tim, vi. 15; but Hkl as £7; also Hxp., Ps. oxxxy. [oxxxvi.] 2 [3], Dan, [LXX, not Theodot.] iv. 81 [34]. But Psh. uses stat. consér. without 3, in that Ps., and in Deut, x. 17, Ezek. xxvi. 7, xxxix. 17. reals wise] % gives here alser ealse, and so both versions, xix. 16;\and Peh. (not Hkl.), 1 Tim. vi. 15. But the Psh. .T. usage is as S$ here; as Ezr. vii. 12, Ezek. xxvi. 7 (as also Hxp.), Dan. ii, 37 (but Hxp. as 3). 16, sms = emaxéjovrar] I propose to correct earm (800 note on Greek text, and op. £), retaining the fem. form, though the following verb is masc. cthsis = jpnuaprny] So ¥ [d writes eaois, and so p prints rehsis; but De Dieu, sta]. Seo Tes 8, 20. iw. The Grock verb occurs else in Apoc. only xviii. 16,19. In the former place (where sev note), § renders by aim; in the latter, as here; and so % in both. Else in N.T., it is only found Mt. xii. 25, Lk. xi.17, and in both places is rendered in Psh. and Hk. by iw. 17, Gas] Read rather (with 2) seas, = Bune, as all Greek copies. XVIII. 2. eisnsse = xaroueyripor] So % [1 is misprinted by De Dieu, ehisse = omjAaiov}. So too both Peh. and Hkl., Eph, ii, 22 (the only other instance in N.TT. of either the Greck or the Syriac word). Cp. Jer. ix. 11 (Pah., and Hxp. with LXX).xem $8, NOTES. 78 plural: not so elsewhere in S (xviii. 12, 16); nor anywhere in ¥. In Psh. NT. it is usually singular (but see Mk. xv. 17, 20 [Widm.]); in Hkl. always; but pl. sometimes in Psh. O.T. and Hxp., as Dan. v. 7, 29. sea = Kexpuowptra] (i) 8, tacos = Kal xexpuowpery. See note on Greek text. (ii) Observe that, consistently with its reading, S places a stop (+) after ¢>m%>, and does not prefix > as © does to the following noun. For the verb, ep. Esai. xxx. 22 (Hxp.): not in Psh. msl, = riyiovs] 8 nowhere else (see note on xviii. 12) renders riuwos thus; nor does &, or Psh. N-T. or Hkl.: but Psh. 0.7. and Hxp., sometimes, us Ezek. xxviii. 13 (ep. Psh. there). &, ehtiause here, and throughout. chase] More correctly written ehoresal, (see next note: % gives aaa rel), In this and next note I assume that in the original of S, dxa8. stood before £8.; see note on Greek text; also on xvi. 13. ‘This word (once in Psh., = dxa@apola, Rom. i. 24) occurs nowhere else in S. But we find ecserely, xxi. 27 infr. (= xowds), and xxii. 15 (= xdar[?]): in Peh. it sometimes = dxd@apros, sometimes xowds. eéniaw = PSedvyparos] So again in noxt verse (5); in xxi. 27, where alone £8. recurs in Apoc., $ has ehanssise, In verso 5, ¥ agrees with $; but here, and xxi. 27, it has eharese, (sing. or pl.). Again, xxi. 8, both versions render ¢B8evypévos (verb only there in Apoc.) by réaumso. In N.T. ABdvypa occurs else only Mt. xxiv. 15, Mk. xiii. 14, Lk. xvi. 15, in all which places other renderings are used in Psh., and in HAL; also in Hxp., as well as Psh., Dan. ix. 27, xi. 31, xii.11; but in 1 Mace, i. 54 (Psh.), it = ehortsal,. In Psh. N.T., also Hkl., atom, fhanssose, are nowhere found: but the former in O.T., 2 Mace. vi. 5 (Psh., = ?); the latter in Hxp., 1 [3] Esdr. viii. 80 [= podvopés, LXX]. But nssase = xowds sometimes in Psh. and often in Hkl.; and so = ows usually in both. 6. Aksordl] This word seems to have undergone correction, prima mans. The syllable 2) (sic in Ms.] is in paler ink than the root letters, and 40 is the final &, which moreover stands out in the margin. 8. eésas] Op. xi. 7, and note. réxiee As wisas] Note the stat. constr. followed by redundant prep., as in xiv. 3, where see note: see also note on iii. 10. eign] Seo note on iii. 5,7 NOTES. aw, 6m. 4. (the only other instance of dex. in N.T.); also Hxp., Deut. xxiii. 13 (see Thes. 8., 2.v.). % uses easias, a word not found in Peh. N.T.,—but in O.T., Exod. xx. 26 (Psh. and Hxp.), where LXX has dox. Possibly S read aioysvqy (se note on Greck text). 16. asXzo] In both Psh. and Hxp., = 193) or 1172) wherever it oceurs. Seo e.g., 1[3] Kin, ix. 15, where LXX [or Theodot. 7] has pays, elsewhere mostly paye’[S]}iv. 17. eocp] 3, See. In our Ms., the final letter alone is legible. 18. eéxor.... esa] Soe note on vi. 12. obearcs = clos] 2) a sttard wyuréas. The word ofos is not else found in Apoc.; but in Peh. is rendered\as by 8, Mk. xiii. 19 (where Hk. renders nearly as 3); also Exod. ix. 24 (where ep. Hxp.). 19. Bignde’ = eunjo7] SoZ: a rare use of this form in passive senso: rare also of the Greek verb; but for it op. Act. x.31, Ezek. xviii. 22, 24, (LXX). In the latter place, Psh. and Hxp. render as here ; in the former, Psh. and Hkl. avoid so doing. 21. sian ved] % weasinn a1, =\cdé8pa] So Psh.\ always; not else in Apoc.: , Sep, as HKl. and Hxp. XVIL 1. sis wh] Cp. xxi. 9, where Seipo recurs, = ech simply ; and so % in both places, as in Psh. and Hkl., Job. xi. 43, &e.: but wis wh (Psh., not Hkl.) = Seipo dxodotde por, Mt. xix. 21, &e. 3. star’ = dmjveyeé ye] ¥, aatser’; as both versions, xxi. 10 (the only other instance of the Greek verb in Apoc.); and so both render dndya, xiti, 10 (where see note). In Psh., are often occurs, but never = dwodépe, which Peh. and HEl. render as %. cchamase = xéeewor] So ¥; but in next verse, both (with Psh. and Hkl,) render x. by esta, as also where it recurs, xviii. 12, 16; moreover, both make rénseam = muppés, vi. 4. ‘These instances of exact agreement in variation of rendering are clear marks of the affinity between S and X. The reason of varying is, no doubt, that Ss seems proper to denote the colour of an animal; ¥, that of a garment. But probably x., as here applied to the beast, signifies that it was covered with scarlet érappings. 4. eam dure] Note that 8 writes duc here without suffix, and e. c= abun = 4ofjOyre] It is remarkable that £ instead of this Jiteral rendering gives \ awala; rather = Aarpeioare (as mostly in Peh. and nearly always in Hkl.). ‘The use of ala = darpetw is implied in tho rendering (S and &) of «iwAoddzpns (xxi. 8); but where the verb occurs (vii. 15, where see note; xxii. 8) both render it by x>ax. 8. ‘The two points (..) placed at end of this verse seem to be # noto of admiration (!). So again xv. 4, after etaisa. Cp. Xp, xix. 10, xx 10. ele rela = depdrov] ¥ transliterates, _alyieré (not 80 Hyp; ep. pll., Ps, Ixxiv [Ixxv]. 8). The verb Aw is not found in S: but once in 3, xv. 2 (see note on viii.7). In Hkl, eeXLw = plyua, Joh. xix. 39: it does not ocur in Psh. N.'T.; but in O.T., Levit. xix. 19. 11. ams] Perhaps to be read as fut.; 90 3, aos [dp; but J writes sami, and n is unpointed]. See Tics. 8., 3.0. rézeeas] See note on iv. 8: the word occurs in Psh. N.T. only Phil. ii. 28 os if = ddvmia: in Hxp. = dvdyutis. 18, Ossi Locassal, = pandpwor of vexpof] So always in S KNOTES. 72. 16. résize] Seo note on Greck text. Probably we ought to correct réiréw, as xix. 18. Seo also note on vi. 15, and compare ¥ here. xépayya] So S and & throughout. In LXX, x. never occurs; in N.'T., else only Act. xvii. 20: but neither there nor elsewhere is réazoi used in Psh. N.T. or Hkl.; nor (apparently) in Poh. 0.7 or Hxp. 17. gpis of e545] Note that 8 omits to render Svyray, 0 that these two futures must be taken to represent dyopara: and muhyoat read not as infinitives but as optatives % supplies the missing verb (régsehs), and retains these futures; but (contrary to its usage elsewhere) neglects to prefix to them 3, thereby making its translation almost un- grammatical, and (as it seems) betraying its dependence on 8. woals duns = 6 gor] Here As dur replaces the usual S dure. This form of the idiom recurs in S, xiv. 1, 17, xv. 1, 2,6, xvii 1, xx. 1, xxi. 9,15; and seems to be used where éyw means gero,—to hold” or (as here) “to wear”. Seo note on xiv. 6; and ep. Mt. xvi. 7 (Psh.). Elsowhere, La. dune = “ offcium alicujus eat” (Thes. S., 2.0. dare). 18. cas dures] Another variation of idiom; oa for aal. s. See note on iv. 11; also note on Greok text here. 12, saiss] Correct, sa: ss. 14. Jax axlac cuisi .a2] Verbatim from Psh., Dan. vii. 25. es closely with Hxp. of samo, using emphat. for absol. forms of Psh.; while retaining the consir. boxe, but not a=. See vi. 11 supr. 15. ths = éricw] So xiii. 3: but ims, i 10 (the only other instance of daicw in Apoc.), as Psh. and Hkl.; and so % in all threo places. etaSs Rhine = rorapopspyroy] 3, eins oo Alags, where the insorted coo is redundant after the constr. ptep. ‘This looks as if the unusual XLaas had been borrowed by ¥ from S.wa eau. 7 NOTES. 68 18, Lisa] Observe stat. consir., here and xix. 5 as Ps. Ixi.5 [Ix.6](Psh! and Hxp.); Mal. iv. 2(Psh.; not Hxp.): not so %. Dele the point under sLia. . 19, relasea] After this word (where it first occurs in this verse) eccaleen (as in % and all else) is to be supplied, to account for als (= airod) following. But the omission may have been in the Greck, ethos] % writes whasra; 20 Peh, O.T., or hans; N.T. the latter, but 1 Pet. iii. 20, thanao. Hkl. the last, or as 3. ssesrthus] Rather snudecaa, as HkI writes, and Psh. O.T. sometimes. is doubtful; n writing poketaa; dp, etoudun; 1, toda. Poh. and Hxp. vary; chiefly between the two last. See p. 31 eupr., line 1, where our scribe writes etasdwean. etiai] Correct esas. XID. 1 = dxav6av] Correct eéasdas. Note that £1, by like error, writes ada, with > interlined above and below tho third letter. 2 es¥5 = & yaorpt Sousa] Similarly Psh. (0. and N. T:) throughout: % renders literally, as Hkl. always; elso Hxp. Seo e.g. Mt i.18; Gen. xvi. 4. relaisoo = d8ivovca] ¥, elas [dp; n is unpointed; 1, claw wrongly] ’28wé recurs in N.T. only Gal. iv. 19, 27, (Psh. as 8, pa: Hkl. as %, pe.). In O.T., Pah. and Phx. uso pa. in this sense; Hxp. varies. Sco Isai, xxiti. 4, xlv. 10, liv. 1 (= Gal. iv. 27). 3. ethi.yee] Dele point under this word,—a typographical error. e for _om\, .= being usual after iax. 18. etims ps0 aw = 7b Séxaroy] So ¥; a noteworthy coincidence, inasmuch as in neither version does this method of expressing a fractional part recur. In both versions, exsoi = 7é réraproy, vi. 8, ehloh = 1 spirov, viii. 7 et passim, thus warranting us in expecting esoims. here (as Exod. xxix. 40, &¢., Psh. and Hxp.). But Barsal., on viii. 7, reads aNd go enw, Like forms occur in Psh. and Hxp., as Ezek. v. 2. aX eastze] Probably x is to be prefixed to the latter word, and @ removed from before the former. See note on Grock text. 14, eéoo abet a0 psth eo] Rather am ema Ayre so paiths oc. echt] Correct reid, with 3. 15. Jelena] The former prefix is probably a scribe's error. 16. Read god, and .isecsa\; the points being inaccurately printed. 17. jx> dams] The -> hero seems superfluous, and can hardly be supposed to represent a prep. in the Greek, of which there is no evidence. Possibly its uso is idiomatic, as rato ms = mpoowmodyars, % has \ for >. 12me E10, NOTES. 66 exception) in §, and rarely (never as = d8:xd) in Psh. N.T.; but some- times in Psh. 0. and in Hxp. For tcore = d8:xé, cp. ii. 11 and note there. 6. ass = Bpéxy] Lit, xaraBaivg: %, sas. wasasuss] Correct, Jamonsn (= nardfai), So 3, etasesel. ‘The reading of text = rawewoas (a8 Phil. ii. 8, Psh. and Hkl.), which would be unmeaning and is unsupported. x eésua] This is the Psh. and Hkl. rendering of 24° doo», Mt. ix. 15, &c.; also Poo. and Hkl., 2 Pot. i.18: but all authorities read. here dednis éév, which % renders exactly, .e¢s eaair esas. Else, éodns éév occurs in N.T. only 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26, where Psh. and Hkl. render x dso La. T. alms =redéowo] ¥, asales, § usually rendors red thus ( to fulfil); but by wz, x.7, xx.7, (to complete): ¥ (inconsistently), by alsax, xv. 8, xvii. 17, xx.7; elsewhere by mlz. Psh. mostly has aly. = red: but once (Lk. xii. 50) slsax (with the meaning of to fulfil): and so Hkl. more frequently. réxa] Tho Greck has rs éBieoov. Elsewhere S uses each (as & always); excopt xvii. 8, whero, as hore, the ascent of “the beast” (cp. xiii. 1; also Dan. vii. 3) is spoken of. 8. nak = rév wharedy] So S whore wh. recurs (xxi. 21, xxii. 2); as also Psh.: % uniformly esha etaax; which is also found in Hkl., Act. v.15; again in margin of same, Lk. x. 10, as explanatory of halla, the Hkl. rendoring there and elsewhere of wharcia. In Psh., taax also = piun, Mt. vi.2, to which meaning Hkl restricts it. ‘This accounts for the addition of eéadha (= “broad”), to distinguish marcia. <] The point under this word is not quite accurately placed in the printed text: correct al Wore. 9. The marks (':) under two words in this verse are placed by the seribe to indicate that they are to be transposed. dughdu = cfparOjvorra:] So again, where ebppatrowat recurs, xii. 12, xviii. 20. 5 gives asumsas here; and in the other two places, ethpe. (or ethpa.) of the same verb. Pah. renders this verb as ¥ does (pa. only Lk. xv. 82); Hkl. likewise always, and so Phx. and Hxp., Esai. xlv. 8, xlix. 13. In Psh. 0.77, sg-sdve occurs sometimes, used as here; in Peh. N.T. (not Hkl.), only (= fjrow) Gal. iv. 27 (= Isai. liv. 1, Psh. ; not Hxp.); also Phx. (as well as Psh.; not Hxp.), Esai. xlix. 13 (= feu). Sco infr., xix. 7, where S (not 3) makes it = dyad.65 NOTES. noms to be connected with Le (above), and if 90 is = [ny] eB8éyny. But a “seventh voice,” after “the seven thunders uttered their voices,” is unmeaning. As the Syr. stands, we must rather understand “from the seventh heaven.” Seo note on Greek text. 5. dats] I supply the point, the word being partly effaced in Ms. sézas = rjs vis] So Psh., Lk. v. 3; where Hkl. has the usual etxir’, as ¥ here. But exo. = Eypd, Mt. xxiii, 15 (Psh. and HkL.). 6 céssax] Note that this word is here fem., which is exceptional ; 0 again xxi. 1 (bis), though not else in 8. In these three places, the material heavens are denoted. The usage of Psh. (not of Hkl.) is the samo; see (¢g.) Mt. xvi.2. In % (se De Dieu in loc.), it is fom. here only [n as well as 7; not dp], not xxi. 1 {n there defecit]. 7. re] Correct rere. LL. papi... ah ayes = 8c ce] Seo note on iv. 1. XL 1. wages =\yérpaor] So 8 uniformly, as also 8. Peb. in N.T. uses the aph. and effp. of Sas for werpé, and makes axso = xpiw or aXeigo: but in O.T, sometimes as here; eg., the pll., Ezek. x1.5 (also Hxp.)- Hil. mostly as Peh. N.T.: but renders perp by pa. of verb here used, 2 Cor. x.12, whore Psh. om, But both Psh. and Hkl. have whworse = pézpov, Rom. xii.3; 2 Cor. x. 13, and elsewhere (as § and &, xxi. 15, 17); but sometimes also lis, hls. 4, Gase....cehin] The uso of stat. absol. here, where % uses emph., seems to indicate that S read édala, Xuyviat, without art. See note on Greek text, and cp. i. 12 and note on _$ase there; for cada (in Psh. N.T. always emphat.), op. tho pll., Zech. iv. 8, 11, (Psh.). Bea eat 3 ¢50] Note these two varied renderings of ef rus in two consecutive sentences. But probably the latter represents Soris,— see note on iii. 20,—also note on Greek text here; and cp. xiii. 10. ré5g +++. e¢a5] Note also these varied renderings for dw. % has réae in both places, and throughout: S everywhere except this one place. In Psh., ety is usual, especially in this phrase reogx 205 and ras = Gédw is rare, but occurs Act. xxiv. 6, 1 Tim. v.11 (in which places Hkl. has rag). So too, ream = Oéw (but Cod. A reads here *Boudsj0ny), 8 Joh. 15 (Poc., where Hkl. has eg). But 2Joh.12, exo = Bothouat (Poe. and Hkl.). Yeagdin = dBujoas (bis)] 2, anasad (bie; also ix. 19, where 8 om.) from a verb which is not found (see note on xvii, 14 in/r. for a seeming 1re Toa. 4. NOTES. 4 See notes, here and xxi. 19, on Greck text. In Psh. (not Hxp.) we find részate, Exod. xxviii. 19, Ezek. xxviii. 13; but in neither case can it be satisfactorily identified with its Greck equivalent in LXX, the order of the stones named being different in LXX and Hebrew. 18. Las] Stat. absol.; s0 xi. 6, xv. 6, 8—the pl. noun in these places following © cardinal number; and so Jer. xv. 3 (Psh.). In other cases $ uses emph., as % always; and likewise Psh, N.'T. and Hkl. 20. Lacaster’ 2] ¥ uses here slat. emph. followed by x. Psh. N.'T., where the expression recurs, renders as 3, Hebr. 8, vill. as 8, Hebr. i. 10 (= Ps. cii. 26, [ei. 26]), and Act. vii. 41 (= Jer. 1.16): but Psh. 0.T. as 8 in the plls. [in Ps, viii., editions vary]; Hkl. and Hxp. as 3. Cp. Act. xvii. 24 (Psh., not Hxp.). ais = ri Saydna] § renders by wack, xvi. 14, xviii. 2; but may perhaps in these places have read Saydvuy for—ovlev. Neither word occurs else in Apoc. always has waa; as also Hkl. Psh. uses both words indiscriminately, but prefers 3. eétmsal] Supply Gegse = Svvavra:, as in E. 21. Lomazin = rév dappaxeidy airiv] So ¥ here; and so § in the other instance of the Greek word in Apoc. xviii. 23. ‘There, % uses haxiw,—as do Psh. and Hkl., Gal. v. 20 (the only other place where dappaxea occurs in N.T.); and so Phx. and Hxp., Esai. xlvii. 9; but Pch. etztw, Again, Psh. (not HEI.) has ei and réxiis = pdyos, xiii, 6,8. Note that for gappaxot (xxi. 8, xxii. 15) both $ and ¥ have rztis (so pointed in S),—ie. ezis, distinguished from or xix, the word here used. For the latter, cp. 2[4] Kin. ix. 22 (Psh., and Hxp. = ¢dppaxa, LXX). X. 1 dwar] E, davis. wots = 13 mpéowzor abroi] Seo notes on iv.3 and 7. In Peh. and HEL, eet never = péownor: once (Lk. ix. 29) = elBos in both. efisaX_ = dvépanes] Correct esasad (80 2), = orvhor which is tho unquestioned reading of the Greok. 5 3. dmXq = puxdrai] So. Not in Psh. or Hkl.; but in Hxp. 4, duow neko = tuedhor] Lit, jroacpéros fv, or Froipatoy, as viii. 6, ix.7, &e.; also Mt. ifi. 8, &c., (Psh. and Hkl.). Elsewhere in 8 pédo = suds: in ¥ and in Hid. always; in Psh. usuelly. reamza asax eso = ék 108 odpavoi roi éB8épov] No other authority supports S in inserting soa here. Possibly it is meantAd NOTES. maT. réarclso] Correct also. esas] So &; ie., “Bondage”; in Psh., only ethosas. (emphat.) is used. The translator has mistaken the root sas for sor; seo stator, xvii. 8 (S and 2). cciz .... durcsoire] Instead of translating the words & rf ‘EXqnaj ... - ‘Awodwv (note the reading), S substitutes “in the Syriac, Looser.” So lat. vg. adds, “et latine habet nomen Ezterminans.” For etx, cp. siz = Moov, verse 14; in Peh, and Hkl. it commonly = Mio, drodtw (eg. Mt. i.19, v.19). ¥ (like A.V.) transliterates, orealaaee [n], alas [dZp]. Barsal., in Joc., attaches to this word the marginal note ri are resznase art mitsaxse ew; = “Sender-forth, or Destroyer, or Looser,—the first and third relating to"AqoA¥wv, the second to”AmohAvar. 12, Note that S$ divides by + after 10 gsi (= 30 obi), 50 a8 to make a new paragraph begin with ele ids, omitting the © before séarclso. This is probably a scribe’s error; for our translator's usage is to write do «20 at the beginning of a sontonce ; see note on iv. 1. 14, eéadudx] In verse before, ius, which is the usual mode in S of expressing the ordinal; see note on ii. 11. 16. eeholiis] = orpareyndray] So xix. 14; but xix. 19 (bis), eile {also interpolating ehaluis, see note in loc.). % gives tisha here, and echaiile in the other places. eéxiaa = roi inmxod] Lit., rav iwméwr, as Act. xxiii. 23, 32, (Psh. and HkL.). , more exactly, ehaziaa; as Hxp., Hab. iii. 9[8], = treacle, 17, dure... . capdiiske = Kal rods xaOqpévous ... . Exovras] S om. the opening words of the verse, kat obras eBoy rods trwous & ri) Spdoret (which would be eorus réeai dud eéiacoe), and thus eaodisl (the transitive verb of which it is the object having disappeared) is left to dopend on dur, and the Syr. literally represents kal of kafynévos .... Exovres or Exovat. See note on Greek text. rian = rupivovs] So Psh., Ezek. xxviii, 14, whore LXX has srpivav, and Hxp. renders by etasias (adjective), as ¥ here. Op. xii. 3. etizsine] Lit., xal xapy78éva. The word recurs xxi.19 = yadenBdv (or xapxn8dv); but here is presumably = Sdxwéos, though that word is represented, xxi. 20, by the transliteration sod1004 (similarly X in both places). § as it stands represents an unsupported reading Kal tdxwOov Geus8n (for Kai saxwBivovs xat Beus3es); but is probably to be amended into conformity with the Greek by writing @ for 1 before fhutasa.au ore 1. NOTES, we that “a more ancient translation existed” from which ¥ “ was interpo- lated,” and that the right rendering in xix. “ may be referred to the more ancient version.” This acute conjecture is now verified by the discovery of S, and the facts as stated above confirm the opinion that it is prior to 3. It would of course be more accurate to say that is based on S, rather than “interpolated from” it. IX. 2. EXQresex = xawopérys] So ¥: but elsewhere both versions make sa = xalowat, as Psh. N.T, and Hkl. usually; and ix. occurs nowhere else in 8 or 3, or in Psh. N.T., or (at least as = xaiw) in Hkl. In O.T. (Psh. and Hxp.) it is found, though not often; eg., Ezek. xxiv. 5, Dan. iii.19. ‘The coincidence here between § and & is specially notable in a word so little used. 5. tai = Bacanopss (bi8)] In all the six places where 8. (not else in N.T.) occurs in Apoc., S renders thus, or (xviii. 7, 15) by the cognate rénsax. % mostly agrees, except xviii. 7, where it has elsax. In Poh. and HkL., tasred = = kédaois (Mt. xxv. 46). But sénsax is not found in Psh. . 4, however [Poe., and Hkl. with ©], it seems intended as = xddagis. The verb az uniformly renders facavite in S$ and ¥, as in this verse; and so in Poc. and Hk1., and (with one exception) in Psh. N.T. T. hares wore ....cthasma = 73 Spolopa.... Suovor (or Spore, or y0101)] See note\on Greek text. & ins. cases before the last two words, thus rendering the last word twice over,—first in its own usual manner, then in that of S (see note on i. 18). This is a clear case of conflation, and evidently in the Syriac, not in the Greek original; the latter member of the conflate text being derived from S. Hence again we infer that % is dependent on S. eézai] In S and & always = temo: but etamas = frnos. eteare.... e¢lils] Rather perhaps, teste... ells. Cp. viii. 9, and see the like instances in verses 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, infr. 10, gst] An obelus is sot before this word, as iv.4. See note on ii. 5. e¢hssios (bi8)] For the regular ehaios, and so verse 19: so , in both verses. The agreement in this anomalous and rare form, recorded else only in Psh. (not Hxp.), Judg. xv. 4, cannot be casual. 11. Jecals dur = exovew én’ adrév] %, more accurately ins. ~oca\ between theso words. The use of Ss after dur hore is different from that noted on xiii. 17.ol NOTES. an, 18. in Apoc. (x. 10), 8 uses the pe. (instead of ethpalp.) of the same verb; as does % in both places. In the only other instance of it in N.T., Col. iii. 19, Hk. (not Peh.) renders as $ here; and both Psh. and Hkl. use the same form = wapofivopas, Act. xvii. 16. Its aph. = muxpaive, x.9(S and 3). 12. sts = érdjyy] So ¥, but in neither does «15 recur but once, xii. 16, = xaramivw, of which it is the invariable equivalent in Psh. N.T. and HL, and similarly in Psh. O.T. and Hxp. 1t = 8épouat, Lk. xii. 47, 48, (Psh. and Hkl.); also Mk. xiii. 9 (Hkl. only); and in Psh. (not Hkl.) is used in like sense, 2 Cor. xi. 24, See also Lk. xxii. 51, where Psh. has abos oss, = 108 whr7yérr0s, with one Greck ms. Barsal. writes ethp. here. iy cA ettease ._ombloh asewe = Kal doxorleOyoay 73 rplrov airy’ xal + tudpa obx &awe] The reading here followed by 8 is prac- tically identical with one which has some small Greek support (vee noto on Greck text), and is consistent, & reads wean which is the usual reading); but then ‘proceeds [/7] . aenlar e¢hloo Yeats ech eeseas case (= 13 rplrov abrdy” xal doxorleOnoar’ 4 Hukpa #4 Gary [or, ob davet]), which is unintelligible. In d there is an attempt to mend the broken connexion by reading (for the last four words) fens tls esas 0 [similarly p], = cal doxoricOy 4 iydpa va #4) dv. This is an\ evident conflation: in its crude form in Jn; ad- justed into meaning in the later texts, d p; therefore most probably pertaining to the Syriac of 3, not to its Greck original. If so, it is evidence of the posteriority of % to S, whence the second member of the conflation appears to be borrowed, for aazw (pl.) has no other authority. 13. etasaxs] This may be merely a loose rendering of é& pecov- pavrjpart, which S renders exactly by eéasax dagso (without prefix) in the other two places where it oceurs (xiv. 6, xix. 17). So ¥ (but with prefix) in the third only of these places. Its monstrous misrendering in the first and second is well known; oad dure evens easoss rh, here (= & péow otpav alyars éovra), in xiv. 6 (where éxovra follows) eal dun reass etamaes (= & obparg, aipani exovra). Perhaps the translator of © had before him a Grock copy reading hore (as ® reads, xiv. 6), epeowouparnpare Above, Part I, Dissertation, p. xxii, I have mentioned the remarkable forecast of J. D. Michaelis (Introd, to W.T., u, pt. i, ch. vii, s. 10 [Marsh]), who, noticing the fact that the wrong rendering of ¥ in this verse is not repeated in ch. xix [he erroneously says xiv], accounts for it by supposingvm. 611, ‘NOTES. "6 renders cadwitw by a1 (aph., hore and verses 7, 13 only; pe., verse 8 and the rest) throughout: % by ass, with Hxp., Num. x. 6 (so Psh. there), and also Hkl. in the two places where o. occurs in N.T. outside Apoc. (Mt. vi. 2, 1 Cor. xv. 52). Psh. (N-T.) uses neither verb as = cadwilw, but has aaa = dvaxpdlo (Lk. iv. 88, pe.), = xpd (ib. 41, aph.). Hkl. makes it (aph.) = prjoow, Gal. iv. 27, = Esai, liv.1 (where in Hxp. it = Bod [LXX]. It is mostly used of the human voice, but also of the trumpet, Ephr. iii, 209 (Thes. 8., 2.0.). Cp. Lnasr5a, xviii. 22, and note there. T. qatehs = peurypéra] So xv.2, tho only other instance of wiyrupe in Apoe. & renders as S here, but Mu in the second place, as Psh. and Hkl. where p. ocours (Mt. xxvii. 34, Lk, xifi. 1); and 90 Barsal. cites it here. Seo for the latter word, note on xiv. 10, In Peh. N.T., 3 es i is not found; in Hkl., only its ptep. pa. (= roixidos). In Psh. O.T.\ and Hxp., this ptep. peil is rare (but se Levit. xix. 19, Psh.); and except as above, the verb is not recorded as = to mix. etatas = & Sari] SoS In; Ed, easazs; Ep alone ems, possibly a conjectural correction of the editor’s—to suit the Greek alan, which all other authorities (soo note on Greek text) exhibit. However, I find eax also in Barsal., in loe. Here then is another very notable instance of agreement of S and 3— this timo as to text (not rendering)—against all else. c¢ams = xépros] So ix. 4 (the only other instance of xépros in Apoc.), and so Psh. frequently; but = xépros xkwpés, Mk. vi. 39, which perhaps is what S here intends,—elso, xdupés is omitted (see note on Greek text). & gives etssas here and ix. 4, as Hl, always for xépros (in the sense of grass). So Hxp., and Psh. now and then. 9, réduis Las] So = ins. alas [in / with #]: all else give tay kropdrav without wdvrav. Here the # can only (as it seems) refer to wdvrav, and therefore to S; thus attesting its priority. eas dura] Note the use of > for \ here, and xiii, 18. r throughout, cali (fer)] Sn writes this word throughout without the third point (see on vi.15). Where it frst occurs in this verse, Sn subjoins eésad, with 2; and om. same word from end of verse 8 (see note on Greek text). 7. Note that Sn om. the clause concerning Levi, but a later hand has supplied it on marg. $ misplaces it, after instead of before Issachar. ‘This looks as if the common source of $ and Sn did not contain the clause. 9, gsihs] Correct by prefixing o,—accidentally omitted in printing. earissals = by dpiduijoa abréy] Lit., of els dpOudy: equivalent to maisasals of %, which perhaps ought to be substituted in 8. ~aSere] So xiv. 6; but the emph, pl. ethasor is found, v.9 and elsewhere. % always uses the latter, as doos Psh. (N.T.). ‘The sing. chsnore occurs in ¥ (dlp; not n]; but 8 avoids it, as does Psh. (N.'T.). Psh. (0.T.) uses all these forms (¢.g., both pl. absol. and sing:, Gen. xxv.23). 13. rag. = deexpiOn] *Amoxpivowat (not else in Apoc.) is here rendered by 3, 18, which is the regular Hk. equivalent for it: Psh., habitually uses that of S; the other seldom. 14, For ase (a typographical error), correct wise. allay =érhwar] Tie also is not else found in Apoe. [except the doubtful instance, xxii. 14 (not in $ or %)]; and in N.T. else only Lk. v.2, = Nweee (which else = vémrw in both), Psh. and Hkl., as 3 here. But ALi occurs in this sense in Psh. O.T., (not N.T.), and in Hxp. (¢g., ‘Num. xix.7)= hive. In aph. it occurs, Mt. xii. 5, = BeBna (Peh.). 15, qazsaise = darpevovew] So xxii. 3 (the only other instance of 2. in Apoe.), and so ¥ in both places. The Syr. verb rather = Siaxovd, Samper: while Narpedo = wa uniformly in Hkl., and mostly in Psh. (but = 2-0¢, Rom.i.9, 25, 2 Tim.i.3; and so Num. xvi.9, as also Hxp.): but in Hebrews, Psh. usually, and Hkl. twice, render it as S here. Note that the point over has been accidentally omitted in printing.oT NOTES. vw how. 2. of & [n defit] give a2.%, xix.18, but vary here [Jn, ase.t; dp, 22.8 as 8]. It is remarkable that Psh. N-T. always renders patwlua ; but HEL. once (Mk. vi. 21), tale aoed. cca] 8 always thus, or absol. (as vii. 4, &c.): © mostly eeaalie (= xaud8es); and so Hkl., but Psh. as 8. Noto the triple pointing here and elsowhero (except v. U1, vii. 4, xiv. 1, xxi 16) for both forms. echalas = ai Surdyeis] ¥ has eesdbais = of loxupoi (or of Svvarot), which perhaps we ought to substitute here. etireéss 125 = [wis] eevPepos] So ¥ (but in sing.). In Apoe., €, recurs xiii, 16, xix. 18; where % renders as here. In the former place, 8 follows a different reading (sce note in loc.); in the latter, has eirew simply. Peh, uses both renderings: Hkl, always as , except Rom. vi. 20 (et%iaze ; a8 also Psh., there and in some other places). 17. sgese = Sivarai] So again xiii. 4; elsewhere ese, mesodee, as here and throughout. Psh. often as $ here. VIL. 1. For this and the following seven verses, we have a second authority, a copy of which I append to the preceding text (page 35 supr.). In the notes on verses 1-8, I distinguish it as céxco] Sn subjoins x4; and for caarclse reads tarclon. ehser = ris yovias] So in the other place where y. occurs in Apoc., xx. 8. % has cak&ssd in both; and so Hkl., Mt. vi. 5, but elec always uses eéasaX_(absol). Psh. renders as § commonly in O.'T., and in NT. (except Act. iv. 11, xvi. 26); never as ¥: but Hxp. as Hkl. réwot basil] (Op. Mt. xxiv. 31, Psh.). Sn, 7 ssire\, as 3. Thus Sn and ¥ make rtwot (= dvepos) fem. (see above on vi. 18); yet, just after, join it, as S does, with the mase. verb 2s. chee] Sa, aaliw; 8, calie. This noun is not found in stat. abeol. in Psh. N.T.; but in O.T.—e.g., Gen. i. 29. 2, alms = dvaBaivovra] Though partly effaced in 8, this word is 20 far legible that there is no doubt of its letters: but the position of ‘the point is uncertain (seo the autotype Plate), and I therefore insert brackets. In Sn, the point is clearly placed under, as I have printed it. ‘Thus read, the word may represent either pres. or aor. ptep. (see note on Greck text): with the point above, the pres. only. For the former pointing = pres. ptep., ep. x.1; for the latter, xi. 7, xiii. 11. & [inp] reads alsa; [so d, but without point: De Dieu misprints o for a]. sézznz 11250] So in the other instance of this phrase, xvi. 12 #vias. NOTES. 56 occurs, and in each of the other two he supplies vowels. Wo find weopés else only xi. 18 (bia), and (a second time) xvi. 18, in which three places 8 (inconsistently) renders wés.ox (= motion); and so & here [dnp; 1 writes eésex by error], and throughout: likewise Psh. and Hkl, uniformly. ctor] For etm (op. tviasm, i.11). But ator = doxds (Mt. ix. 17, &e., Psh. and HkL), which possibly $ may have read for odxkos. 18, wane = Bédovea] So ¥; a remarkable agreement, seeing that elsewhere both always make reset, s=vie = BédAw,—except that 8 has eézx again, xviii, 21. Both use it (ethpe.) in superscription, g.». It is found in Psh.; also (rarely) in Hkl. éassaia] So %; and eo Psh. in the pll., Ieai. xxxiv. 4 (not Hxp.). twat = dviyov] Note that eéwei here is fem., in both versions; but mase. in vii. 1, where also it = dveyos. In Psh. it is always fem. in this sense; in Hkl. it varies, as in S and 3. In all, it is fem. when = mveipa, except (as ii. 7 supr.), where the Holy Ghost is spoken of. rthszs] So the Ms. apparently; but a fine vertical line is inserted (prima manu) before , correcting the word into hises. Here, it = péyas: but S makes ears. = loxvpés in two of the places where that adj. occurs in Apoc., xviii. 10, xix. 18. Not so % (which has e

Você também pode gostar

• O Livro de Enoque

  

  Documento171 páginas

  O Livro de Enoque

  acrioca

  82% (11)
• Depressão Na Infância e Adolescência

  

  Documento1 página

  Depressão Na Infância e Adolescência

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Origem e Funções do Diaconato

  

  Documento6 páginas

  Origem e Funções do Diaconato

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• • Revistas
  • Podcasts
  • Partituras
• Vaticano e o Pedestal de Maria

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Vaticano e o Pedestal de Maria

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Dons Espirituais

  

  Documento80 páginas

  Dons Espirituais

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Sola Scriptura - Resposta Às Objeções

  

  Documento4 páginas

  Sola Scriptura - Resposta Às Objeções

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Transubstanciação: Uma análise crítica deste dogma católico

  

  Documento10 páginas

  Transubstanciação: Uma análise crítica deste dogma católico

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  0% (1)
• Veracidade Absoluta Da Bíblia

  

  Documento1 página

  Veracidade Absoluta Da Bíblia

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Vaticano e o Nazismo

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Vaticano e o Nazismo

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Sincretismo Religioso

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Sincretismo Religioso

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Apócrifos - o Testemunho Dos Pais Da Igreja Contra Os Apócrifos

  

  Documento4 páginas

  Apócrifos - o Testemunho Dos Pais Da Igreja Contra Os Apócrifos

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Unidade Protestante

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Unidade Protestante

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Santos católicos sem história real

  

  Documento1 página

  Santos católicos sem história real

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• As Setenta Semanas de Daniel: Uma análise da profecia e suas interpretações

  

  Documento24 páginas

  As Setenta Semanas de Daniel: Uma análise da profecia e suas interpretações

  Célio Menezes Rodrigues

  Ainda não há avaliações
• A Criminalidade No Vaticano

  

  Documento4 páginas

  A Criminalidade No Vaticano

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• E A Tradição, É Confiável?

  

  Documento5 páginas

  E A Tradição, É Confiável?

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Corpus Christi - Qual A Origem Desta Festa? Por Natanael Rinaldi

  

  Documento3 páginas

  Corpus Christi - Qual A Origem Desta Festa? Por Natanael Rinaldi

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Yo Gi Oh. o Baralho Do Demônio

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Yo Gi Oh. o Baralho Do Demônio

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Daniel's 70th Week

  

  Documento16 páginas

  Daniel's 70th Week

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Os Setenta Anos de Daniel 9 - 2 - Planeta Preterist PDF

  

  Documento7 páginas

  Os Setenta Anos de Daniel 9 - 2 - Planeta Preterist PDF

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• As 70 Semanas de Daniel Revisitadas PDF

  

  Documento6 páginas

  As 70 Semanas de Daniel Revisitadas PDF

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Os novos círculos joaquinistas da Era Moderna

  

  Documento10 páginas

  Os novos círculos joaquinistas da Era Moderna

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• A ética e religião em Kierkegaard: continuidade ou ruptura

  

  Documento181 páginas

  A ética e religião em Kierkegaard: continuidade ou ruptura

  Gilberto de Souza

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Misticismo Judaico

  

  Documento12 páginas

  Misticismo Judaico

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Antioquia e Roma

  

  Documento192 páginas

  Antioquia e Roma

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Kierkegaard e Agostinho

  

  Documento16 páginas

  Kierkegaard e Agostinho

  Gabriel Kafure da Rocha

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Para A Justiça Social - A Filosofia Contra A Razão (Existencialismo) N°1

  

  Documento2 páginas

  Para A Justiça Social - A Filosofia Contra A Razão (Existencialismo) N°1

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Influência Apocalíptica Origens Cristãs

  

  Documento14 páginas

  Influência Apocalíptica Origens Cristãs

  Roberto Tristão

  Ainda não há avaliações
• A Fraude Ideológica Do Existencialismo PDF

  

  Documento12 páginas

  A Fraude Ideológica Do Existencialismo PDF

  Luiz Marcos Furlan

  Ainda não há avaliações
• Eric Voegelin sobre o Evangelho, a Cultura e a Razão Questionadora

  

  Documento44 páginas

  Eric Voegelin sobre o Evangelho, a Cultura e a Razão Questionadora

  Jafer Gomes

  Ainda não há avaliações