CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. H KAINH AIA@HKH. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE EX ANTIQUISSINO CODICE ALEXANDRINO &. G. WOIDE OLIM DRSCRIPTUM: AD FIDEM IPSIUS CODICIS B. H. COWPER. LONDINI WILLIAMS & NORGA'TE, ex D. NUTT; EDINBURGAE, WILLIAMS & NORGATE.“= ERRATA. Inteod, ps EVIL 1 ut, pro pass lege passing te PEXKL 4. pro gives lege does. {hp XXVIL 33 pro if lege of, Mat, XIV. 19. pr ela lege ei Mar. HV. AL pro afer lege afetea ine, VIL 80, post goPo8 adie cone. ‘eta XVIL 4. pro dhe lege 8 sip ‘Asta OU. 25, pont zeros dele comes, Hobs, XML, 2 pro aeleton lege sgiecor. ‘Aroe. XX, 4 pro meonenigneey 1. ootairneay. Pag. 98 Not. 1. pro emsqeyato leje ensroevare wath gL pro xeovnees lege opt 1.280, 1a, pro ome lege en Tah tae vet pot ‘fate.INTRODUCTION. So much has been written respecting Codex A. that wo shall scarcely be expected to any anything new; yet we do not intend either to review or even to enumerate the publications, hich we have consulted upon the subject, and we shall only casually refer to somo of thom. This course seems to accord best with tho design of this edition, which was rather to fur- nish a faithful transeript of the manuscript than critically to ‘nvertigato it, and to embody the results in copious prolegomena or elaborate notes. ‘Tho aim of tho present introdétion, there- fore, will be to supply the reader with some miscellaneous in formation respecting the document, to give him an accurate description of itas it ie, and to add sone enquiry with regard to its probable source and antiquity, with an explanation of what has been done in this publication’), ‘The reader who is nly partially acquainted with the literate of the subject, will At once perceive that what we are about to say, will not euper- fede the uso of other and more important helps to the study of the New Testament text of the Alexandrine Codex, of which ‘we now proceed to apeak, ") We may here state once for all, that many ofthe facts and aug tettons in thie fatroduetion, are elther Borrowed from Grabe, Wold ‘The prolegomenn of Woide con f Drevity have oftan compelled ua to condense Aereloped at eo ‘lon bas been very grant 41 axrnopucrioN. e Codex A., oF tho Codex Alexandrinus, Is one of the most ancient and important of the manuscripts of the Greak. scrip tures Known to be extant in our day. ‘The Old Testament por- tion has been either whelly or partially edited on several occa- sions, of whicl the most noticeable azo the facsimile edited by Raber, in 1819, and what may be called tho restored edition ly Mr. Field very reeontly issued, and indeed since the present cation was commenced. ‘The New Testament has been printed only once, in 1786, when through the munifcense of the autho sitios of the British Museum, it was given to the world in fac- nile, under the editorship of that excellent scholar C. G, Weide. ‘This work was in folio, with admirable prolegomens and notes, bat it has Jong been both scarce and expensive, Modern stu- Ants are mostly indebted for their knowledge of Codex A., 80 far as its roadings aze concerned, to thé various collators who ‘have givon to the world the results of their enquires. The prin- cipal collators throughout have. been Patrick Young (better koown as Junius), Walton, Fell, Mill, Grabe, Wetstein and Woidle, ‘The great mass of eritice havo borrowed from these, and sone of them, among whom even Dr.’ Tischendort must bo included, havo oceasionslly given as various readings, errors of Woide's edition mn of the Vatican Codex, and other si ilar publications of original texts, naturally led to the der that mote should be done in the samo diroetion, and that the ‘Alexandrine Codex in particular, should be printed in ordinary type, in a portable form, and at a reasonable price. This edi- tion has therefore beon undertaken to supply an acknowledged doficency, and to gratify a reasonable wish. ‘The English re- print of Codex B., hat been adopted as a model, and it is ty Griesbeck, Schole, Tiachendort be avon that we f ene : How Tetum tr hee Laer, oe tie Pench of loan’ and tere Contino, ne hea ty a ae fh Hkh emp 50 Ce ase 10 and wert en pe The pores rng a Wee tee ane the increasing al text of the saan She marin to tho left bly tho Bondinn conse pte Azoagt the fost Gop, we wal the i ak wll ste Inge soi int which these books were anciently di ided*). Some of the nu- %) The flloning account of the ancentdvisons of © Prolegomena of Bareett nity Cologe Dublin: “Prin diviso tester supaeia majorn cum ttlis anne pictur Miva, fh, R86 fee Tuaum, qo maa Dsante sD ‘mor ston er Tenn tn i extn per capi atom ee, 1h ad Vaart log de Cpe Int Cora ig Lat Ps iets XVI. — Seculo demum teri Snaitit Ammonian Sostionee a ipo enominatas, quarue went 359 of Till OF in Matiheo: al horce autem sion adaptevit, — Ciree annum ‘vero 390, Bpistolas Paulinus in Copitate daria fanee, memorat Ratha ea: qut $81 dam prastitit in Acts Ge este in Actin Gx quo pro 40 capita volut) ot Epil Catholic os ta Apocalypsin ia 72 captata distribute faWw IxTRODUCTION, moral letters, and the commencements of the separate books ‘throughout lave been written in red ink, as also aro somo of tho ornamental portions which aro due to the fancy of the scribe. ‘These latter are sometines diversified with other colours. At ‘the commencement of the books no regular rulo is followed, as will appesr from the table given, below, in which the figures show which lines are in red throughout the volume, Matthew wanting | 2 Corinthians cose Ye Mavk Galatians. ey Luke Ephesians oniennnnm Ty % John Philippians .... 2 Acts Colossians .. 42 1 Peter 1 Theasalon 1,2,3. 2 Poter 2 Thosealonians, 12.3, 4 John : Hebrews 2,3. 2 John A TiMOEDY enn 1h % Be 5 Jol 7 2 Timothy 133 Jude tus a 433. Momus Philemon ecto ty 2 1 Corinthions -.... 1, 2, 3 | Apocalypse. Brisas: “Pho onder will observe the peculiar onder of tho Docks, respecting which we shall have to apenk hereafter, We there fore proceed with our description. ‘At the lower corners of the leaves, aro the remains of an arabic numeration, but it is of couse far moro modern than the toxt, and is chiefly important a8 a proof that the volume hae passed theough oriental hand: een repentedly retouched in ancient and moderst times, and ‘The toxt of the manuscript has ‘Aodreas Cosaronsie, at, at alt volun, Andreas Cretnts bn Bermonsa 34 ot Copitula 72. Chea XI asoulem, Ovcumentesdiitu Acta ditribuiew in 40 Capita of 247 Capitalas, The work of Barett is an intresting and curious fecsnile of Cole Z ‘ngravel on copper throughout, ith the toxt also printed in commen type om opposite yages. ‘The publishers of thin volun, Mente, Wilame and Nor- {gto avo om wale the few remaining copie of thin desirable work. mxtRopucrion. v probably oftoner than wo have beon ablo to determine. These corrections are partly by the original scribe, frequently by ap- parently two ancient correctors, and in some i Teast two modern ones. We 8 ta ea by at pect that a very few alterations Ihave been made since tie manuscript eae into Europe. Such aro the horizontal Tine in 1 Tim. 3. 16, where we now read 10s (BE), and the insertion of ex” aveo in Rey, 22, 18, 0 correction which Junius the earliest collator has not mentioned. ‘The adiliton of daBexe axoorod +0 agniov in Rev. 21, 15, also in cursives, and with accents and bresthinge is modern but not so recent. No other instances of cursives occur in the volumo ‘except eight letters in one of the marging and which have no apparent meaning nor reference to the text. * Corrections pro perly wo called aro frequent, and it is not always possible to decide whether they are by the frxt, secon’, or third hand, They consist of erasure, alterations, an dedditions, One or two cates of cancelling oF crossing ont, aoc. "ty Erasures. Usvally made with a knife, but sometimes by the scfbo whon the ink was not dry, with a sponge. Soine of Mono are les others ave partly or wholly rewritten 2) Alterations. When the original writing hus been removed and ita place eupplied by something else, 3) Additions. "These may or may.not‘iply an erasure: with- fut erasures they are written above the liné or in the margin, With erasures, they are paitly upon and partly. beyond the original writing. Since ite prrival in this country, the voluine has been ro bound, the leaves have been numbered, and the modern Chap- ters hive been indicated; — these figures are all the work of Patrick Juniis. The nature of the ink, and the grent age of fhe manuscript, have in many places caused the partial oF al rmost total disappearance of the'charactert, and they cannot be read without the aid of a lens and in a strong light. Moreover, the ferruginous matter contained in tile ink has produced an Infoite number of minute holes in the parchment, giving i thew IxTRODUCTION. appearance of lacework, and which occasionally, but met 20 often ax could be expected, add seriously to the diffculy of all the leaves but only in frequently more legible on scriptions snd subscriptions they remain, are all ancient, the reading, “These holes are not 4 potion of them, and the vellum tne sido than on the other. The to the repective books, a8 fae Tut some must be refered tothe second hand. From the commencement of tho volume, twenty Sve Tbave ‘cording to the computation of Junius, whe has Gbered the frst, 28, Thit otleuation is probably wrong, a not more than sixton or seventeen flin are missing. Be thot asi may, what remains comméces wit the word eEeouads in Matthew XXV, 6. Fa tho Goapel of John two leaves are ing, containing the test from Chap. VI, 80 to VIIL, 82, the word xerepewoy being followed by the word Aeyas, oF rather yey the ayllable Ae having been cut off by the binder. ‘Dearefel Comparton of the quantiy of salir coutned in the Tenves before and after this hits valde defendus, proves a8 far to demonstration can bo attained, that the missing leaves did vet contain the story of the woman taken in adaltey, there tring junt that amount of over matter. From the second opiate to the Corinthians three leaves are absont; the word yepeayae — Ting followed by nau ey vacopoun, except thet the binder has cutoff the lettre xa. This bins therefore reaches from Chap. IV, 13 wo XI, 6. The remainder of tho Now Teslament all left, with the exception of the partici removed as al- ready mentioned, from the upper inner margin forthe ost par but in general thee are cally supplied. ‘The text now occu 132 lenver, and twenty one, or Ementy two ate lost, in addon second Epinle to those portions containing part of Clement's and the 18 Psalms of Solomon, to which we shall refer below*). See ea ee “The Inst Tet of the New Testament in Coles A. 158, ani tho patos of Clement ceeupy eleven mor ions nine in the txt, havo to aly aamberod ‘hat the It ofthe ‘the nambeg naw inthe vor INTRODUCTION. vt ‘The text ia in uncial or espital lettors of very ancient typo, sion of words. "The pointing in to and thore aro neither accents ‘mode of indicating sections A great extent qui nor aspirates, And yet there or paragraphay which is worthy of notice though not confined exclusively to this codex. When one of theta sections commen- cen a new lin, its I letter ie of Tanger size and stands out in the margin thos Kesqofeocorasruarvewavro autguneduareirr0x9000 When the paragraph commenc a in the middle of a line, the firat letter of the next. line is f larger one thus: recpuaravor* xaiohoveo ZwvidquovdqoavresrovTvaay vvepxay: Sometimes this larger lettor falls in the middle of a word thus: tory trowveativadeh Pororayovvtgy|o04" exaoros velpovege ‘The reason for placing this large letter in the tnargin ap. pears to have been to call attention to the commencement of a new paragraph, and at the same time to save space, os the lines rust have stood further apart wherever it occurs. ‘The same pe cauliatity is observable in some other manuscript in the British Museum (Harleian 5731) comparatively recent, Lut copied Yrom one of early date, in which these capitals have been preserved by the scribe as part of his text, because he did not know their intention. ‘Thus: ovgavois. ovees yee eio- fev. ‘There is one and oyuas 84 yevoMerns xeoanidov. and evef thus:var avtRopuction, evrois @ Magriey — — ‘Tho point most usod in Codex A fs the Greek semicolon (c.g. ev v0 nha] but this does not always occur where we might cxpect it, and itis often quite misplaced, Hence it ix tbe found between words grammatically connected, and even in the inidde of a word. Inthe Iter case & mark resembling a eotna is more frequent,” and this also accure at the end of a word. [At the commencement of a worl two pointe generally stand over the letters fota and upsilon, Over some letters as 9 and @ line in sometimes drawn without any apparent meaning. This hori zontal Hiv the usual sign of contraction and as such iso ecurse ery common, Quotations from the Old Testament azo gonerally indieated by angular marka ia the margin, There inno trace of tho fot subscript or adscript, Thus avnp ix always witton cevro, and g, 9 are always simply written @ and 9 with nothing to indicato the absence of an jott. ‘The couraa which wo i followed with yogned to those will be explained when we come to deseribe the mothod adopted in the present edition. tis the opinion of eminent critics that several texts are Codex), which would lead to the vary pro- ropresented by this *) Tho following fum Gritbae wilt mic to explain thi, “Alexandeinam Codicem, a pleriburertsts mmo sudo sepia jam Synboe Oriow, vol I, pr EX, ote ‘ullatom excerpt, cui tantam inspes!, net tampon moam a peas 5 contererom datereromue, ‘ine jn desriptione bac codionm a mo Inapectoram, loc Alexandr aaipeayt lla. Sed vout tn transesres mouse tamen hoc loc juvabit,Hbrsia sow tennacrpainge omen Novi Testament bros ax uno eodemgue exes lar, eed enum eum eae plaribor libris, diverse adtadum indlis a2 bor hittin, ot ox plriber provinltsoriandia, Rati enim erant i clices qui universum Novum Testamentam comlecterntar pleiguepartom ive tanta contincbont: nempe allt Evangell, ali Eplatales Pauli, ali “inigae. Acton Apostlorum eum eathlileepitlin. Hine acedit ut codex AMsandvinas fon bn omnibus bie eandem textos resenslonem sequestar. 11 Evaupoio esibot recensionem Constantinopelitensm seu Anica, 1 tenpore axTRODUCTION, a Dable supposition that it was copied from several manuscripts, ach containing a portion of the cred text. With this question wo shall not interfere, but we may remark with Woide that the Codex exhibite traces of some varity of ‘penmanth ‘Thove vaviations are apparent both in the mnrgins and in the text, the latter more eapectally in the Apocalypeo, where the lines are longer and the charactors not ao well dopcted. Whether theso differences are due to different writers, eannot be easily decided, and it must not be assumed that such is the case. All original differences ‘of penmanship, however, seem to be the work of one and the same age. With regard to the Apo- calypse, if executed by the samo writer ax the rest, it was probably written later. Somo of tho variations observable, may Ve due not to differen: persons, but 40 the different materials ‘employed, or other circumstanes Far moro important perhaps, is the peculiar orthography of tho Codex. We have designaly adler to thi, even when Palpsbly erioncous, because our purposo was to edit the text su itis. Not a file has been written on the deviations fram the regular forms of words, which aro hero eo froquent, but before we eithor stato the opinions of others upon the subject, for pronounce one of ot own, it will probably be as woll to give a lst ofthe moré remarkable of these irregularities, Some of theae aro almott always confined to particular words; others ccar offen but not invariably; and others again ate to be met with only goldom, or evén but once. We ean laj down no invariable rule regarding them, but if the reader will care fally attend to the following summary, he will oon familiarise feriams_ fa pitas vero reprotntat Alesanitieem recensonem, ills longe vetmtorem et, In actie denique et epatlin catholic texton sequitur sion smiliam, confor: poten ad oveldontalem recensione, laine the entre noesracy of thie statement, itce adat its general principlei Iimeclf with the reading of the text, and be able to understand ‘any strange forms which havé been overlooked. eis put for e, at Oars, for 10ers. w= = ny me amadiazbas, for aanhdezdet. = = = 0, a8 xan, for eixor. == = = ov, as ida, for exdov. = final often not elided. put for a, as exeDeqiaOn, for exabaqiay, = = = = 8, a8 epQaiVOY, for evpenivor. == = = ny 88 f90te, for newra, = = = = at as speais, for aigears. = = = 0, 88 uddero, for dedidoro. a = = fas Bedrn0g, for dedenes: w= = ety a8 angie, for aes. w= = 4g a8 gation, for qeroy : = = transposed with v, a8 Kyguocu, for Kuenmow. {ie put for e, a8 ety for eve. wee tty on yey for ee c= ety a8 mtn for mtn, = = ny ae xeuims, for xonvns. never aubeript, nor adecript. = ja sometimes omitted in pl. et, as xeopnese, for xpopnriat. transposed with v, as dawas, for Avxues. not elided in x01, before certain vonele. 0 ~ put for 0, as zetopiAeror, for 2orapideror. ce, as peroky, for peraty. av, as expvyetor, for expavyatoy. ov, as Avoavet, for Aovoavet: doubiful. == = 04, ne avnites, for norxtdos. w= =n av or gy, a8 vyequaensay:: doubtful, ty a8 Buenas, for Biduves, js transposed with and 4, a8 in Kypuviov, dawasy sce abe. . fo is put for 0, a8 dxaooveg, and in, some parti ples. tee = = a, a8 xerarperver| for xarepauvey. INTRODUCTION. x put for €, as xawvoy, for xevov5 yaw for He. == = ty in some verbs in ws === ty 80 qpery, for quvy. = = = By a8 6008, for op. = = = ty a8 epiavOn, for npeavin. = = = ot, in some forms of avoiye. = = = mys svvoiBpo.apev04, for ovvmPeoisperor 0, «8 n019@r, for z090v. = = = 8, ae Blexovaw, for Blexoa. vy, a8 g0vy, for ovv. = == ah a8 ramen, for ev woe. doy = = = ay, an xorasBevvey, for xarapawvey. 1 for x, ae duyvep, for Seexvvpe, = in omitted before §, as oahnib, for oainipe, w= Py 88 SuyvOnAY, for BvZ7VORNY. ep-Kavg, g-Kerygeas. Pipdouide, for Brande expos, for «700s. px- ~~ ax, an in Kepradoney, for Kexxedoxa. in insorted before x, and # in forms from Aaufave, yin added to accusstives in a, as vuxray, for vuxra. is put for vv in some forms, and vw for » in others ae. tin Hens, a8 a ike ener ty mom : m= el acough mets vB - 08) ce Fp tly wdded to vr in and pleas in 6 @ for @0, a8 eeapos, for «poapos. for E, 08 seneisoy, for armockor. =a sometimes omitted in plurals, avdge, avrov, ovearor, for evdgas, avrovg, ovgavous. for x, a8 ovg eae, for ovx expt.— xu INTRODUCTION, of these forms are pointed out in the notes to the toxt, and somie not here referred to, auch as the omission of roe Guplication and temporal augment in certain verbs. To have pointed out every deviation from the spelling of the received text would have encumbered our pages with notes, and we therefore think we have done all that common sense will require. Not 1 few of these anomalous forms aro to be met with in some of the oldest and beet manuscripts, such as the Vatican, Ephraem, Cloromontane, Dublit tae Z, and others to a greater or ‘lesser extent; they mostly belong to what is called an Ale Avian dialet, although somo of them are found in writings which eorlninly were not exeented in Egypt, ‘The frequeney with which ‘they occur in Codex A, is regarded a8 n presumptive proof of ited ‘vation from Egypt. ‘The peculiarities in question, may bbe considered as of sovernl kinds, 1. Dislectic or provincial forms. Archaic forms, many of which havé an etymological basi 3. Matas of the ext, or confusion of wnt sounds, 4, Mistakes of the eye; apsus calami St would Lo easy to speculate on these heads, and to endea- vour to raugo under them all the exninplos we find in our Codex, Lut it is questionable whether the results arrived at would carry general conviction. Wo therefore leave them to exercite the ingenuity or to occupy the leisure of the’ reader, who will do well to consult the obsorvations of Winer upon tho subject, and such othor authorities as he Tins acce that they aro neither Latinism out for the 104). Our own opinion ie nor barbarism, nor eolucisins, st part provincial and archaie forms, especially the former. If asked to what province we would refer them, wwe should at once’ name Egypt. Such forms as eneriBosey, aidav, 'v Grammatik dee westostementichen Sprache, ‘The werk of Store on the Alerandrinn Dialect is eapecaliy worthy of notice, Grammar of Bettsnn should aot be overlooked. Others are mn tho work just mentioned nTRODUCTION. xu skutaro, Anuperas, are admitted to be characteristic of what called the Alexandrian Greek. And Coptic students aro aware, that many G.eck words, on being transfarred to that Ianguage undergo precisely the altorations here met with. For example 40qvaug becomes aeennnc, where we have ¢ for n in the second syllable. So sano, where we have ¢ for 4; thus too expe becomes tmorsin, Si ly ax becomes 6, ‘as in Apogpaiog which is written Astoppeee. We have aleo 9 for « as agzirpixsvog which becomes apoewrpiAmoc, and many thors, whith it ie unne sary to enumerate, Tt would scom that when this manuscript was written, men were more anxious to follow correctly the readings of their copy, and to produce worthy specimens of ealligrapliy, than to aihero to tho most approved and uniftkm modes of spelling, The contractions to’ be found in the manuscript searcely. offer any difficulty. “There is but one respecting which we have had any doubt; ought we to writo dafud or davis? ‘The former in the one we have adopted. And yet it has struck ts that in ‘tho only instance on filly, ite Javed, in Luke IIL, 31, Had we noticed this earlier than we did, we should have adopted the same form. Respecting other question can be raised. . We have already indicated the order in which the books stand in Codex A., an order which resembles that in Codex B. whieh the word is wri ‘We now give a list of these books, which wehave copied from the commencement of the first volume of the manuscript, supply ing in brackets portions now illegible. Hi Keavy, dead Bvayyehe xara Mardaifov), xara Mags{ov). xara Aovxev. xara Toaveny. Treats Anoaroloy. Kedolixat, Z.x wrnopucTION. Engroles Haviov 1. Aroxelwvis [Toa}yvov. Kaquevtos Emto]in 4. Kiquevtos Elwuotoliy Bh ouov pipe Wadyoe Eoowaveos i. , ‘Tho reader will observe the epistles of Clement reckoned ‘with the canonical books, and tho 18 Psalms of Solomon entered in the book, but not included es part of the This is incoatestably demonstrated by the words onow Bile, coming after the Clementine Epistles and before the apocryphal Psalus of Solomon, ‘The numerals after fufdva are Tan, ut we euppoo they ware KG or 29. ‘hia woome to be the place for making s few obervations on here onenonicel aons. Te appenr then, not to have ‘been unusual to append to the Now Testament writings bearing the name of Clemens One exnaple i before ue) and tno othe hay bo alluded fo. ‘The Syrine Epistles on Virginity wer ds covered at the end of a maousevit of the Now Testament, and fet poblihed by Wetstin atthe end of hit ein, ‘hero i shot Cambridge « Syrine manuscript New Testament, at the cai af which wo ebverved the Apetlcal Conttations which lio bea the name of Cleat Iti well known that at a very early pevid the writings of this Fathor wero publilyread'at leat in tome churches, and wero by some regerded a part of the can, With veferooa to the cighten Palize of Solomon, they no longer form part of our codex, although a on time double they did. Ie hes reccnly beon remarked by Dr, Tregler in the now cilon of Horse's introduction, ax by others before Wim, that the use of theve apocryphal Paslne wae forbidden ly the apnod of Laodiea about the middle of the fourth century, The 69th canon of this ayaod anys, “That private Pan ought not to bo used in the church, nor woearonesl tock, but only the canoniealonee of the Old and New Teta myTRODUCTION. xv The canon which follows, makes no mention of them, and moreover we regard it as spurious, Zonaras however, re- rmarke with reference to canon 59, ‘That besides the 180 Pralme of David thero are to be found some others siid to be by So- Jomon and some other persons, there the father called private and decided that they ahould not be read ia the church, nor ty aneanonieal book, but only canonicel. They called those enoaical, which are envmersted in the 85th canon of, the Holy Aponte, and uncanonical,thore of which the canon makes the scripture canon, commonly ‘no mention’. Zonaras then gj known as the 6Uth, but which’most critics properly reject. By lore, the private Psalms referred to in the eanon under con- ideration, are understood to be merely psalms composed by private persons, — ab idivds composias, It is ensy to wee that the canon does not specially refer to such compositions as tho Psalms of Solomon, which have been partly edited by Fabricius ‘and others*). a +2) By strange overtight the comment of Zouaras Is cited by Weide ive part of the 80th Laodiceas canon, ant the canon itself lertood It, and not to lave taken the pre ‘or 9 w copy of the ennont, In es rome confematin of our view ta obterve that Tefele ins Conitew erehe, vel I Tater the canon "Dase TAT, expremes procialy the sumo opinion. Te te von Privaton efertigton Pealmen vorlsen ditt” oe, ere Mrtiker 2B ne ‘Paul von Samotata ed Apullinera atten Patinen, dL Kir linge gelichte, Die Syneds von Laodicen verbot in alle von helleler, Litt hemerkt Wiehe Privaten herehrende, db. wich approire ieno, dae dant nicht walt gous eine andern al da utichen Paatgen wed Lieder fon belanolich viclo von cineslaen Craton goliehite Myrncn, niiten, dun ach mich saserer Syrole Clemens, Aunrosiu, in den Kirchongebeaueh Uberge gon enter werden", es, Woitexv intropueTion, ‘The insertion of the Psalms fin question really proves no- thing as to the age of Codex A.; as before noticed, they are not included by the scribe as part of the canon of the New Teste- ment, but are only enumerated as a supplement or appendix. ‘The oceurrencs of the two epistles of Clement is of more impor- tance. ‘The writer perhaps found them in his copy as a part of the New Testament, and was not aware of any authority for thoi mn, Their presence is an argument for the high ‘antiquity of our codex, bocauso the canon of the New Testa- ment was defined at a very early poriod. And yet we must not overlook tho cireumstance, that the list exhibited in’ the 85th of the Apostolical canons contains two Clementine’ epistles Jt runs thus — ‘now ours, (that ie those of the New Testament) aro four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; 14 epist- les of Paul; two epistles of Peter; threo of John, one of James, fone of Jude, two epistles of Clement, and the Constituiions addres. sei to the bishops, by me Clement, in eight books, which must ‘not bo mate public before all because of the myetorles in thein; — nnd the acts of us tho apostles’. No one supposes these ta- nnons to bo genuine, but they eannot be Inter than the fourth century, and probably are of even earlier date, There was ma- nifestly 0 lingoring attachment to tho name of Clement, which required ages to extinguish. ‘The reverential uso of his Epistles in the fourth contury is to -be gathered from such writers as Eusebius, Athanasius, Grogory Nazianzen, Jerome and Photius. Although it is not our intention to enter upon a mination of any of the readings of Codex A, there which we must call attontion for a few momente. We refer of course to the celebrated clause inf Tim. III, 16, where we excl jel exa- ‘one to ‘Puotuut forte ihlem, quon Fabricio in eodice apoeryphe V. Testament dit, forte ction ali Sox onim alin Peslioe Ba tissime Askeweno Colico Acgyptacs, mune Aforscl Irtessel, inven phtes wine dubio fyeront, ila etiam qoenbs lms Salomon in co: irropucrion. xvit ‘must now read, and have therefore inserted in our text 920g epaveqooy x.t.i. Three readings of this passage have been advoosted, © epavego0y, = Quod manifestatam erat 08 epavigain, = Out menifestatu S105 apaveqaOy, = Deus manifestatus erat, ‘and each of these is supported by various authortios, ‘Tho first of the above readings finds no support in our Codex, indsmuch asthe sigma preceding epavegad% is perfectly Os epartp00y may have been the reading of the manu- script biti wo the evidence forit has been effectually dorroyed sud we mast admit that ‘now at letst top mut bo rekd. Ores or, an itis written, 9, may be thos described. "The suparior line is modern, but i i imponible to sey whether it oven A more ancient one, because of Itt extent, and because it 6 on tho other side of the vellum, whichis here extremely thin. ‘The © consat ofa circle toleably wall dened, and by tho cxignalstibo; but the transverse line is only what ey te called amero shadow, aif a pon almost dry bad touched i and that recently. So thin ie the vellum, that the shadow ag ve hare called it, may really not be portion of the letr, fad probably no human eye will be ever able to determine whether the traneversa line was originally there; tats, whether the scribe wzote omioa or thes. Woide quotes author for the existence of the line, bat it is posible they amore than we ace, @ mere shew acres he leer nearly a contre, rather above than beneath i. Thie he been ascribed to the letter e which falls underneath it on the other tide of the Teaf. Let us explin thin: immediately under the two laters of which we speak, are te of the words xer’ evoepeiay (1 Tim. 6 8) in avers order of course, ao that ¢ comes under & and under "The parpendeslar line of the is einedent with the centro of the curve of ¢ or C, and at the paiat of eoinei- dene hrough both Ietior, and enedxvntt INTRODUCTION. by the corrosive power of the ink in both, ‘The € falling under what we read as @, although not absolutely coincident with it, inereases the difficulty of deciding. ‘The mere absence hhas disappeared in a number of about which no question ever has been or ever will be raised. It can never be sufficiently regeetted that some com- paratively modern peo has been rashly employed upon the ma- nuseript, and that modern Singers have been applied to it here with equal discredit to their owners, and the almost entire obliteration of @ number of the letters, Certainly no fingers ought to be allowed to pluy upon these pages save perhaps those of gododéxrutos "Hes. We hope that henceforth there will be no more endeavours demonsrare digi the true reading. of this passages and indeed that the Musoum authorities will studiously resist all who with to have the clause at their fia- gor's ends. in etneading our remarks om th pea that we bnve, an eandily, nd we accurately ay ne could, de terbed the appearance of the place, and we hope no one” wll think i powbl, citer with or without & lee, to vcarain the truth ofthe natter by any inpecin of te Codex. Wo have many tines examined iin onler to be ale to apeak wit onfdence, and we do no believe tat, whatever may be fan fny trace ofthe two disputed lies wll ever be recovered. Griestch mntins thatthe criginalreadiog was of, and that 6. and D,, have been altered in siilar manner. "We mast Teave tho decion to shes. ‘There is no doubt that the Alexandrine Uodex has suffered since it came into thi country, ‘The Now ‘Telanent he bepa read aod einalled far more than the Old at al ines, andi therefore more worn. ‘The work of the binder we have already imentioned. ‘The ein and ealltore from Patick Junius dows. wards have not all handled it ao carefully av they might buve done. in hoverce to tons fax reren howe silent pers 0, we only add, asrropucriox, xx tion has continued incemantly that we would specially refer Some things are now ‘legible which must have been visible ren dows tothe time when Woide made bin tani, Ie from what it had been at an earlier date, ‘The frequent mani, Falttion to which the volume was formerly subjected, apart from direct contact with fogers, seems to have caused ‘minute Particles of ink to By off in an impalpable and imperceptible Powder, To this process Grieabach some to allude in peceage already quoted when he says ‘cursim tentom intpexi, ne et tem. pus meum et ipsns quogue membrane pretiosissimes iatlver contererem detereremque’. Of course not only the ink but the vellum itself hes gone off in the aame form, ad number and magnitude of the lille holes above mentioned However gently the manseript in handled, it must be det rated, and should therefore only be consulted for same realy practical purpose, The circumstance in tn he regretted, bat. DIS, and irremediable. We aro glad to know that the codex is in wise hands, and that it has boon of late yeara more striolly guarded, and if thote who havo the keoping of it, knew how many minute Ties, points and particles have vanished since the date of Woide’s edition, they would feel perhaps even more than they do the importance of restiction. ‘The fact that the volume is slowly suffering, is none-the lets real boca bo ascertained only at comparatively distant interval cer, it i gratifying to know that su termined almost every one of ite readings, and indend all that ci be determined: the value of these collations must incgease as years clapte, and the difficulty and danger of reading the criginal increase, Respecting the country and agp ofthe masuacipt, very di. ferent opiviont have been entertained. We cannot Uo. better perkape than give first of all, the statement of Cyril, the donor of the Codex, which in inserted upon a sheet of paper in the frat volume, and in his original band DimXx IwTRODUCTION. Liber iste Scriptura Sacrae Novi et Veteris Testamer rout ex traditions habemus, est scriptus manu Theclae nobi- lis focminac Acgyptine, ante mille ot trecontos annos circiter, paulo post Concilium Nicacnum. Nomen Theclae in fine Libri rat exaratum; sod extineto Chi Acgypto Bitho- of libri una Christianorum in similem eunt redacti eon- Extinetum igitur’et Thoclae nomen, et Inceratum, teil memoria ot traditio rocens observa. + Cyrillan Patriarcha Constanti. Whatever may be the truth of the record, there is nothing jn this to botray any want of sincerity and good faith, and ‘we may frirly accept it as the traditional account of the origin of the ‘codex. ‘This tradition then points to Thecla as the writer, to Egypt as the source, and to the fourth century as the age of the manuscript. To this it has been objected, that it was not written by Thecla, nor in Egypt, nor in the fourth century. Wotstein and others ridicule the idea thet Thecla wrote it, because Thecla is reported to have been a disciple of Paul the Apostle, end therefore they condemn the tradition as an absurd anachronisin. But this is unworthy of auch critica. ‘There were other persons of the name of Thecla, one of whom is referred to by Eusebius, to whom, or to another of the name, Gregory Nazianzen addressed threo epistles. One of there way or may not be referred to in the tmadition, but at all events it is appa- rent that the mame was not very ancommon. One of the cbief saints of the Ethiopian church i Thecla, but fe belongs to a Inter age. For aught we know Codex A. may have been written by p Theol, and it wae very likely the production of feminine hands But was it writen in Bgypt?| There is no proof tht it was not, and the evidence that it was decidedly preponderates. With respect tothe tradition, Dr. Tiachendorf thus expreteshimelf ‘Quodei verum et ut in veteri eat proverbio, nga facile spovgiramorem, quin aliquid subst, ex ele’ S. Theclae Cocnobio Sclewcensi, quod jam Gregori Naxinaeai tempore INTRODUCTION. + ox florebat, Alexandrinus codex prodize reete vieus eat, unde facile fier poterat ut ipsius Theclao manu exaratus diceretar.” No one can question the feasibility of this, eo far as tho convent of &. Thecla is concemed, but tho learned Doctor gives not give the ehadow of a reason for assigning the production of Codex A. to Seloucin, except that a convent of Thecla was to be found there"), Wo are not aware of any really serious objection tothe or gin of this Codex in Egypt, although from different motives this ‘hes been impugned, It isthe opinion f Dr. Tregelln that it ‘was most likely written in Egypt, in which he agrees with many ‘eminent critics, The words of Scholz, mhoro neq suciout manuscripts was very extensive, are thete: “Eum Alexan- diag exarstum ense, characterum forma, orthogrephine conti, fraditio quaedam antiqua in inscription primi fliteervata, et textus habitus probant.”” Prolegg. ad N. T. § 39. It will bo uneceatary to quote the asthortién who have provounced larly in favour of an Egyptian origin, the language of Scholz now cited is a summary of the argument. ‘The form of the letters, thé mode of spelling, the festares of the text, and ta dition all plead in behalf of this view. All these details havo ‘been gone into by various writers, and certainly taken together they carry very considerable weight; we do mot say they are de- monstrative. Others remain, as tho Arabic namerals above “referred to, the circumstance that Alexandria wes femous in the fourth and Sfth centuries for the production of booke, upon ‘which women well as men were employed, and an inscription old written on the ssme leaf with the letter of %) This opinion of De. Tachendorte, like many others broche he wows of Mattrcht in hin Pro item varia &, Theclae some centuri a 4 codes, ah ogee Nata Cod, les. ps AB! Maacicht rggested Seleucia, bot this focus”xx INTRODUCTION. Cyril above quoted to thin eect "Donum datum exbilo Ps Iulaccal, anno 814 mariyrum’. That in, A.D. 1008, Under AU the etcumatancon thi inaction ia epposed to mesa thet tho Codex A. wat in 098 given to tho library ofthe patintch af ‘Alexandria, and itis further mppoved to have remained There until Cyril erred it with him to Constantinople. Te may vt be ani that thee deals aro inconclusive; bat they strengthen the preceding probity. ‘There it another circumstance of snore inportace, and which, i ie balled is now natied fr the fa tie, "he wtuseript hns boen ornamented, more espe- cially at the close of ench book, by some one, and in all proba- Dility by the original seribe. ‘The ornaments are some of them very peculiar, and the question naturally occurs whether they furnish any cluo to the country of the Codex. Many of them Dear @ striking resemblance to similar ornaments some of the very ancient Syriac manuscripts, which are now in our Na- tional Museum, all of which’ have been brought from Egypt, and many of them are known to have been written there. ‘There is one however of especial interest, and thie in an unexpected rianner confirms'the opinion that Codex A. was writted in Egypt. At the ond of the catholic epistles two baskets of fruit are de Pieted in coloured inks. ‘These baskets are of & peculiar form ‘nd texturo, being narrower at the bottom’ than at the top, and apparently of fancy wicker work. Each of them is filled with fruit, and this fruit is piled up in @ pyramidal form above the * basket, in regularly deerensing tiers or cours to visit the Happening jptinn gallery of the British Museum, we ob- served upon one of the walls, fragments of an Egyptian painting representing among other things, baskets of fruit. The resem- Manes’ of theée to those in Codex A. is so striking that we men- tally uttered a evenxa af we looked at them, We have repeated four comparison of the different representations, and we are compelled to regard them as characteristie, Any one who Wi take the trouble to pass from one to the other, will see the re- markable similarity. We must observe that the Ggures given ivTRoDUCTION, xu by Woide in his edition are nothing like the otiginsls. Gentle- ‘men of eminence in the department of Egyptian antiquities have pronounced in favour of the extreme probability that the illustra: tions allpded to in tho manuscript are Egypt differences to be observed between the jn the least affect the general result, twining bread and fr The minor ifferent sketches do not Ancient representations fare not uncomion, but wwe know of nono, except those from Egypt, which can be iden- tified with the figures in the Alexandrian Codex. So far ‘then, .it appears the manuscript may have been written by female hands, and in Egypt. We now come to the question of ite atiquity, Patrick Junius adopted the opinion that it belongs to the time soon after the council of Nicea. Archbishop Usher thought it was written after the time of Basil the Great who died A.D. 373, Morin, who died in 1659, thought it more than twelve hundred years old. Walton supposed it as ld as the Vatican Codex, or even older. Grabe ascribed it to? the latter part of thé fourth century. Montfaucon believed it to-bo of the fifth or afxth century. Mill imagined it dated al- ‘most from the formation of the Canon, Mastricht ascribed it to a much later date, Casimir Oudin thought it not older than the tenth century. Bengel owned that it eould have been written, Inte as the sixth century or even Ieter, for which opinion Wetstein seems to plead. Semler referred it to the seventh cen- tury; David Michaelis to tho eighth. Tischendorf says “scriptus videtur post medium saee. V"; and his opinion is deserving of note because he says “codicem ipsum inepeximus indagantes ‘omnia quae ad palacographiam apectant, et ad definiendam co digie aetatem faciunt”. To this opinion asscht is perhaps now commonly given; thus Dr. Tregelles in the work already quoted says that it was probably written after the introduction of the Ammonian sections and Euscbian anon, and before the general tue of the Euthalian and other diyisions of the Epistles; he also regards tha additions of the Clementine Epistles as significative of & considerable antiquity. Ho thinks it probably of the Sfthxxv ivtropuction, contary on palacographic grounds, and ascribes it to perape the aide of the century or alt later. Tks impoteble and unnecessary to refer to all the opinions which have been advanced respecting tho age of the manu. script: what has been said will sufice to show that rites have widely difered on the subject, “We shall therefore call atten ion to a few fact which have been eppeated to, and conclude with the statement of our own view . ‘That the Codex was produced at an early date ‘may be in- ferred from the mere fact that itis an uncial masiwerpt, but that it ie not a0 ascent a8 tradition represent it in certain, in deed alinott demonsteable ‘Tho atichometrieal arrangement of the poetical books hes been objected aguingt igh antiquity. Grabe furnishes « ready reply to this, and indeed an allusion to Sulcer’s Thesaurus (oud voce Enzos) will show that i should never have been urged. ceases than to quote aathors of efficiently early date, to dupote of any argument bused on the stichowetreal arrange nent. It is very povsble, tht since tho Panlne at least were ‘ung in public worship, their ditibution into verses tok place ta very early period, and thatthe plan of writing them i thin form is more ancient than tht which afterwards prevkiled, when iy. There can be no doubt that wo ought to prefer, as more natarl and accurate, this mode of exhibiting the posical books of Scripture. Another objestion’has been derived from the arrangement of the Peale into what are called. xavoves qiegivoe and, yx steivo1, by which it is shown which were proper for every hour of the day snd of the night. The uble exbibitig arrangement is in the volume containing the Deals, 1s follows: it will ahow what ie meant better than any cxple- ation, mvrropucriox. xxv Kavorts qurqivol veins. “Oodeevel y. BBs ents ene. Kevéves vunrteivel ray yeludy. Avzwerdl 7. end, oF, 8 e Se. &. Yeduds oF. - oe Grabe observ’ int “quamvia quidem numeri vetustate ita exesi, ut eos aegre admodum perspicere liceat; illus tamen, prout adbibjta omni gecutus sura, hic expressos dabo' Fyrom these it has been inferred that the Codex w for the dcvemitae, and eannot therefore be earlier than the Sth centary, when a sect of monks so called eristed. Woide thinks writtenxxv mxrnopucrioN, that this conclusion in unfounded, and therefore that this oes not prove the recent origin of the manuscript. ‘The arguments of the Paalma, by Eusebius of Cacsares, as contained jn Codex A. have been appealed to agsinst its early origin, ‘The candour of tho scribe in jutroducing Eusebius by the side of Athenasiue is noticenble, but this is no proof of the recent date of the Codex,“ The labours of Eusebius in the cause of biblical ertiiem were recognised in his own day, and there is therefore no reaton why his headings to tho Pealme should bbe received with hetitation at any subsequent period?) The insertion of the Epistle to Marcellinus, or Introduction to the Pealins, ascribed to Athanasian, has been adduced abjection tothe early dato of Codex A. To thie alo Aitfeult to veply. Athanasius wan very popular in bie own ay, and his writings rapidly spread, and there iv no reasoo why his preface to tho Palin, should not be regarded ax a suitable in- troduction &nd worthy of being prefixed to them in 8 copy of the ened volume, srtten moreover ia his own country, and to render which complete no pains wore apered. Thin of course right occur at any period, and therefore wo cannot entertain fan objection founded upon the presence of this composition, It in tue that the preface has by some been considered spurious, Ink no good reason for tht opinion has been advanced, and tho question ofits date still fomains. ‘Therefore it will fellow, that the more recent date of our Codex is not established by opinions eo evidently doubtful Bat its urged that Athanasias’ is atyled Archbishop io the composition just referred to. Nor is this an objection of any sveight, seeing that certainly in the ist balf of the fourth cons +) The anme objection haa beon brought agalaat the Buseblan cxoo ‘ontnined in the New Testament of Codex A, and the anwar to ous isthe ‘uperiatended the exfestion 5 moat extensive dltribuion, is they might oft Lent Sty copies of tho Be of Unelfwucient to deprive any auch objection ctherwiae have, Euseh, de Vite Const ib, TY, 36,37 axrRopucrion, xxv tury, that tile was applied to some of the chief bishops, it in to be found in the works of Athanssiun himself, and is applied to bim by Gregory Nasianzon. Tt has been urged that the oocarrence of the epithet Gro oxog applied to the Mother of our Lord in tho copy of the Mageifiedt apponded to the Peslina, is « retson for doubting tho extreme antiquity of our manuscript. ‘The controversy on the subject ofthis word, in connexion with Nestorids, does not to have been then newly invented. Grabe shows that in uve long prii#to Cyril and Nestorius, and indeed it was omploged by varions'authors in tbe third snd fourth cen- turee, If, an wo euppone, this codex was execoted shout th timo when Cyril was patriarch of Alexandria, and certainly noi long after, it will be easy to belive that the orthodox point of honour to use the would almost regard it a sword @tororos, and as a token of their adherence to catholic doctrine. or can any objection to our rence of the vpvos eaduvos, which in the form it here assumes ian argument in our favour. ‘This composition is one of the most venerable christian hymns extant, and the preciso date of tome of ite modifeatins i well known. Some of these wero made ata period prior to that when we suppose the Alexandrine ‘written, and from their abvence we realy infor jew be based upon the occur- Codex w that they had not come into general use. ‘There is no just rea son why they should have been omitted if the writer had known them; we therefore regard this hymn as a valuable clue to at least the proximate date of our manuscript. We scarcely need remind tho reader thét while the Hymn in question ends with the words yivesxovely #¢ in our Codex ‘and i therefore shorter than it appears’ in documents of more recent date, it is not here in its simplest form. A shoiter copy if it is io the Apostolical Constitutions, which otherwite varie ‘As we have it in our Codex, it is menifestly compounded of ‘several distinct parts, most likely by different authors. Per-