163 "Ὠριγένης δέ φησι,—"Ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ "τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι;" καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει προσκείμενον τὸ "τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι," τί δύναται σημαίνειν; ὅρα οὖν εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδω ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεί τὸ ὬΝ οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται "ὄντες." καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶς αι εἰς τὸ εἶναι. "ἐξελέξατο γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα," φησὶν ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλος, "ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήση."—Cramer's Catena in Ephes. i. 1,—vol. vi. p. 102.

164 Consider S. John i. 42, 44, 46: v. 14: ix. 35: xii. 14, &c.

165 Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι δι᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως, "ὄντας" αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών: "τοῖς ἀγίοις τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ." οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Note also what immediately follows. (Basil Opp. i. p. 254 E, 255 A.)

166 See the places quoted by Scrivener, Introd. pp. 381-91; particularly p. 385.

167 Hieron. Opp. vol. vii. p. 543:—"Illud quoque in Praefatione commoneo, ut sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistolam conscripsisse, quem et nos ex parte sequuti sumus."

168 "Quidam curiosius quam necesse est putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum est 'Haec dices filiis Israel, QUI EST misit me,' etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt [Note this. Cf. 'qui sunt Ephesi,' Vulg.] sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos: ut ... ab EO 'qui est,' hi 'qui sunt' appellentur.... Alii veto simpliciter, non ad eos 'qui sint,' sed 'qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint' scriptum arbitrantur." Hieron. Opp. vii. p. 545 A, B.

169 The cursive "Cod. No. 67" (or "672") is improperly quoted as "omitting" (Tisch.) these words. The reference is to a MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna, (Nessel 302: Lambec. 34, which = our Paul 67), collated by Alter (N.T. 1786, vol. ii. pp. 415-558), who says of it (p. 496),—"cod. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ punctis notat." ... The MS. must have a curious history. H. Treschow describes it in his Tentamen Descriptionis Codd. aliquot Graece, &c. Havn. 1773, pp. 62-73.—Also, A. C. Hwiid in his Libellus Criticus de indole Cod. MS. Graeci N. T. Lambec. xxxiv. &c. Havn. 1785.—It appears to have been corrected by some Critic,—perhaps from Cod. B itself.

170 So indeed does Cod. א occasionally. See Scrivener's Collation, p. xlix.

171 Scrivener's Introduction to Codex Bezae, p. liv.

172 Scrivener, Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. xlv.

173 Eph. vi. 21, 22.

174 Coloss. iv. 7, 16.

175 Ubi supra.

176 Gnomon, in Ephes. i. 1, ad init.

177 See above, pp. 93-6. As for the supposed testimony of Ignatius (ad Ephes. c. xii.), see the notes, ed. Jacobson. See also Lardner, vol. ii.

178 Let it be clearly understood by the advocates of this expedient for accounting for the state of the text of Codd. B. and א, that nothing whatever is gained for the credit of those two MSS. by their ingenuity. Even if we grant them all they ask, the Codices in question remain, by their own admission, defective.

Quite plain is it, by the very hypothesis, that one of two courses alone remains open to them in editing the text: either (1) To leave a blank space after τοῖς οὔσιν: or else, (2) To let the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ stand,—which I respectfully suggest is the wisest thing they can do. [For with Conybeare and Howson (Life and Letters of S. Paul, ii. 491), to eject the words "at Ephesus" from the text of Ephes. i. 1, and actually to substitute in their room the words "in Laodicea,"—is plainly abhorrent to every principle of rational criticism. The remarks of C. and H. on this subject (pp. 486 ff) have been faithfully met and sufficiently disposed of by Dean Alford (vol. iii. Prolegg. pp. 13-8); who infers, "in accordance with the prevalent belief of the Church in all ages, that this Epistle was veritably addressed to the Saints in Ephesus, and to no other Church."] In the former case, they will be exhibiting a curiosity; viz. they will be shewing us how (they think) a duplicate ("carta bianca") copy of the Epistle looked with "the space after τοῖς οὔσι left utterly void:" in the latter, they will be representing the archetypal copy which was sent to the Metropolitan see of Ephesus. But by printing the text thus,—τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὔσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσω] καὶ πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., they are acting on an entirely different theory. They are merely testifying their mistrust of the text of every MS. in the world except Codd. B and א. This is clearly to forsake the "Encyclical" hypothesis altogether, and to put Ephes. i. 1 on the same footing as any other disputed text of Scripture which can be named.

179 Ἐγκύκλιον ἐπιστολήν, vel ἐγκύκλια γράμματα Christophorsonus et alii interpretantur literas circulares: ego cum viris doctis malim Epistolas vel literas publicas, ad omnes fideles pertinentes, quas Graeci alias vocant ἐπιστολὰς καθολικάς.—Suicer in voce.

180 Καθολικαὶ λέγονται αὕται, οἰονεὶ ἐγκύκλιοι—See Suicer in voce, Ἐγκύκλιος.

181 Routh's Reliquiae, vol. iii. p. 266.—"Tum ex Conciliis, tum ex aliis Patrum scriptis notum est, consuevisse primos Ecclesiao Patres acta et decreta Conciliorum passim ad omnes Dei Ecclesias mittere per epistolas, quas non uni privatim dicarunt, sed publice describi ab omnibus, dividi passim et pervulgari, atque cum omnibus populis communicari voluerunt. Hac igitur epistolae ἐγκύκλιοι vocatae sunt, quia κυκλόσε, quoquo versum et in omnem partem mittebantur."—Suicer in voc.

182 "On the whole," says Bishop Middleton, (Doctrine of the Greek Art. p. 355) "I see nothing so probable as the opinion of Macknight (on Col. iv. 16,)—'that the Apostle sent the Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans; with an order to them to communicate it to the Colossians.' "—This suggestion is intended to meet another difficulty, and leaves the question of the reading of Ephes. i. 1 untouched. It proposes only to explain what S. Paul means by the enigmatical expression which is found in Col. iv. 16.

Macknight's suggestion, though it has found favour with many subsequent Divines, appears to me improbable in a high degree. S. Paul is found not to have sent the Colossians "word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send a copy of it to the Laodiceans." He charged them, himself, to do so. Why, at the same instant, is the Apostle to be thought to have adopted two such different methods of achieving one and the same important end? And why, instead of this roundabout method of communication, were not the Ephesians ordered,—if not by S. Paul himself, at least by Tychicus,—to send a copy of their Epistle to Colosse direct? And why do we find the Colossians charged to read publicly τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, which (by the hypothesis) would have been only a copy,—instead of τὴν ἐξ Ἐφέσου, which, (by the same hypothesis,) would have been the original? Nay, why is it not designated by S. Paul, τὴν πρὸς Ἐφεσίους,—(if indeed it was his Epistle to the Ephesians which is alluded to,) instead of τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; which would hardly be an intelligible way of indicating the document? Lastly, why are not the Colossians ordered to communicate a copy of their Epistle to the illustrious Church of the Ephesians also, which had been originally addressed by S. Paul? If the Colossians must needs read the Epistle (so like their own) which the Apostle had just written to the Ephesians, surely the Ephesians must also be supposed to have required a sight of the Epistle which S. Paul had at the same time written to the Colossians!

183 Epiphan. Opp. i. 311 D.

184 "Marcion exerte et palam machaera non stilo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit." (Tertullian Praescript. Haer. c. 38, p. 50.) "Non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducat." (Adv. Marcion. lib. v, c. xvii, p. 455.)

185 See above p. 95, and see note (f) p. 94.

186 See, by all means, Alford on this subject, vol. iii. Prolegg. pp. 13-15.

187 p. xiv.—See above, pp. 8, 9, note (f).

188 One is rather surprised to find the facts of the case so unfairly represented in addressing unlearned readers; who are entitled to the largest amount of ingenuousness, and to entire sincerity of statement. The facts are these:—

(1) Valentt. (apud Irenaeum), (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apud Clem.) read ἔστι: but then (1) Irenaeus himself, (2) Clemens Alex., and (3) Theodotus (apud Clem.) also read ἦν. These testimonies, therefore, clearly neutralize each other. Cyprian also has both readings.—Hippolytus, on the other hand, reads ἔστι; but Origen, (though he remarks that ἔστι is "perhaps not an improbable reading,") reads ἦν ten or eleven times. Ἦν is also the reading of Eusebius, of Chrysostom, of Cyril, of Nonnus, of Theodoret,—of the Vulgate, of the Memphitic, of the Peshito, and of the Philoxenian Versions; as well as of B, A, C,—in fact of all the MSS. in the world, except of א and D.

All that remains to be set on the other side are the Thebaic and Cureton's Syriac, together with most copies of the early Latin.

And now, with the evidence thus all before us, will any one say that it is lawfully a question for discussion which of these two readings must exhibit the genuine text of S. John i. 4? (For I treat it as a question of authority, and reason from the evidence,—declining to import into the argument what may be called logical considerations; though I conceive them to be all on my side.) I suspect, in fact, that the inveterate practice of the primitive age of reading the place after the following strange fashion,—ὁ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, was what led to this depravation of the text. Cyril in his Commentary [heading of lib. i, c. vi.] so reads S. John i. 3, 4. And to substitute ἐστί (for ἦν) in such a sentence as that, was obvious.... Chrysostom's opinion is well known, "Let us beware of putting the full stop" (he says) "at the words οὐδὲ ἐν,—as do the heretics." [He alludes to Valentinus, Heracleon (Orig. Opp. i. 130), and to Theodotus (apud Clem. Alex.). But it must be confessed that Irenaeus, Hippolytus (Routh, Opusc. i. 68), Clemens Alex., Origen, Concil. Antioch. (A.D. 269, Routh iii. 293), Theophilus Antioch., Athanasius, Cyril of Jer.,—besides of the Latins, Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus (Routh iii. 459), and Augustine,—point the place in the same way. "It is worth our observation," (says Pearson,) "that Eusebius citing the place of S. John to prove that the HOLY GHOST was made by the SON, leaves out those words twice together by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of the Arians, viz. ὁ γέγονεν."]

Chrysostom proceeds,—"In order to make out that THE SPIRIT is a creature, they read Ὁ γέγονε, ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν; by which means, the Evangelist's language is made unintelligible." (Opp. viii. 40.)—This punctuation is nevertheless adopted by Tregelles,—but not by Tischendorf. The Peshito, Epiphanius (quoted in Pearson's note, referred to infra), Cyprian, Jerome and the Vulgate divide the sentence as we do.—See by all means on this subject Pearson's note (z), ART. viii, (ii. p. 262 ed. Burton). Also Routh's Opusc. i. 88-9.

189 It may not be altogether useless that I should follow this famous Critic of the text of the N. T. over the ground which he has himself chosen. He challenges attention for the four following readings of the Codex Sinaiticus:—

(1.) S. JOHN i. 4: εν αυτω ζωη εστιν.—(2.) S. MATTH. xiii. 35: το ρηθεν δια ησαιου του προφετου.—(3.) S. JOHN xiii. 10: ο λελουμενος ουχ εχι χρειαν νιψασθαι.—(4.) S. JOHN vi. 51: αν τις φαγη εκ του εμου αρυου, ζησει εις τον αιωνα;—ο αρτος ον εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης η σαρξ μου εστιν. (And this, Dr. Teschendorf asserts to be "indubitably correct.")

On inspection, these four readings prove to be exactly what might have been anticipated from the announcement that they are almost the private property of the single Codex א. The last three are absolutely worthless. They stand self-condemned. To examine is to reject them: the second (of which Jerome says something very different from what Tisch. pretends) and fourth being only two more of those unskilful attempts at critical emendation of the inspired Text, of which this Codex contains so many sorry specimens: the third being clearly nothing else but the result of the carelessness of the transcriber. Misled by the like ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον) he has dropped a line: thus:—

ΟΥΧ ΕΧΙ ΧΡΕΙΑΝ [ΕΙ ΜΗ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ] ΝΙ ΨΑΣΘΑΙ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΣΤΙΝ

The first, I have discussed briefly in the foregoing footnote (p) p. 110.

190 Scrivener's Introduction, p. 386. The whole Chapter deserves careful study.

191 Deut. xvi. 19.

192 Printed Text, p. 254.

193 Viz. Codd. L, 1, 22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 196, 199, 206, 209, 210, 221, 222.

194 Wetstein quoted 14 Codices in all: but Griesbach makes no use of his reference to Reg. 2868, 1880, and 2282 (leg. 2242?) which = Evan. 15, 19, 299 (?) respectively.

195 Variae Lectiones, &c. (1801, p. 225-6.)—He cites Codd. Vatt. 358, 756, 757, 1229 (= our 129, 137, 138, 143): Cod. Zelada (= 181): Laur. vi. 18, 34 (= 186, 195): Ven. 27 (= 210): Vind. Lamb. 38, 89, Kol. 4 (= 221, 222, 108): Cod. iv. (leg. 5 ?) S. Mariae Bened. Flor. (= 199): Codd. Ven. 6, 10 (= 206, 209.)

196 Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 199.

197 Vat. 756, 757 = our Evan. 137, 138.

198 Quo signo tamquam censoria virgula usi sunt librarii, qua Evangelistarum narrationes, in omnibus Codicibus non obvias, tamquam dubias notarent.—Variae Lectiones, &c. p. 225.

199 In Cod. 264 (= Paris 65) for instance, besides at S. Mk. xvi. 9, + occurs at xi. 12, xii. 38, and xiv. 12. On the other hand, no such sign occurs at the pericope de adultera.

200 Further obligations to the same friend are acknowledged in the Appendix (D).

201 Similarly, in Cod. Coisl. 20, in the Paris Library, (which = our 36,) against S. Mark xvi. 9, is this sign [symbol: inverse or open x]. It is intended (like an asterisk in a modern book) to refer the reader to the self-same annotation which is spoken of in the text as occurring in Cod. Vat. 756, and which is observed to occur in the margin of the Paris MS. also.

202 ἐντεῦθεν ἔως τοῦ τέλους ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖται: ἐν δε τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, πάντα ἀπαράλειπτα κεῖται.—(Codd. 20 and 300 = Paris 188, 186.)

203 See more concerning this matter in the Appendix (D), ad fin.

204 At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel in Cod. 300 (at fol. 89) is found,—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιὼν ἀντιγράφων, ἐν στίχοις βφιδ

and at the end of S. Mark's, (at fol. 147 b)—

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ὁμοίως ἐκ τῶν ἐσπουδασμένων στίχοις αφς κεφαλαίοις σλξ

This second colophon (though not the first) is found in Cod. 20. Both reappear in Cod. 262 ( = Paris 53), and (with an interesting variety in the former of the two) in [what I suppose is the first half of] the uncial Codex Λ. See Scrivener's Introduction, p. 125.

205 = Paris 72, fol. 107 b. He might have added, (for Wetstein had pointed it out 79 years before,) that the same note precisely is found between verses 8 and 9 in Cod. 15 ( = Paris 64,) fol. 98 b.

206 See more at the very end of Chap. XI.

207 Cod. 1. (at Basle), and Codd. 206, 209 (which = Venet. 6 and 10) contain as follows:—

ἔν τισι μὲν τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἕως ὧδε πληροῦται ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ἕως οἱ καὶ Ἐυσέβιος ὁ Παμφίλου ἐκανόνισεν; ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ ταῦτα φέρεται; ἀναστὰς, κ.τ.λ.

But Cod. 199 (which = S. Mariae Benedict. Flor. Cod. IV. [lege 5],) according to Birch (p. 226) who supplies the quotation, has only this:—

ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὐ κεῖνται [?] ταῦτα.

208 It originated in this way. At the end of S. Matthew's Gospel, in both Codices, are found those large extracts from the "2nd Hom. on the Resurrection" which Montfaucon published in the Bibl. Coisl. (pp. 68-75), and which Cramer has since reprinted at the end of his Catena in S. Matth. (i. 243-251.) In Codd. 34 and 39 they are ascribed to "Severus of Antioch." See above (p. 40.) See also pp. 39 and 57.

209 See above, pp. 64, 65.

210 22-3 (199, 206, 209) = 19 + 1 (374) = 20.

211 viz. Codd. L, 1, 199, 208, 209:—20, 300:—15, 22.

212 Cod. Λ, 20, 262, 300.

213 Evan. 374.

214 viz. Evan. 24, 36, 37, 40, 41 (Wetstein.) Add Evan. 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222. (Birch Varr. Lectt. p. 225.) Add Evan. 374 (Scholz.) Add Evan. 12, 129, 299, 329, and the Moscow Codex (qu. Evan. 253?) employed by Matthaei.

215 2 (viz. Evan. 20, 200) + 16 + 1 + 5 (enumerated in the preceding note) = 24.

216 Paris 62, olim, 2861 and 1558.

217 See the facsimile.—The original, (which knows nothing of Tischendorf's crosses,) reads as follows:—

ΦΕΡΕΤΕ ΠΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ

ΠΑΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑ ΠΑΡΗ ΓΓΕΛΜΕΝΑ ΤΟΙΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΕΤΡΟΝ

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΩΣ ΕΞΗ ΓΓΙΛΑΝ - ΜΕΤΑ ΔΕ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΥΤΟΡ Ο ΙΣ, ΑΠΟ ἈΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ ΚΑΙ ἈΧΡΙ ΔΥΣΕΩΣ ἘΞΑΠΕΣΤΙΛΕΝ ΔΙ ΑΥΤΩΝ ΤΟ ΙΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ἉΦΘΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΗ ΡΥΓΜΑ - ΤΗΣ ΑΙΩ ΝΙΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑΣ

ΕΣΤΗΝ ΔΕ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΥΤΑ ΦΕΡΟ ΜΕΝΑ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟ ΕΦΟΒΟΥΝΤΟ ΓΑΡ

ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣ ΔΕ ΠΡΩΙ ΠΡΩΤΗ ΣΑΒΒΑΤΩ

i.e.—φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα

Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τον Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήλλειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας.

Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωί πρώτη σαββάτου.

218 As, the Codex Bobbiensis (k) of the old Latin, and the margin of two AEthiopic MSS.—I am unable to understand what Scholz and his copyists have said concerning Cod. 274. I was assured again and again at Paris that they knew of no such codex as "Reg, 79a," which is Scholz' designation (Prolegg. p. lxxx.) of the Cod. Evan. which, after him, we number "274."

219 Nec AMMONII Sectionibus, nec EUSEBII Canonibus, agnoscuntur ultimi versus.—Tisch. Nov. Test. (ed. 8va), p. 406.

220 Printed Text, p. 248.

221 The reader is invited to test the accuracy of what precedes for himself:—Ἀμμώνιος μὲν ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεὺς, πολλὴν, ὡς εἰκὸς, φιλοπονίαν καὶ σπουδὴν εἰσαγηοχὼς, τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν εὐαγγέλιον, τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον τὰς ὁμοφώνους τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν περικοπὰς παραθεὶς, ὥς ἐξ ἀνάγκης συμβῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀκολουθίας εἱρμὸν τῶν τριῶν διαφθαρῆναι, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ ὅφει τῆς ἀναγνώσεως.