« PreviousContinue »
1. Division. The first division made of the sacred text was into rithos, Titles, or the separate majora with the titor annexed. Dr. Mill supposes that Tatian, who flourished A.D. 160. inven- . ted these, for the purpose of constructing his work called Dia- . tessaron, or harmony of the four evangelists.
From Tertullian we learn, that in his time, about A. D. 200, the new testament was divided into capitula, or small chapters. In his tract Ad Uxorem, lib. II. cap 2. speaking of those Christians who endeavoured to vindicate their conduct in marrying with the Gentiles, by an appeal to the words of St. Paul i Cor. vii. 12. he says, “ Nunquid, inquam, de illo CAPITULO, sibi blandiuntur primæ ad Corinthios, ubi scriptum est : Si quis frater infidelem habet uxorem, &c.” This ancient writer alludes also to to the same division in his tract De Pudicitia, sect. 16. where, in reference to heretics who perverted scripture, he uses the following words : Alicujus CAPITULI ancipitis occasione adversus exercitum sententiarum instrumenti totius armari.
Ammonius, a Christian philosopher of the 3d century invent: ed those SECTIONS which have ever since retained his name; of these there are 355, and 68 Tituli in the Gospel of Matthew ; and to these sections, Eusebius, in the fourth century, adapted his CANONS.
Euthalius relates, that about the year 396, the epistles of St. Paul were divided into capitula ; as were also the acts of the apostles and the catholic epistles about the year 451.
Andreas Cesariensis, (or according to others Andreas Cretens sis) divided the apocalypse into 72 capitula ; and about the 11th century Ecumenius is said to have divided the Acts into 40 capita, and 247 capitula ; a division something analogous to our chapters and verses.
The division which obtained in the ancient Latin MSS. was different from that used by the Greeks, as will readily appear on the slightest inspection; but we cannot enter deeply into this subject here. The division of St. Matthew into 28 capita or chapters, which still prevails, was made in the 13th century by Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher; and that this division was copied by multitudes of the subsequent MSS. of the Vulgate, is well known. Previous to the time of Cardinal Hugo, the di, visions in the sacred books were widely different; as fully appears from the more ancient Latin MSS. Dr. B. gives the divisions of all the books of the new testament as they exist in an ancient copy of the Vulgate in the library of Trinity College Dublin, marked A. 1. 1. They are as follows; Matt. 76. Mark 46. Luke 72. John 35. Acts 74. Rom. 51. I Cor. 72. 2 Cor. 28. Gal. 12. Eph. 10. Phil. 19. i Thess. 7. 2. Thess. 5. Coloss. 9. 1 Tim. 8. 2 Tim. 6. Tit. 5. Philemon 3. Heb. 23. Jam. 20. 1 Pet. 20. 2 Pet. 11. 1 John 20. 2. John 5. 3 John 5. Jude 7
Revel. 25. These divisions are far from being regular even in the Latin MSS. some following the Greek mode, or Ammonian Sections, and others a variety of forms reducible to no particular standard.
The Codex Vetus here published, has the larger reparasa, or chapters, noted both at the top of the page and in the margin, with the Ammonian Sections; but it wants the numbers of Eusebius. These numbers are also wanting in the Codex Bezæ, but they occur in the Codd. Ephraim, and Alexandrinus, which have the reparasce, the Ammonian Sections, and the Eusebian numbers.
II. Orthography. In its orthography, this MS. agrees with those just mentioned, as appears from the following examples.
Ist. In the permutation of certain vowels and dipthongs ; as : and es, i and ; which often occur in the Codd. Ephr. and Alexand., as also in the Codex Laudianus which contains the Acts of the Apostles.
2ndly. In the permutation of certain letters, as : for a, dergepapers for desgaapajueve Matt. xvii
. 17. and vice versa, xi. 7. enabala for indete. Similar permutations may be seen in the Codd. be fore mentioned, and in some of the inscriptions in Pocock: they are noticed and condemned by Phrynichus a grammarian of the 2nd century. A and are also interchanged ; e.g. Bndparn; for Βηθφαγη, as in the Cod. Alexand. Bndbaüdo for Brbaïda. The same confusion has been noted and condemned by differ, ent authors, particularly Phrynichus and Eustathius , and by the author of the Etymologicon Magnum under the word wandwg.
3dly. Sometimes this MS. adds, sometimes omits a letter, as is customary with the MSS. already cited. e.g. amuntamas for Ambonas; this is frequent both in the Cod. Alex. the Cod. Laud, and other MSS. of the remotest antiquity: the same orthography occurs frequently in Herodotus. * It has also exXUVVOLEVON with two ", Matt. xxiii. 35. xxvi. 28. and spambour Matt, xxvi. 67. with a single e, which words are written precisely in the same way in the Codd. Ephraim, Cant., and Alexandrinus.
4thly. It prefixes the augment to the preposition, as ErgoPNTEVOGN for moontuoa), Matt, xi. 13. and always adds the SPEAKUOTIXON or paragogic N. Besides, it expresses numbers by words, and not by numeral letters; and writes autws for outw, though the followword begin with a consonant.
III. Mode of Pointing; In the distinction of words by pointing, it agrees with the most ancient MSS. It is generally supposed that one point variously placed, answered the purpose of our semicolon, colon, and period. A point at the top of the terminating letter in a word or sentence, was equivalent to our semicolon ; at the middle, to a colon : and at the bottom, following the last letter on the same line, to a period. Dr. B. supposes that the members of the sentences were thus distinguished originally in this MS, but at present very few points are visible in the whole fragment; yet there are sufficient traces of them to countenance Dr. B.'s opinion. The points of interrogation appear no where in this MS. nor is this to be wondered at, as these points do not appear in any MS. prior to the ninth century, and the Dublin MS. undoubtedly belongs to a remoter period.
IV. Abbreviations or Contractions. Though contractions appear in the most ancient and correct MSS. yet in general they are but few, and occur only in such words as are best known, and most frequently repeated. In this respect the fragment published by Dr. Barrett, agrees with the most ancient MSS. It has but a few contractions, and these on common and well known words, e.g. dad for safid, ou xu
πνευματος, xov for xupsov, &c. The words are written closely consecutive, with rarely any space to denote the commencement of
any new word or sentence. In many places the iota has two points ï over it, but this is not regular: in some parts it frequently occurs; in others rarely. We have not discovered any point above the r, which frequently appears in MSS. of the eleventh and subse quent centuries.
From what we have already seen, the age of this MS. may be nearly conjectured. Dr. Barrett supposes that it may be classed among those of the sixth century for the following reasons:
Ist. Because it is written in the square or uncial character, which is that of the most ancient MSS. and Inscriptions; and which began to be disused iu the seventh century, and soon afterwards gave place to the small, oblong, and inclined character, the uncial being only preserved for the titles of books,&c.
2dly. It not only possesses internal marks of very high antiquity; but is destitute of all those which characterize MSS. of a modern or comparatively modern date. It has neither spirits nor accents, which in the opinion of the learned Montfaucon 'were first introduced in the seventh century : and though the writing is both accurate and extremely elegant, yet it has no flourished or ornamented letters, which prevailed in MSS. of the ninth and following centuries.
3dlj: It agrees with the most ancient MSS. in its readings, &c. and particularly with the Codex Bezæ, and omits the doxology, Matt. vi. 13.
4thly. Though the Ammoniun Sections are exhibited in this MS. the Eusebiun Canons usually connected with them, are wanting, as in the Cod. Cant.--yet these are found connected in MSS. which boast the remotest antiquity, such as the Codex Ephraim and the Codex Alexandrinus.
5thly. The vellum on which this MS. is written, was originally of a purple colour, which is allowed, by the best judges, to be a proof of the greatest antiquity.
othly. There are evidences that the original writing on this
vellum, had not been remored by art, in order to write another work in its place, but had facied through the long lapse of time ; as there are found in it unquestionable proofs of an attempt to retrace some of the evanescent letters with fresh ink, previously to the rescript. Dr. Barrett therefore conjectures, that several centuries must have elapsed before the rescript took place, and that the MS. in question cannot be placed later than the sixth century. With this opinion, on a careful exainivation of his proofs, and comparing this MS. with others, the remote antiquity of which is sufficiently established, we decidedly concur; and we refer to the work itself, pp. 7, 8, and 9, for solid answers to objections that might be grounded upon the form of some of its letters.
The principal argument against its being a MS. of the sixth century, is the conformity of its letters to those in the Turonian fragment, exhibited by Montfauco!, Palæographia Græca, p. 214. which he supposed to have been written in the seventh century. Were we at all disposed to question the age attri: buted by Dr. B. to his Coder Rescriptus, it would be on the evidence of this fragment, from the general similarity of the letter, and particularly of the a and je which sometimes occur in a forin, nearly resembling those in Dr. B.'s MS. But allowing that Montfaucon is correct in the age he assigns to this fragment, it does not follow, that the Dublin Ms. must be of the same age with it, because of a peculiar siunilarity in some of the letters. In this fragment, the y occurs sometimes in the following form ll, and though the fragment consists of only fourteen incomplete lines, yet they occurs in its regular form M twice, whereas in the Dublin MS. it invariably ret:ins the form of an inverted ni, U; add to this, that several of the letters in the Tours fragment are widely different, and bear evident marks of a more modern date than those in the Dublin MS. as they approach more to the cursire connected form, which obtained in the ninth and following centuries. Whatever may be the age of the Turonian fragment, the Dublin MS., we think, may lay claim to at least 100 years of prior antiquity.
Having thus vindicated the date which be ascribes to his Codex Rescriptus, Dr. Barrett proceeds to describe those MSS. with which he has collated it; those written in upcial charaters are the following, and are thus characterized ; A, the Codex Alexandrinus.-B, Vaticanus.-C, Regius.-D, Cantabrigiensis, or Codex Beza.-L, a MS, of the ninth Century, highly esteemed by Griesbach.--Y, a Latin MS. of the four Gospels, in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, marked A, 1. 6.-7, another NIS. of the four Gospels, in the same library: marked A. 4. 15. containing the old Italı, or Ante
hieronymian version. Those in small characters are the fol. lowing. No, 1, the Coder Basiliensis: 13, the Coder Parisinus: 33, Coder Colbertinus: and 69, the Coder Leicestrensis. The different Antehieronymian versions, edited by Blanchini, are cited, as also the Syriac, Coptic, Vulgate, Saxon, Armenian, and Arabic, with several of the primitive fathers. This collation is highly creditable to the Dublin MS. as it is found to agree
with the most ancient and accurate MSS. Versions and Fathers, and to contain a variety of valuable readings.
Before we proceed to give any particular account of these readings, it may be necessary to describe the form in which Dr. B. has exhibited his work. The MS. as we have seen, contains only sixty-four pages; these appear in the work before us beautifully engraved on sixty-four copper-plates, in which the contents and peculiar form of the original are accurately expressed. On the opposite pages, the contents of each plate are printed in the modern Greek character, and the deficient letters of the MS. marked by dots: the chapter and verse are also marked in the margin of the printed page; and at the bottom, the Variæ Lectiones are inserted from the collation already described.
We have before hinted that the MS. commences with a part of the genealogy of our Lord, Matt. i. 17; this one verse, unfortunately, is all that remains of it, but this is sufficient to shew that the whole genealogy was once contained in the MS. Thus we have another proof, and a proof of the most respectable kind, that the first and second chapters of this gospel are no spurious additions of after times, as those persons would have us believe, that deny the miraculous conception of the hu. man nature of our blessed Lord.
For a specimen of this publication, we subjoin this verse as jt stands in the original, with the modern characters on the opposite page, using a type, which, though much smaller, bears a great resemblance to the fac simile.
Αβρααμ εως Δαδ χε дёкатессарес
δεκατεσσαρες KIUTTOALEWCTHCLL Και απο Δαδ εως της και
KECILCRIBYXWNOCE κισιας Βαβυλωνος, γε .
алекатессарес" αι δεκατισσαρες KdIITTOTHCLIETOIKECIL Και απο της μετοικεσία • •
BdB YAWNOCEWCTOYX Ba@urwvos sws Tou X .
OUV ab YEYE