THE CODEX SINAITICUS. As this is the last-discovered Greek manuscript of great value, we give its history. The finding of it is remarkable. Professor Tischendorf was traveling in 1844, under the patronage of the king of Saxony, in search of manuscripts. At the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, he espied in a waste paper basket some odd leaves of vellum, which turned out to be a part of the Old Testament in Greek. The style, &c., convinced him that they were of very early date, and so were of great value, and yet here they were placed in a basket of waste paper, destined to light the fire in the stove. These were readily given to Tischendorf, and consisted of forty-three leaves. He learned that there were more of these leaves; but, on his telling the monks that probably they dated back as far as the fourth century, they were immediately taken away, and he was only allowed to copy one leaf more than he had already.
He carried away the forty-three leaves, and published them in 1846, under the name of the “Codex Frederico-Augustanus," in honor of his sovereign's name, Frederick Augustus, of Saxony. In 1853 he again visited St. Catherine, but could not obtain any tidings of the leaves he had previously seen, and so concluded that some one else had been more fortunate than himself, and had carried them off. In 1855 he published the two leaves he had copied. These were also a part of the Old Testament-indeed, he did not know at that time that there was any but the Old.
In 1859 he again visited the East, and again tarried at St. Catherine. He had been there five days, and was thinking of leaving, when, on taking a walk with the steward, the conversation turned on the Greek Old Testament, and on their return to the convent, the steward brought from his cell a bundle of leaves, wrapped in a red cloth, such as is used for that purpose in the East, and showed them to Tischendorf. The scholar now saw that there was not only some more of the Old Testament, but the entire New Testament. This was a great deal more than he expected, or had hoped for. He had to be exceedingly cautious not to let his joy be seen, lest the precious pages should again be taken from him. For very joy he could not sleep all night, and copied out during the night the Epistle of St. Barnabas, which was added at the end of the New Testament.
Nothing would satisfy Tischendorf but to copy the whole, and he at length obtained permission to to this. The manuscript was carried to Cairo, and there he was allowed a few leaves at a time, and had two to help him to copy. But this was uncertain and unsatisfactory work, and Tischendorf began to think how he could best contrive to get possession of the manuscript. He told the monks that it would be a fit and valued present to the Emperor of Russia, who was now his patron and theirs. This they concurred in, but just then the See of Sinai was vacant, and until a successor was appointed, the gift could not be completed. However, after some opposition, he procured the loan of the manuscript for the purpose of having it correctly copied.
He carried it to St. Petersburg, and the Emperor of Russia, at a great expense, had an elegant edition printed, in commemoration of the thousandth anniversary of his kingdom. Cheaper editions were also published, that none might be debarred the privilege of knowing its contents. It proved to be one of the oldest, and so one of the most valuable, of all our Greek Testaments. It is called SINAITICUS, because it was found in the convent at Mount Sinai.
This manuscript contains all the marks of extreme age: namely, the fineness of the vellum, the four columns in a page (in imitation of the papyrus copies), the absence of larger initial letters, the absence of accents and breathings by the first hand, few points, &c.
To add to the interest of this volume it may be named that after it had been introduced to the public, a man named Constantine Simonides came forward and declared that it was not an ancient manuscript at all, but that he himself had written it comparatively lately; that it was with no object to deceive, but being a good penman he had made the copy at the request of his uncle. His tale was so plausible that he found some who gave it credit, and the savants were not a little laughed at that they could have been so easily deceived in judging of the age of a manuscript. But the savants declared that they were not deceived. Every fresh examination of the relic convinced them that it was what they believed it to be. There was the fineness of the vellum, the various hands that had corrected it, the difference in the colors of the inks, &c. Besides, from what could it have been copied? for it agreed in every particular with no other copy in existence. All this was confirmatory evidence. The rebutting evidence as given by Simonides as to when and where it was written, &c., also would not bear investigation. Dates did not agree; persons declared they never knew such a man, &c. Scholars could come but to one conclusion, that the man was false and the copy was a true relic of antiquity. It was supposed that he made the declaration out of spite to Tischendorf, because he had exposed an attempt Simonides had made to pass off a spurious manuscript.
Dr. Scrivener tells the following anecdote of this same Simonides, which also well illustrates the fact that some who are used to examine old manuscripts seem intuitively to know an old copy from the best imitation. Simonides went with manuscripts to Mr. H. O. Coxe, librarian at the Bodleian. "He produced two or three, unquestionably genuine, but not at all remarkable for age.... he then proceeded to unroll, with much show of anxiety and care, some fragments of vellum, redolent of high antiquity and covered with uncial writing of the most venerable form. Our wary critic narrowly inspected the crumbling leaves, smelt them, if haply they might have been subjected to some chemical process; then quietly handed them back to their vendor, with the simple comment that these he thought might date from about the middle of the nineteenth century." Simonides made his exit from Oxford, but succeeded in deceiving one less wary.
CODEX ALEXANDRINES (A). This important manuscript was given by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I of England. It was placed in the British Museum in 1753, where it is now exhibited, in a glass case, in the Manuscript room. This manuscript also contains the Old Testament. The New Testament is complete, except Matt. 1:1 to 25:6; John 6:50 to 8:52 (two leaves); 2 Cor. 4:13 to 12:6 (3 leaves). It is in quarto, about 13 inches by 10, having two columns on a page. This differs from א and B in having larger initial letters, and it has the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons, complete. Scholars are pretty well agreed in fixing its date in the fifth century. Because of its importance it has been published in full.
CODEX VATICANUS (B). This valuable manuscript is in the Vatican Library at Rome (whence its name). It is mentioned in the earliest existing catalog (1475), but how much sooner it was in the library, or what is its previous history, no one knows. As to age and value, it stands about on a par with Codex Sinaiticus, some giving the Vatican copy the preference, and some the Sinaitic. It is a quarto volume of 146 leaves, ten and a half inches by ten. It has three columns on a page. Its total want of larger initial letters, the fineness of the vellum, and the absence of the Ammonian Sections, point out its antiquity. A later hand (judged to be about the eighth century), has retraced nearly the whole of the manuscript, who, made alterations, adding initial letters, breathings, accents, and points.
The manuscript has been kept with great care—too great a care, for those who would have collated it well were not allowed. In 1810 the manuscript was found at Paris, and could have been collated by Hug, but he let the opportunity slip. It had been collated by others, but by no one thoroughly, at least the collations did not agree. Tregelles, in 1845, attempted a new collation, going armed with a letter from Cardinal Wiseman. But he says, "They would not let me open it without searching my pocket, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper;" and the two attendants (clergymen) kept up a loud conversation and laughter to distract him, and if they thought he looked at a passage too long, they snatched the book out of his hand. Tischendorf was more successful. Cardinal Mai had published an edition, but very inaccurate, and in 1866 Tischendorf succeeded in convincing the pope of this fact, and obtained leave to examine the manuscript for fourteen days, of three hours each. He published an edition, presumedly more correct than any previous. The pope has since also published an edition. The manuscript contains the Old Testament as well as the New. The New is complete down to Heb. 9:14, but contains the Catholic Epistles, which were placed after the Acts.
CODEX BEZÆ (D). This contains the Gospels and Acts only, and those imperfect in places. This manuscript is in the New Library at Cambridge. It was presented to the University by Theodore Beza, whence its name. It is both a Greek and Latin copy, each filling the page, the Latin being on the right hand. The copy is remarkable in having readings which do not agree with any of the other ancient uncials, and the Latin has less agreement with the Vulgate than any other. Of the curious readings may be named the following, which occurs after Luke 6:4: "On the same day he beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law." Its date is assigned to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. It has been published in full. It is a quarto volume, 10 inches by 8. It has only one column on the page.
CODEX CLAROMONTANUS (D of Paul's Epistles). This bears a resemblance to Codex Beza, and gives both Latin and Greek (the Greek being on the left hand page). It contains the whole of Paul's Epistles, except a few leaves. Its letters are square and regular, with initial letters but slightly larger than the others. The breathings and accents now in the copy were certainly added by a later hand. Though resembling Codex Bezæ in appearance, it is considered a far purer copy and worthy to follow the four great uncials. Its date is fixed at the sixth century. It was edited by Tischendorf in 1852, who judged that it had been corrected by nine different hands. It is a small quarto, and has only one column on the page.
CODEX EPHRAEMI (C). This is a palimpsest, and is in the National Library of Paris, on account of which it is often called the Paris Rescript. Over the writing of the New Testament had been written some Greek works by St. Ephraem, the Syrian Father, of A.D. 299-378. The chemical agents applied to the vellum have turned some of it dark brown and black, rendering the deciphering very difficult. It is in a single column on a page, has initials of increased size, and its letters are a little smaller than A or B. Its date is assigned to the fifth century. It being odd leaves only of the original manuscript, it contains but portions both of the Old and New Testament; the parts preserved of the New extend from Matthew to Revelation. This has been published in facsimile.
It would be out of place to give a detailed account of all the various uncial manuscripts. We have described the few great authorities (א A B D), and also C, which is equally valuable, but of which we have only fragments. There are other fragments of great value. We add a list of the principal manuscripts for reference, giving the portions of the New Testament contained in each, where the copy now is, and the century to which its date is referred. Some of those named are merely fragments—in some cases a few leaves only; and in other cases, where more complete, it must be remembered that leaves are missing here and there, so that in no case can a manuscript not named for a reading be taken necessarily against the same, as the part in which the variation occurs may be wanting.
It must also be noticed, that, on account of the quantity of parts of the New Testament, the same letter is given to two or three different copies; thus. E in the Gospels refers to one copy, in the Acts to another, in Paul's Epistles to a third. So that it must be remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be ascertained to what copy E refers. The importance of this will be at once seen by referring to B. In the Revelation B refers to a copy dated the eighth century; but in any other part of the New Testament it refers to one of the earliest copies we have.
Another disadvantage is that different editors give different names to the same manuscript. Sometimes one is named after the place where the copy is, and sometimes by the name of the person to whom it once belonged, or who introduced it to the public. Thus A is called by Tischendorf Codex Oxoniensis because it is now at Oxford, but by English editors it is called Tischendorf III.
It must also be observed that some few of the manuscripts are now referred to by different letters from what they once were. See Codex Angelicæ Bibliothecæ under the letters G and L in the following list.
List of Uncial Manuscripts
א Sinaiticus. Whole of New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century 4.
A Alexandrinus. The whole. (British Museum.) Century 4 or 5.
B Vaticanus. Matthew to Hebrews, including Catholic Epistles. (Rome.) Century 4 or 5.
Vaticanus 2066 (or Basilianus). The Revelation complete. (Rome.) Century 8.
C Ephraemi, a palimpsest (often called Paris Rescript). Portions of the whole. (Paris.) Century 5.
D Beza (Greek and Latin). Gospels and Acts. (Cambridge.) Century 5 or 6.
Claromontanus (Greek and Latin). Paul's Epistles. (Paris.) Century 6 or 7.
E Basiliensis. Gospels. (Basle.) Century 8 or 9. Laudianus (Greek and Latin). The Acts. (Oxford.)
Century 6 or 7.
Sangermanensis (or Petropolitanus). Paul's Epistles in Greek and Latin. (St. Petersburg.) Century
11.
Judged to be a copy of Claromontanus (D).
F Boreeli. Gospels. (Utrecht.) Century 9 or 10. Augiensis. Paul's Epistles. Latin and Greek,
(Cambridge.) Century 9.
Fª. Coislinianus. Fragments of New Testament. (Paris.) Century 7.
G Seidelii Harleianus, or Wolfii A. Gospels. (British Museum.) Century 10.
Angelica Bibliotheca, or Passionei. G in Acts and Catholic Epistles, and J in Paul's Epistles.
(Rome.) Century 9. (Now called L.)
Gª. Fragments of the Acts. Century 7.
Boernerianus. Paul's Epistles, in Greek and Latin interlinear. (Dresden.) Century 9.
H Wolfii B or Seidelii. Fragments of the Gospels. (Hamburg.) Century 9.
Mutinensis. Acts. (Modena.) Century 9. Coislinianus. Fragments of Paul's Epistles. (Paris and St.
Petersburg.) Century 6.
I Tischendorf II., a palimpsest. Fragments of the New Testament. (St. Petersburg.) Century 6.
Iᵇ Same as Nᵇ.
K Cyprius. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century 9. Mosquensis. Catholic Epistles and Paul's
Epistles (known from Matthaei's collation). Century 9.
L Regius. The Gospels. (Paris.) Century 8 or 9.
Biblioth. Angelica A. Acts, Catholic and Paul's
Epistles. (Rome.) Century 9. (See G.)
M Campianus. The Gospels complete. (Paris.) Century 9.
Ruber (also called Uffenbachianus). Fragments of 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. (Hamburg, &c.)
Century ix. (Named Ruber from its red ink.)
N Purpureus, or Vindebonensis. Fragments of Gospels (in various places). Century 6.
Petropolitana. Fragments of Galatians and Hebrews. Century 9.
Nᵇ Musei Britannici, a palimpsest, two Syriac works being written over the Greek. Portions of John.
Century 4. or 5.
O Fragments of Gospels (some at Moscow). Century 9.
O and Oᵇ. Fragments of 2 Corinthians and Ephesians.
P Guelpherbytanus A, a palimpsest. Portions of Gospels. (Wolfenbiittel.) Century 6.
Porphyria us, a palimpsest. The Acts, all the
Epistles, and Apocalypse. (St. Petersburg.) Century 9.
Q Guelpherbytanus B, a palimpsest. Portions of Luke and John. (Wolfenbiittel.) Century 5 or 6.
Papyrus. Parts of 1 Cor. 6, 7, on papyrus, the only fragments remaining on this material. Century 5.
R Nitriensis, a palimpsest. Fragments of Luke. (British Museum.) Century 6.
S Vaticanus 354. The Gospels complete. (Rome.) Century 10. This is the earliest dated manuscript,
being written A.D. 949.
T Borgian us I. Fragments of Luke and John. (Rome.) Century 4 or 5.
Twol (From Woide). Fragments of Luke and John. (Supposed to be a portion of the same manuscript
as T.)
Tᵇ, Tᶜ, Tᵈ. Fragments of Gospels. Century 6 and 7.
U Nanianus I. The Gospels complete. (Venice.) Century 10.
V Mosquensis. The Gospels to John 7:39. (Moscow.) Century 8 or 9.
Wᵇ, Wᵉ, Wᵈ, We. Separate Fragments of the Gospels,
X Monacensis. The Gospels. (Munich.) Century 9, 10.
Y Barberini 225. John 16:3-19:41. (Rome.) Century 8.
Z Dublin Rescript. Portions of Matthew. (Dublin.) Century 6.
Γ Tischendorf IV. The Gospels. (Oxford and Petersburg.) Century 9.
Δ Sangallensis. The Gospels complete, except John 19:17-35. (St. Gall.) Century 9. This copy has an interlinear translation in Latin, not the old Latin, but Jerome's, altered, and is of no independent value. Judged by some to be a portion of Codex Boernerianus, G of Paul's Epistles.
θ ª, θᵇ, θᶜ, θᵈ, θᵉ, θ ͪ. Fragments of the Gospels.
Λ Tischendorf III. Luke and John. (Oxford.) Century 8 or 9.
Ξ Zaeynthius, a palimpsest. Portions of Luke. (Bible Society, London.) Century 8.
Π Petropolitanus. The Gospels. (Russia.) Century 9.
Cursive Manuscripts
As has been already explained, the uncial manuscripts may be said to date from the fourth century to the tenth, though some are actually later than this; so also the cursive manuscripts, in the common running hand, date from the tenth to the sixteenth century, the two branches overlapping each other somewhat.
The cursive copies, complete and in parts, are so numerous that it would be useless, in such a work as this, to give even a list of them. They number in all about 1600 copies, though perhaps not more than twenty-five contain the whole New Testament.
They are referred to by the various editors by the figures 1, 2, 3, &c., as well as by the small letters, a, b, c, &c., which at once distinguishes them from the uncial copies for which the capital letters are always used, as may be seen in the foregoing list. Those referred to by a, b, c, &c., are mostly those collated by Dr. Scrivener, and are sometimes referred to thus Scr. a, Scr. b, &c. He collated many cursive manuscripts, and where all, or nearly all of those available for any part of the New Testament agree in a reading, editors sometimes express this by Scr.'s Mss. The manuscripts referred to by figures are those collated by Scholz and others. As with the uncials, so with the cursives the same figure does not always refer to the same manuscript. Thus one manuscript is called 35 in the gospels, 14 in the Acts, 18 in Paul's epistles, and 17 in the Revelation; so that it must be always remembered what part of the New Testament is under consideration before it can be known with certainty what Greek copies are referred to.
When we come to consider the families of manuscript, it will be seen that a cursive copy may be of great value. The great mass of them may be but duplicates of other manuscripts, while some are found to be far from this. On a few of the cursives special value has been set, and this not because of their date, but because they are believed to contain a more ancient text than that of the great mass. Thus, Tregelles who seeks to form a text from ancient evidence alone, quotes in the Gospels cursive manuscripts 1 (tenth century), 33 (eleventh century), and 69 (fourteenth century). In his list of authorities he places these before several of the later uncial manuscripts, though of earlier date than the above cursives.
A short notice of two or three of the cursive manuscripts will not be without interest. The first is:
No. 33. This has been called "the queen of the cursives," because of containing, as is supposed, many of the most ancient readings where the manuscripts differ. Its name is Colbertinus, and it is now in the National library at Paris. Though it is number 33 in the Gospels, it is number 17 in Paul's Epistle, and number 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. It has not the Revelation. It is on vellum, in folio size, and is judged to belong to the eleventh century. It had been shamefully neglected, so that the damp caused some of the leaves to stick together; and on separating them the ink from one page adhered to the opposite one, and can only now be read by the set off on the wrong page. In some places portions of a leaf have decayed away entirely, yet what was on these places can sometimes be read by this set off.
No. 38. This is a copy of the Apocalypse, and is supposed also to contain many ancient readings. It is on cotton paper, and of the thirteenth century. It is valuable because of the comparative scarcity of manuscripts of the Revelation.
No. 1. This is a manuscript at Basle. It contains all the New Testament except the Apocalypse. It is supposed to be of the tenth century, but is judged by some to be of a mixed character; and that while its gospels are of great value, all the rest is not equally so.
No. 69, called the Codex Leicestrensis because of belonging to the city of Leicester. This contains the whole of the New Testament, with numerous parts missing. This is written in folio, both on parchment and paper, having two of the former then three of the latter alternately. It is attributed to the fourteenth century, but is remarkable for containing many variations from the common Greek text, and thus not being a mere copy of the mass of manuscripts has had the more attention. Though it is 69 in the Gospels, it is 31 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 37 in Paul's Epistles; and 14 in the Apocalypse.
No. 61. This is called Montfortianus, because it once belonged to Dr. Montfort, of Cambridge: it is now at Dublin. It contains the whole of the New Testament, but is judged by some to have been originally different manuscripts and not all of the same date. It has acquired interest by containing the famous passage in 1 John 5:7, known as the Heavenly Witnesses, and is believed to have been the identical copy which caused the passage to be inserted by Erasmus in his Greek Testament, and thence into the authorized version. It is written on paper, and is judged to be as late as the sixteenth century. It is 61 in the Gospels; 34 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; 40 in Paul's Epistles; and 92 in the Revelation.
This must suffice for the cursive manuscripts. As we have said, they are 1600 in number, and all are more or less valuable: many of them have not been thoroughly examined, and thus their intrinsic value is in a great measure unknown. Of course, as a class, they rank below the uncial copies, but in some places they add material evidence for or against a reading.