« Prev I. TEXT. Next »

I. TEXT.

The original authorities for determining the text of the Epistle are, as in the case of the other books of the New Testament, numerous and varied. There are however, from the circumstances of the history of the Epistle, comparatively few patristic quotations from it, and these within a narrow range, during the first three centuries.

The Epistle is contained in whole or in part in the following sources:

I. Greek MSS.

(i) Primary uncials:

א, Cod. Sin. sæc. IV. Complete.

A, Cod. Alex, sæc. V. Complete.

B, Cod. Vatic. sæc. IV. The MS. is defective after ix. 14 καθα[ριεῖ]. ['Manus multo recentior supplevit.' This text is sometimes quoted by Tischendorf as b, e.g. ix. 18; x. 4, 23; xi. 15; xii. 24.]

C, Cod. Ephr. sæc. V. Contains ii. 4 μερισμοῖς—vii. 26 ἄκακος, ix. 15 ἐστίν—x. 24 ἀγά[πης]. xii. 16 μή τις—xiii. 25 Ἀμήν.

D2, Cod. Clarom. sæc. VI. Complete. (E3 is a copy of D2 after it had been thrice corrected.)

H2 , Cod. Coislin. sæc. VI. Contains i. 3 ῥήματι—8 εις τόν. ii. 11 δι᾽ ἤν—16 Ἀβρααμ. iii. 13 ἄχρις—18 μὴ είσε. iv. 12 ζῶν—15 ἡμῶν. x. 1 τών [μελλό]ντων—7 θέλημά σου. x. 32 [ὑπε]μείνατε—38 ἡ ψυχή μου. xii 10 οἱ

xv

μέν—15 πολλοί (with some gaps). The scattered fragments have been edited by H. Omont, Paris 1859. Fa (sæc. VII) contains only x. 26.

(ii) Secondary uncials:

K₂, Cod. Mosqu. sæc. IX. Complete.

L₂, Cod. Angel. sæc. IX. Complete to xiii. 10 οὖκ ἔχουσιν.

M₂, (Hamb. Lond.) sæc. IX, X. Contains i. 1 πολυμεπῶς — iv. 3 εἶς τὴν. xii. 20 [λιθο]βολισθήσεται — xiii. 25 'Ἀμήν.

N₂, (St Petersburg) sæc. IX. Contains v. 8 []παθεν — vi. 10 ἐπιλαθέσ[θαι].

P₂, Cod. Porphyr. sæc. IX. Complete (xii. 9, 10 illegible).

To these must be added MSS., as yet imperfectly known, which have been described by Dr C. R. Gregory.

Ψ Cod. Athous Laurae sæc. VIII, IX. Complete with the exception of one leaf containing viii. 11 καὶ οὐ μή — ix. 19 Μωυσέως.

ב Cod. Rom. Vat sæc. V. Contains xi. 32 — xiii. 4.

The Epistle is not contained in the Greek-Latin MSS. F₂ (Cod. Aug. sæc. IX) and G₂ (Cod. Boern. sæc. IX). The last verses of Philemon (21 — 25) are wanting in the Greek text of both MSS. F₂ gives the Latin (Vulgate) version of the Epistle. G₂ has after Philemon 20 in Christo

ἐν. χρω

ad laudicenses incipit epistola

Προς λαουδακησας. αρχεται ἐπιστολη (sic Matthæi).

The archetype of the MSS. was evidently mutilated before either of the copies was written, so that there is no reason to suppose that this note was derived from it

The following unique readings of the chief MSS. offer instructive illustrations of their character. Readings which are supported by some late MS. evidence are enclosed in ( ).

Unique readings:

(a) Of א.

i. 5 om. αὐτῷ.

ii. 18 om. πειρασθείς.

iii. 8 πιρασμῷ (for παραπικρασμῷ).

xvi

iv. 6 ἀπιστίαν.

7 ὁρ. τινα.

9 om. vers. add. A.

11 om. τις add. C.

vii. 21 om. εἶς tὸν αἰῶνα.

viii. 3 om. καἰ 2⁰.

ix. 5 ἕνεστιν (ἕστιν).

x. 7 om. ἥκω.

12 ἐκ δεξἰα.

18 ἀφεις (ἅφεσις), om. τοὐτων.

26 τῆς ἐπεγνωσἰαν τῆς.

32 τὰς πρ. ἁμαρτίας.

36 χρείαν (χρι-) ἔχετε κομίσασθαι.

39 ἀπωλίας.

xi. 31 + ἀπιλεγομένή π.

xii. 1 τηλικοῦτον (τοσοῦτον).

2 om. τοῦ θεοῦ.

10 ὁ μὲν γαρ. om. εἶς τό.

None of these readings have the least plausibility. Most of them are obvious blunders, and many have been corrected by later hands.

(b) Of A.

ii. 15 ἀποκαταλλάξῃ (ἀπαλλάξῃ).

iii. 9 οἱ π. ἡμῶν.

17 τίσιν δὲ + καί

iv. 3 om. ὡς? om. εὶ.

4 om. ἐν τ. ἡ. τ. ἑβδ.

viii. 1 ἐν τ. λεγ.

x. 29 om. ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη.

xi. 1 βοθλομένων (βλεπομένων).

13 προσδεξάμενοι.

23 δόγμα?

39 τὰς ἐπαγγελίας (-είασ*).

xii. 8 περὶ ἁμαρτίασ.

22 οὐ γάρ (ἀλλὰ) ἐποθρανἰων.

27 om. ἵνα μ. τὰ μὴ σαλ.

xiii. 11 om. περὶ ὰμαρτίας.

21 παντὶ + ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ 'δγ.

Of these again no one possesses any intrinsic probability, and several are transcriptional errors.

(c) Of B.

i. 3 φανερῶν.

4 om. τῶν.

(8 om. τοῦ αἰῶνος.)

14 διακονἰασ.

xvii

ii. 4 συνμαρτυροῦντος.

8 om. αὐτῷ (1).

iv. (7 προσίρηκεν.)

8 οὐκ ἅpα.

9 ἀπολειται (ἀπολείπεται).

12 ἐναργής.

16 om. εὖρωμεν.

vii. 2 παντός.

12 om. καὶ νόμου.

15 om. τήν.

viii. 7 ἐτέρας (δευτέρας).

(9 ἠμέραις.)

ix. 2 + τὰ' ἅγια.

Even though no one of these readings may give the original text, few are mere blunders.

(d) Of C.

iv. 8 μετ' αὐτά (comp. v. 3).

12 ζῶ (zω for z).

(ix. 20 διέθετο (ἐντείλατο).)

xiii. 7 ἀναθεωρήσαντες.

(e) The peculiar readings of D₂ are far too numerous, especially in chapters x.—xiii. to be given in detail. A few examples must suffice:

ii. 4 τοῦ θεοῦ (αὐτοῦ).

14 τῶν αὐ. + παθημάτων. θανάτου + Θάνατον.

iii. 13 ἁμαρτίαις (τῆς ἁμ.).

iv. 11 εἶς. + ἀδελφοί. ἀληθείας (ἀπειθείας).

vi. 18 μετά (διὰ).

vii. 27 ὁ ἀρχιερεύς.

ix. 9 ἤτις + πρώτη.

18 ἡ πρ. + διαθήκη.

23 καθαρίζεται.

Χ. 1 καθαρίσαι (τελειῶσαι).

10 αἶματος (σώματος).

26 περιλείπεται θυσίαν περὶ ἁμαρτίας προσενεναῖν

33 ἀνεδεζόμενοι (θεατριζόμενοι).

35 ἀπολύητε (ἀποβάλητε).

xi. 23 Add. πίστι μέγας γενόμενος Μωυσῆς ἀνίλεν τὸν Αἐγύπτιον νοῶν τὴν ταπίνωσιν τῶν άδελφῶν αὐτοῦ.

xii. 23 τεθεμελιωμένων (τετελειωμένων).

(28 εὐχαρίστως (εὐαρέστως).)

29 κύριος γάρ (καὶ γάρ).

xiii. 11 καταναλίσκονται (κατακαίεται).

17 ἀποδώσονται περὶ ὑμῶν (ἀποδώσοντες).

25 τῶν ἁγίων (ὑμῶν).

xviii

These variations it will be seen are wholly different in character, and have more the character of glosses than true variants.

Compare also i. 7, 9; iii. 1; iv. 1, 5, 12, 13, 16; v. 2, 7, 11, 12, 13; vi. 2, 6, 10, 12, 19, 20; vii. 6, 13, 18, 19, 20, 24; viii. 9; ix. 1, 5, 13, 14, 26, 28; x. 3, 7, 20, 25, 28, 32, 37; xi. 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 32, 33, 36; xii. 2, 7, 10, 11, 17, 22, 25; xiii. 3, 6, 7, 8, 16, 21, 22.

The dual combinations of the primary uncials are all of interest:

אB i. 8; vi. 3; vii. 23; viii. 10, 12; ix. 2, 3, 10.

BC vii. 21.

BD₂ iv. 3; v. 3; vi. 2; vii. 4, 5; viii. 6; ix. 11.

אA i. 9; vii. 27; ix. 24; x. (34), 38; xi. 12, 38.

AC iii. 13; iv. 3; vi. 7; vii. (6), 13; x. 11; xiii. 21.

AD₂ ix. 14; x. 34; xi. 8.

אC v. 12; vii 26; xiii. 6.

אD₂ i. 12; x. 30; xii. 3, 21; xiii. 21.

CD₂ iv. 12; vii. 9.

Compare also

א vg ii. 1; iv. 6; א syrr vi. 9; א segg. ix. 25; D₂ vg x. 23.

A vg iii. 14.

Β vg viii. 10; Β d vi. 2; Β segg. iii. 2; Β seth iii. 6; Β verss ix. 1, 4.

C vg ii. 5 (6).

The selection of readings given below the text will indicate fairly, I believe, the extent of early variations, but it will not supersede the use of a full critical apparatus.

(iii) Cursives:

Nearly three hundred (Scrivener, *Introd. 264 ff.) are known more or less completely, including 17 (Cod. Colb. saec. XI, = 33 Gosp.), 37 (Cod. Leicestr. saec. XIV), 47 (Cod. Bodl. saec. XI), which have been collated by Dr Tregelles for his edition of the Greek Testament.

The MS. 11 (Acts 9 Stephens εγ') of the Cambridge University Library (Kk. VI. 4) contains some remarkable and unique readings (compare Addit. Note on 1 John ii. 20).

ii. 8 ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.

10 τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτόν.

18 ἐν ῷ (add. γὰρ Iᵃ m. ) ?πέπονθεν αὐτὸς τοῖς πειραζομένοις δύναται βοηθῆσαι.

iii. 13 ἐξ ὑμῶν τις.

iv. 4 om. ἐν.

v. 12 λόγων (given by Stephens).

The MS. is at present defective from vii. 20 γεγονότες to xi. 10 τοὺς θευ. xix ἔχουσαν, and again from xi. 23 ὑπὸ τῶν to the end. This mutilation is later than the time of Stephens, who quotes from it on:

ix. 3 τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων.

15 λάβωσιν οἱ κληρονόμοι.

x. 6 ἐζήτησασ.

34 ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς.

xii. 28 λατρεύομεν.

xiii. 15 ἀναφέρομεν.

The surprising coincidences of the corrections in 67 (67*) with M₂ give a peculiar value to its readings of 67* where M₂ is defective. It agrees with M₂ in two readings which are not found in any other Greek MS:

i. 3 om. αὐτοῦ.

ii. 9 χςρίς

See also, i. 2 ἐσχάτου. 3 om. ἡμῶν. 11 διαμενεῖς. iii. 1 om. Χριστόν. 4 om. τά. 6 ὅς (?). 10 ταύτῃ. xii. 25 οὐρανοῦ. 26 σείσω. xiii. 18 πειθόμεθα.

On the other hand it is quoted as giving i. 7 πνεῦμα. iii. 14 πιστεως. 17 om. τεσσ. ἔτη. It would be interesting to learn whether ail these corrections are in the same hand.

The following readings are remarkable:

v. 12 om. τίνα (unique).

vii. 4 om. οὖτοσ (D₂*).

ix. 14 ὰγίου (D₂* Latt.).

23 καθαρίζεται (D₂* me).

xi. 4 om. εἶναι (unique).

37 ἐν μηλ. καὶ αἰγείοις.

xii. 18 om. καὶ (κεκαυμ.) D₂*.

See also iv. 12; vi. 10; vii. 17; viii. 4; ix. 9; x. 12, 15; xi. 5, 26; xii. 15.

The corrections appear to shew the eclectic judgment of one or more scholars; and suggest some interesting questions as to the texts of later MSS.

  1. Versions.

i. Latin:

The Epistle is preserved entire in two Latin Texts.

(a) The Old Latin.

d (Cod. Clarom.), the Latin Version of D₂; of which e (Cod. Sangerm.) is a copy with a few corrections.

The Greek text represented by d corresponds for the most part with D₂ (e.g. i. 7; ii. 14; iv. 11, 16; vi. 10, 20; vii. 1 f., 20; ix. (5), 9, 10, 11. 18; x. 1, 3, 6, 7, 26, (33,) 38; xi. 23; xii. 22, 23, 26, 29; xiii. 17); but in many places it differs from it (e.g. i. 9; ii. 4, xx 6, 8; iii 1, 13; iv. 12, 13; v. 6, 7, 11; vi 1, 2, 18, 19; vii. 11, 13, 27; viii 9; ix. 23; xi. 13, 32; xiii. 2, 20). In some of these cases the difference may be due to errors in the transcription of D 2 (e.g. i. 9; iii. 1, (13); iv. 12, 13; vi. 1, (18); viii. 9, &c.); but elsewhere the difference points to a variation in a Greek text anterior to the archetype of D2 (e.g. ii. 4, 6, 8; v. 6, (7,) 11; vi 2; vii. 11, 27; ix. 23; xi. 13) and even to a misreading of it (vi. 10; xiii. 2).

The text of d has been given by Delarne [under Sabatier's name] in Bibl. Lat. Vers. Ant. 111. (but far less accurately than by Tischendorf in his edition of Cod. Clarom., 1852) with the variations of e, and a large collection of Patristic quotations; but the genealogy of the early Latin texts has still to be determined with the help of a fuller apparatus.

Where it differs from the Vulgate d most frequently witnesses to an older Greek text (e.g. i 12; ii. 4, 8; iii. 9, 13; vi. 2, 7; viii. 2, 11; ix. 11; x. 9; xi. 3), yet not always (e.g. i. 7; iii. 17; vii. 23; viii. 12; ix. 2; xi. 4). See also vi. 17; vii. 20; viii. 10; ix. 10; x. 28, 38; xi. 18, 32; xii. 3, 26.

The Latin versions of the Epistle offer a subject for most instructive study, which has not yet been adequately dealt with. The earliest specimen is found in the quotation of vi. 4—8 given by Tertullian (de Pudic. 20). This is equally distinct from the Old Latin of d and e and from the Vulgate text (e.g. v. 4 participaverunt spiritum sanctum. v. 5 verbum Dei dulce, occidente jam evo. v. 6 cum exciderint, refigentes cruci in sometipsos, dedecorantes. v. 7 humorem, peperit herbam. v. 8 exustionem). The next important specimen of the Old Latin is a quotation of iii. 5-iv. 13 in Lucifer of Cagliari ( 371 a.d.) which agrees substantially with the texts of d and e, the variations not being more than might be found in secondary copies of the same writing (de non convers. c. haeret. 10). The quotations of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary &c. indicate the currency of a variety of texts in the 4th and 5th centuries, but these have not been classified.

The text of d and e in this Epistle is singularly corrupt. The scribe of d was evidently ignorant of Latin forms and words (i. 4 facto, 7 angelus; ii. 10 dicebat, per quo; iv. 15 habet; v. 9 operantibus; vi. 5 uirtutis futuri secule, 15 petitus, 17 inmobilem nobilatis suss; vii. 25 accendentes, 26 ceolestis; x. 2 purgari [mundati], 27 horribis quidam execratio iudici, 30 vindicas; xi. 5 inveniebamur, 28 ne que subastabat; xii. 3 pectoribus; xiii. 10 herore [edcre], 11 alium [animalium]. His deficiency becomes conspicuously manifest because he had to transcribe in this book a text xxi which had already been corrected, and in many cases he has confused together two readings so as to produce an unintelligible result (e.g. ii. 14 similiter et ipse participes factus est corumdem passione ut per mortem mortem destrueret qui imperium... iv. 2 sod non fuit prode illis verbum auditus illos non tomperatos fidom auditorum; 12 scrutatur animi ot cogitationis et cogitationis cordis; v. 11 et laboriosa qum interpraetatio est; vi. 16 et omnique controversia eorum novissimum in observationem; viii. 12 malitiae eorum et peccati illorum et injustis eorum; ix. 1 prior eius justitia constitutionis cultura; x. 2 nam necessansent offerri. See also ii. 3, 6; iv. 16; v. 7; vi. 1, 7, 10; vii. 19, 20; viii. 3; ix. 9; x. 2, 27, 33, 39; xi. 6, 31; xii. 1,25).

The scribe of e seems to have known a little Latin (he was ignorant of Greek) and he has corrected rightly some obvious blunders (ii. 12 pro (per) quo; iii. 18 introituros (-rus); v. 14 exercitatas (-tus); vi. 16 et omni (om. que); vii. 25 accedentes (accend-): 26 caelis (caelestis); 28 jurisjurandi (-ndo); viii. 7 secundus inquireretur (-das, -rere); x. 33 taliter (et aliter) &c.). Sometimes however his corrections are inadequate (e.g. ix. 24 apparuit per se for per sae) and sometimes they are wrong (e.g. viii. 1 sedet for sedit); and he has left untouched the gravest corruptions (iv. 2, 13; vi. 5, 17; ix. 1, 8f. &c), and many simple mistakes (ii. 9; iii. 10; v. 1; x. 2 &c). It is evident that in this Epistle he had no other text to guide his work.

In spite of the wretched form in which the version has come down to us, it shews traces of freedom and vigour, and in particular it has often preserved the absolute participial constructions which are characteristic of the Epistle (e.g. i. 2 etiam fecit, 3 purificatione peccatorum facta, 14 qui mittuntur propter posscesuros... ii. 8 subjiciondo autem... ii. 18; v. 7 lacrimis oblatis; vi. 11 relicto igitur initii Christi verbum (-o); x. 12 oblata hostia, 14 nos sanctificans; xi. 31 exceptis exploratoribus; xii. 28 regno immobili suscepto).

The important Harleian MS. (B.M. Harl. 1772) contains many traces of another early version, especially in the later chapters, as Gricebach (Symb. Crit. i. 327) and Bentley before him noticed. Other MSS. also contain numerous old renderings. Among these one of the most interesting is Bentley's 8 (comp. Dict of Bible, Vulgate, p. 1713), in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (Β. 10. 5, saec. ix.). This gives in agreement with d and e

i. 7 ignem ureniem.

ii. 3 in nobis.

18 om. et (bis).

iii. 16 omnes.

viii. 10 in sensibus eorum.

xiii. 17 om. non.

It has also many (apparently) unique renderings:

ii. 1 audimus.

11 et ex uno.

vi. 16 majorem sibi.

xxii

vi. 17 immotabilitatem ['i.e. immutabilitatem more Saxonico' R. B.].

vii. 25 ad dum.

viii. 5 monstratum.

ix. 7 offerebat.

x. 13 de caetero, fratres, exspectans [H2 has in the mg. of iv. 14 ἀδελφοί, and so Col. iii. 4. D2 adds άδελφοί in iv. 11, and 37 in xii. 14].

xi. 12 quae in ora est.

28 primogenita.

xii. 5 filii mei nolite.

26 mouebat.

xiii. 10 deservierunt.

19 ut celerius (Harl. ut quo).

It agrees with Harl. in

i. 12 amictum inuoluens eos (Harl. inuolues).

x. 14 emundanit...uestram (se Bentl.).

xii. 16 primitias suas.

xiii. 18 habeamus.

(b) The translation incorporated in the Vulgate appears to have been based upon a rendering originally distinct from that given by d, from which it differs markedly in its general style no less than in particular renderings. It was in all probability not made by the author of the translation of St Paul's Epistles; but this question requires a more complete examination than I have been able to give to it. The Greek text which it represents is much mixed. In very many cases it gives the oldest readings (e.g. i. 3; iii. 1, 10; iv. 7; vi. 10; vii. 21; viii. 4, 12; ix. 9; x. 30, 34, 38; xi. 11; xii. 18), but not unfrequently those which are later (e.g. i. 12; v. 4; viii. 2, 11; ix. 10, 11; xi. 3; xii. 28), and the best MSS. are often divided (e.g. ii. 5, 14, 18).

ii. Syriac.

(a) The version in the Syriac Vulgate (the Peshito) is held to be the work of a distinct translator (Wiehelhaus, De vers. simpl. 86), but the question requires to be examined in detail. The position which the Epistle occupies in the version (see § iii.) is favourable to the belief that it was a separate work. The text of the Peshito in this Epistle is mixed. It contains many early readings (e.g. i. 2; v. 3, 9; vi. 7, 10; vii. 12; ix. 11; x. 30, 34; xi. 4, 32, 37; xii. 3, 7, 18), and many late readings (e.g. i. 1,3, 12; xxiii ii. 14; iii. 1, 9f.; vii. 14, 21; viii. 2, 4; x. 34, 38; xi. 3, 4 f.; xii. 8; xiii. 4).

Many of the renderings are of interest (e.g. ii. 9; iii. 8; iv. 7; v. 7 f.; vi. 2, 4; vii. 19, 26; x. 29, 33; xi. 17, 19, 20; xii. 1; xiii. 16).

Compare also the following passages: ii. 13; iv. 8, 16; vii. 2, 11, 20; viii. 9; x. 5, 11, 17; xi. 11 [l].

(b) The Harclean (Philoxenian) Syriac Version has now been made complete, the missing portion, xi. 28 to the end, being found in the Cambridge MS. Though the text represented by the Harclean version is generally of a later type than that represented by the Peshito where the two versions differ (e.g. i. 2, 3; viii. 4, 12; ix. 10, 13, 28; x. 8, 30; xii. 3, 18), it preserves some earlier readings (e.g. i. 5, 8; ii. 14; v. 4; x. 2, 9, 28, 30). In some doubtful cases the two versions represent different ancient readings (e.g. iii. 13; iv. 2; vii. 4; ix. 10, 14; x. 11; xiii. 15)[2].

The text of the missing portion has been printed by Prof. Benaly (The Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap, xi. 28—-xiii. 25, now edited for the first time with Introduction and Notes on the version of the Epistle....Cambridge, 1889). It contains the following variations from the text which I have printed:

xi 29 (διέβησαν)+οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ.

31 +ἐπιλεγομένή πόρvη.

32 om. καὶ I*.

ἐπιλ. γάρ μe.

Β. τε (or kaὶ Β.) kαὶ Σ. καὶ

τῶv + ἄλλωύ πρ.

34 στόμα.

xii. 3 ἑαυτόν or αὑτόν.

8 νόθοι ἐστὲ kαὶ oὐχ υἱοί.

11 πᾶσα δέ.

l8 ὅρει ψηλ.

21 Μωυσῆs+γάρ.

24 παρὰ τὸ τοῖ Ἅ.

25 παραιτ. τὸv ἐπὶ γῆs χρημ.

28 ἔχομεν...λατρεύομεν.

αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας.

1 I have not thought it necessary to quote all the renderings in the notes.
[^2] The readings referred to here and in the next page are not always given expressly in the inner margin.

xxiv

xiii. 4 πόρν. δέ.

6 + καὶ' οὐ φοβ.

9 περιπατήσαντεσ (probably).

15 δι' αὐτοῦ + οὖν.

18 πεποίθαμεν.

ἔχομεν ἐν πᾶσιν (so connected).

20 Ίησοῦν + Χριστόν.

21 om. ἀγαθῷ.

ἐν ὑμῖν.

om. τῶν αἰώνων.

25 + Ἀμήν.

iii. Egyptian.

(a) Memphitic (Coptic). The Epistle is contained entire in this early and important version.

The Greek text which the version represents is of great excellence (e.g. i. 2, 3, 8; ii. 14; iii. 1, 2, 9; iv. 12; v. 1; vii. 4, 23; viii. 4, 11; ix. 2, 10, 11; x. 8, 15, 30, 34; xi. 3, 5, 11; xii. 18, 20; xiii. 4); but it has an admixture of later readings (e.g. i. 12; v. 10; vi. 10, 16; vii. 21; viii. 2, 12; x. 16, 38); and some readings which, though early, are certainly wrong (e.g. ii. 6; ix. 14; x. 32; xiii. 20).

(b) Thebaic (Sahidic). Of this version the following fragments have been published:

vii. 11 εἰ — 21 αἰῶνα.

ix. 2 σκηνή -- 10 ἐπικείμενα.

ix. 24 οὐ γὰρ — 28 σωτηρίαν.

x. 5 διό — 10 ἐφάπαξ.

xi. 11 πίστει — 22 ἐνετείλατο.

xii. 1 τοιγαροῦν — 9 ἐνετρεπόμεθα.

18 οὐ γὰρ — 27 σαλευόμενα.

The value of the version may be seen by its renderings in the following passages: ix. 10, 25, 26; xi. 11; xii. 7, 18.

(c) Bashmuric. The fragments of this version (quoted as Aeg.), which was derived from the Thebaic, are

v. 4 Ἀαρών — 9 ἐγένετο.

13 λόγου — vi. 3 ποιήσομεν.

vi. 8—11; 15 — vii. 5 ἐντολήν (more or less mutilated).

xxv

vii. 8 ἀποθνήσκοντες — 13 ταῦτα.

16 ἀκαταλύτου — x. 23 καθαρῷ. The dependence of this version upon the Thebaic and the close agreement of the present text with that version in the passages which are found in both (yet see ix. 2, 4, 10) gives great value to its evidence where the Thebaic is defective (e.g. vii. 4, 22, 23; viii. 1, 4, 11, 12; ix. 11, 13, 14; x. 4). Its agreement with B and Aeth. in ix. 2, 4 is specially worthy of notice.

The text of the Egyptian versions offers a singularly interesting field of study. It would be instructive to tabulate in detail their coincidences even in this single epistle with B, A and C.

The Epistle is found entire in the later versions, Armenian, Aethiopic, Slavonic. It does not, however, seem to have been included in the Gothic; for the Epistle to Philemon is followed immediately by the Kalendar in the Ambrosian MS. A of the Epistles (E. Bernhardt, Vulfila oder die Gothische Bibel, s. xxiv. 1875).

The text of the Epistle is on the whole well preserved, but there are some passages in which it is not unlikely that primitive errors have passed into all our existing copies; e.g. iv. 2 (Addit. note); xi. 4 (Addit. note), 37; xii. 11; xiii. 21; see also x. 1 (Addit. note). Some primitive errors have been corrected in later MSS.: vii. 1; xi. 35.

The following passages offer variations of considerable interest, and serve as instructive exercises on the principles of textual criticism: i. 2, 8; ii. 9 (Addit. note); iv. 2 (Addit. note); vi. 2, 3; ix. 11; x. 34; xi. 13; xii. 7.

The general contrast between the early and later texts is well seen by an examination of the readings in: i. 2, 3, 12; ii. 1, 14; iii. 1, 9; v. 4; vi. 10; vii. 11, 16; viii. 4, 11; ix. 1, 9, 10; xi. 3, 13; xii. 15, 18, 20; xiii. 9.

xxvi
« Prev I. TEXT. Next »





Advertisements



| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |