various readings, but afterwards, having more carefully examined the passage (perlustrato attentius loco), I found some marks and remains sufficiently distinct (satis certa) of the line which at first had escaped my examination, especially towards the left side, where it touches the circumference of the letter." 1 Next after Mill we find that the passage was examined by Wetstein, in the year 1716 or 1717,2 in order to discover what Mill had supposed himself to see, "perlustrato attentius loco," but he failed to find any traces of the more ancient lines. In 1718 Henry Wotton seems to have found the transverse line quite plain compared with the previous experience of Mill and Wetstein. He says: "In this MS., without doubt, was always read Deòs épavepwen, as will readily be discovered by any one who inspects it quite carefully [accuratioribus oculis].”3 About twenty years later, Rev. J. Berriman made a careful examination of this passage, with several of his friends; the result of which was published in 1741. He says: "I have several times carefully examined this manuscript myself, and though I could never perceive any part of the old transverse line by the naked eye (nor others who were with me, whose eyes were better than mine), yet by the aid of a glass and the advantage of the sun shining on the book, I could see some part of the old line toward the left hand of the new stroke within the circle of the , and the same was seen by two gentlemen who viewed it at the same time; one of whom also could discern some remainder of the old line towards the right hand, as well as the other towards the left." 4 It will be seen that the transverse stroke was so faint that it could be only seen on the most minute examination, and then only with a microscope, the leaf being held in the sun light. It was left for Wetstein, in the year 1746, to explain the faint appearance of this line. His discovery may best be given in his own words. He says: "I asked an old friend to take me into the Royal Library, and when he had done it, and carefully examined this passage in the Alexandrian MS., not only with the naked eye, but with various kinds of glasses, he pronounced that it had originally been written in no other way than OC; but when I sought towards the left for the line of Mill and Berriman, I found it indeed, but when I wished to show it to my friend, I could not, because it had vanished; and when the line alternately appeared and again disappeared, and I was not a little perplexed by the phantasm, my friend, with his peculiar penetration, immediately suggested the cause, and showed that the line was not written on the page where it is read ős épaveρwn, but on the other side of the leaf, where is written Kar' evσeßelav (1 Tim. vi. 3), and that it formed a part of the first letter of the word evoeßelav. For when the book was laid on the table, as often as the leaf which we were considering was so placed on the following leaves that it should touch and cover the whole of the next leaf, the line could not be seen, because the parchment was opaque; but as soon as the leaf was so raised and separated from the following leaves that both sides should be shone upon, not only was this line seen through the translucent parchment, but even whole letters and words."1 This explanation of Wetstein, that the supposed faint transverse line was only the sagitta of the Є seen through the thin vellum, is probably the true one. Woide, the learned editor of this Codex, endeavored in his Prolegomena to throw discredit upon it; but it has been defended by Tischendorf, Porter, Tregelles,* and more lately by Ellicott," so satisfactorily that there seems but little room to doubt its correctness. 1 Wetstein's Nov. Test., Vol. I., Proleg. p. xxii. 2 Cod. Rescr. (ed. Tischendorf), p. xlii. 8 Principles of Text. Critic., p. 487. Printed Text of Griesb. Nov. Test., p. 228. Commentary on 1 Tim. iii. 16; also note on p. 100. This note seems It is astonishing how many errors Dr. Henderson has compressed into the single page which he devotes to the Alexandrian MS. He says: "This proof (of its reading Deós) is furnished by the unimpeachable testimony of Junius, Huish, Mill, Wotton, Croyk, Berriman, Ridley, Hewitt, and Pilkington, who carefully and minutely inspected the passage before it became illegible, and found the genuine transverse line in the . To these names may be added those of Walton, Tell, Bentley, and Grabe, all of whom had access to this MS. at an earlier period, and who concur in its exhibiting OC and not OC. The evidence thus elicited was attempted to be set aside by Wetstein, who on first examining the MS. was able to discover no stroke, and conjectured that what Mill had taken for it was merely the line of an E in the word CTCEBEIAN on the opposite side of the leaf, which made its appearance through the vellum; but on inspecting the more minutely afterwards, he found that the fine stroke which was originally in the body of the letter was discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke, with which some corrector had retouched it."1 most satisfactory, especially as coming from so sound a critic. His experiment consists of having the leaf held in the light, so that the edge of an instrument held on the obverse side of the leaf, exactly over the sagitta of the O, can be seen through the leaf by an observer looking at the suspected letter. In opposition to Woide, he finds that this sagitta exactly corresponds with the supposed transverse line of the O. Scrivener asserts, however, in his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Test. (1859), p. 453, that Ellicott's experiment is too delicate to be reliable. It is remarkable that neither Tregelles, nor Scrivener, who has examined this passage "twenty times within as many years" (p. 453), has noticed Prof. Porter's statement that a pinhole, made by some one at the extremity of the sagitta, falls exactly upon the supposed transverse line. One could hardly suppose that a pinhole sufficiently distinct to be pointed out, as Prof. Porter says, to Sir F. Madden, keeper of the MSS. in the Museum, could have become worn out by the lapse of time. We may add that Prof. Porson spent two days examining this passage, and was satisfied that the original reading of A was os. See Porson's Tracts, p. 290. As an offset to the suspicion of Woide that some critics, like Wetstein, may have failed to see the transverse line because they did not wish to do so, may be placed the testimony of Hempelius, who affirmed that the reading was certainly ös, although, as he informed Woide, he had expected and desired to read deós. Vide Spohr's Woide's Proleg., p. 181. 'Biblical Repository, Vol. II. p. 82. Here are almost as many errors as assertions. We will examine his statements in order. 1. Junius nowhere makes the slightest reference to this passage. 2. The same is true of Huish. The only foundation for this statement is that Huish collated this Codex for Walton's Polyglot, and failed to notice any various reading in this passage. The word had been previously altered or retouched, and he does not notice the fact. 3. Mill found the "genuine transverse line" so faint that at first in his Various Readings he referred to this MS. as authority for os. 4. Wotton certainly defends the reading eós, but even he says it can only be seen by examining the letter accura tioribus oculis. 5. Croyk is he who informed Berriman that he remembered having plainly seen the transverse line "twenty-five years ago," about the year 1716. This is the only authority which we have been able to discover that it was ever at all distinct, and we shall be obliged to throw discredit upon it, as it was about the time of Wetstein's first examination, and long after that of Mill. 6. Berriman distinctly asserts that he "could never per ceive any part of the old transverse line by the naked eye," although able by the help of a glass to "perceive some part" of it when the leaf was held in the full sunshine. 7. Ridley, Gibson, Hewitt, and Pilkington were the four gentlemen who examined the passage with Berriman ;2 all of whom were indebted to the combined advantages of a microscope and the bright sunlight for their discovery. 8. Walton, Tell, Bentley, and Grabe did not have "access to this MS. at an earlier period" than some before mentioned. In fact, Junius took charge of it when first presented to Charles I. 9. Walton never, as far as is known, examined this pas 1 Berriman's Diss., p. 154, also Woide's Proleg. to Alex. MS., p. 31. 2 Nolan's Greek Vulgate, p. 285, note; also Woide's Proleg., p. xxx, sage, but confided the collation of this MS. to Huish. Is it possible that Henderson refers to Wotton, whose name has been Latinized into Waltonus by Wetstein, and perhaps others? 10. Dean Tell, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, published an edition of the Greek Testament in 1765; his name, however, being suppressed. His collation of this MS. was drawn chiefly from Junius and Huish. He says nothing of the reading in this passage. 11. Bentley, as far as we can learn, nowhere speaks of the reading of this MS. as Deós; certainly not in his Essay on Freethinking, nor in the Notes for his projected edition, which have been published. 12. Grabe edited the Old Testament portion of the Alexandrian Codex, and in his MS. of the New Testament portion, preserved in the Bodleian, is this note: 2 "Some modern pen, I know not whose, has heavily retouched the line within the O, and also the stroke drawn over the word, lest otherwise it should be read os." Grabe says nothing of the distinctness of the "genuine" lines. 13. The statement of Henderson in reference to Wetstein's subsequent discovery of the nearly obliterated transverse line is incorrect in almost every particular. It may be true that, when first in England, he supposed on one occasion while examining this MS., that he saw the old line, and so told Berriman's anonymous correspondent; but, if so, this was twenty-five years before he found that the phantasm of the line was due to the stroke on the other side of the leaf; so that the last statement of Henderson is utterly incorrect. Had he appended references to his statements, their correctness could have been more easily verified. The Vatican MS., B, does not contain this Epistle. Codex C, or Ephraemi Syri, is a MS., probably of the fifth century, over which has been written a part of the works of Ephraem Syrus. The ancient text has been chem 1 Prolegom., p. xxii. Quoted by Woide, pp. xxx and 76, or Spohr's Leipsic ed., p. 421. |