I 
 
B, 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FROM 
 
 The Earnes Hall Library 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred <£. Barnes, 
 
 Not to be taken from the roor 
 
3$ 
 
CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOHAIRIC VERSION 
 
 COVERING A DETAILED EXAMINATION 
 
 OF THE TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE 
 
 AND A REVIEW OF SOME OF 
 
 THE WRITINGS OF THE 
 
 EGYPTIAN MONKS 
 
 BY 
 
 H. C. HOSKIER 
 
 LONDON 
 
 BERNARD QUARITCH 
 
 IQII 
 
.a 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 / 
 
 London: 
 
 printed by william clowes and sons, limited, 
 
 duke street, stamford street, s.e., and great windmill street, w. 
 
 \ 
 
HANDLIST OF GREEK MSS. OF APOC. 
 
 TO NO. I23. 
 
 Missing or to be vacated 3 5 n 54 60 66 71 76 83 85 86 105. 
 
 Not collated 79 s 112 (duplicates). 
 Not yet collated 120 121 122. 
 
 As to Scr's list, 23 is substituted by Gregory and Hoskier for 
 Scr. 86. 
 
 Eliminate 50 2 of Scr. = 90 of Tisch Greg which we adopt. 
 
 Eliminate 85 Scr. (Esc. ¥ in. 17) = Greg and Hosk 142 (Esc. 
 T in. 17). 
 
 (85 Greg Hierosol. S. Sepulcr. 9 we neglect). 
 
 Scr 86 = our 23. Greg 86 = S. Sabae 10. I do not use 
 the number. 
 
 Greg 86 2 and Greg 89 " S. Saba 20 " I do not use, as Greg, 
 numbers twice S. Saba 20 at 89 and 104, which is Scr's 105. 
 
 Our 89 is Scr's Burdett-Coutts = Paul 266. 
 
 99 and 100 we adopt for Gregory's Naples codices. 
 
 Our 101 is Scr's (Ev 206 Ac 94 P 107), the sister of Apoc 
 46-88. I prefer to use this number where it stands to Gregory's 
 1 09 for many reasons. 
 
 Beyond this 
 
 Scr and Hosk : = Greg : 
 
 102 103 
 
 103 101 
 
 104 107 
 
 105 104 ? [we omit] 
 
 106 106 
 
 107 181 
 
 (our 108) > 129 
 
 129J 
 
 9J 
 
 109 102 
 no 113 
 
 in 105 Athens. Not collated. Can get no 
 
 information from library. 
 
 112 182 
 
 113 146 Messina. Uncollated before the 
 
 earthquake. 
 
 114 153 
 
 (115 114 Delete. Is part of 39.) 
 
 (116 157 Delete. Is corn without text.) 
 
HANDLIST OF GREEK MSS. 
 
 Scr and Hosk : = 
 
 Greg: 
 
 (n7 
 
 115 
 
 (118 
 
 160 
 
 119 
 
 161 
 
 120 
 
 149) 
 
 121 
 
 150J 
 
 122 
 
 151) 
 
 123 
 
 123 
 
 Neglect. Not Apoc.) 
 Neglect. Derived from a printed 
 edition.) 
 
 Not yet collated by me. 
 
 After this we run together for quite a spell to about 145. 
 
 Groups. 
 
 Erasmian 1-46=88=101-59-62=63-67-72. 
 
 Complutensian io-i7-(2i)-37-49-77-9i-96-no. 
 
 Stepping stones between them are such mss. as 36 and possibly 
 the group 7-16-39-45-69-102-104 which is a graeco-latin group. 
 
 Also 12 81 and 114 with all their vagaries. 
 
 Also the very important group 2i-28-(65)-73-79-79 a -8o-ioo 
 (from xi. on)-i03-ii2, which group is interesting, comprising an 
 old Egyptian text, good in parts but very independent, although 
 containing the double element of Compl. and Erasmus texts 
 (through the Syriac). Of this group 80 is as ancient as any, 
 corelating the base of 1 62/3 and also giving valuable hints as to 
 this classification. 
 
 65 has strong Coptic spots, going with X alone, or K alone and 
 copt. 
 
 Stepping stones between B and Compl.-Erasm. and the 21 
 groups are 108 and 109. 108** = 56. 
 
 56 is a new type and extremely interesting, related as to base 
 with the earliest polyglot traditions. 
 
 Among mss. less independent in view, yet giving a very good 
 account of the best traditional text, may be ranked 47 as well 
 as 22. 
 
 34 and 87 (with the more careless 35 and its sister 68) and 
 such mss. are somewhat more mixed, yet have value in determin- 
 ing many points. This fourfold group, very distinct, 34-35-68-87, 
 appears to be an Arethas revision on an old Egyptian base (also 
 covering Latin and Syriac at times). 
 
 38, while indulging in curiosities, and a very eclectic MS. not 
 to be trusted as a whole, is very old indeed and furnishes several 
 interesting keys ; is largely related to 62 (or it to 38) and to both 
 Erasmian and Compl. groups. 
 
OF APOC. TO NO. 123. 3 
 
 23 is a key MS. largely related to the earliest bilingual graeco- 
 latin codices. 
 
 18 is a most important ms. with an exceedingly old base. 
 
 25-i9**-58-7o-78-84-94 are practically identical, 70 being 
 the most accurate of the family. 
 
 Other families are : 
 44-52-82 ; 
 
 30-98-(with 29 partially) ; 
 9-27-75 ; 
 8-24; 
 6-31-106 (rather important) ; 
 
 13-23-55 represent one parent not so very old, but are not 
 quite identical to-day. 
 
 26-41-42-53-107. 41-42 represent the B revision with a 
 clinging tendency to the old ways ; that is 41-42 have a mixed 
 text of value, but showing transition. 
 
 108-109 are also interesting with survivals of syr S. 
 
 40 is an important key ms. though mixed and rather unsatis- 
 factory, as is 90. 5 1-90 are cousins. 
 
 Of purer B texts we may rank the Arethas mss. 4 20 48 64 74 
 with 32 etc. The base of 32 is old, but he is eclectic. 
 
 61-95 agree in a variety of unique readings up to the middle 
 of ch. xi. and then go apart. At x.-xii. they are joined by 74, by 
 some process unknown. 
 
 108** (from xxi. 14-xxii. 21) confirms all the 56 readings 
 there and gives us a hint of the locality where 56 came from 
 [Calabria? See under 104 and 108]. 56 then ranks first in 
 importance of our new mss. ; 114 is also exceedingly interesting 
 though a critical text ; in many readings it takes us to readings of 
 NAC and P not found in other cursives, yet its chief characteristics 
 are of the 1 (Erasmian) family. 
 
 119 and 123, close sisters, follow soon after the exceptional 1 14, 
 and open our eyes to the critical possibilities in cursive texts so 
 far unveiled. 1 19-123 appear to carry us back to very old times 
 and precede K, for, where X conflates ix. 20 + clvtcdv {ante TauTtxis), 
 1 19—123 substitute avTcov for tcwtcus ! 
 
 1 19-123 further emphasize the great age of the Erasmian or 
 1 group, through its Syriac base. And our textus receptus of 
 Apoc. turns out not to be so young as many people think. 
 
 Beyond this we have not gone yet, and must pause at this point. 
 
4 HANDLIST OF GREEK MSS. OF APOC. 
 
 We repeat the groups for reference : 
 
 1-46=88=101-59-62=63-67-72, 
 
 4-20-48-64-74, 
 
 6-31-106, 
 
 7-16-39-45-69-102-104, 
 
 8-24, 
 
 9-27-75. 
 io-i7-(2i)-37-49-77-9i-96-no, 
 
 i3- 2 3-55. 
 
 H-92, 
 
 2i-28-(65)-73-79-79 a -8o-ioo-i03-.ti2, 
 
 2 5-i 9**-5 8-70-78-84-94, 
 26-41-42-53-107, 
 
 3o-(29)-9 8 , 
 34-35-68-87, 
 
 44-52-82, 
 
 51-90. 
 [6i-95-(74)], 
 
 119-123 ; 
 
 so that the student may know that where we quote cursives, 
 
 although not always hyphenated, by reference to this table, the 
 
 witnesses can be counted and reduced from as many as nine to one. 
 
 Important single mss. are : 
 18. 
 32 (close to the 4-20 group and to 109). 
 
 36. 
 
 38 (compare 97). 
 
 40. 
 
 47- 
 56. 
 
 65- 
 
 (81). 
 
 95 = 61 and 74 but only partially. 
 108. 
 
 109 is a graeco-armenian ms. 
 114. 
 
THIS SMALL CONTRIBUTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ELUCIDATION OF AN INTERESTING PROBLEM 
 
 IN THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT 
 
 IS DEDICATED 
 
 TO THOSE OF MY FELLOW-WORKERS 
 
 WHO HAVE A JUDICIAL MIND 
 
 AND WHO HAVE NOT 
 
 ATTEMPTED TO PREJUDGE THE ISSUE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 Preface v- vii 
 
 Introductory 
 
 Part I. 
 
 Analysis of readings in the Apocalypse with special reference to the 
 
 Coptic 13- 9 6 
 
 Notes on Latin and Syriac Versions .....•• 97 -111 
 
 Specimen pages of collation of Greek mss. of Apocalypse . . ■ n 2-1 16 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Concerning the tendency of the scriptural quotations in the commen- 
 taries of the principal monastic writers of Egypt .... 117-192 
 
 Rough Index 193-195 
 
 Index of Scriptural Quotations ....... 197-203 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The interrelation of the Versions — Syriac, Latin and Coptic — is 
 so intimate that the problem of dating these versions exactly has 
 hitherto baffled our efforts. 
 
 The following study is a contribution in this direction. It 
 covers but a small field, but shows action and reaction of a marked 
 kind, and the added testimony drawn from scores of hitherto 
 unexamined Greek documents should without doubt be of some 
 use in balancing certain factors in the problem. 
 
 If we are encroaching on a field not strictly our own, the 
 excuse is that scholars more capable and more closely related to 
 the Coptic department have been content to notice some of the 
 phenomena in passing without offering any explanation of them ; 
 others they have barely noticed, and to many they have not called 
 attention at all. 
 
 In view of the increased bohairic and sahidic materials brought 
 together of late years— some published, and many yet unpublished, 
 it is hoped to stimulate further serious research in this department 
 by the present enquiry, and to ask those qualified to give an 
 opinion if they will not examine afresh the many points of 
 interest here raised. 
 
 The Dean of Wells has well said that enquiries of this nature 
 often tend to elucidate problems in other departments of sacred 
 criticism, and it is my humble wish that such may be the case in 
 the present instance ; and that critics, instead of cavilling at my 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 labours, or damning them with faint praise, condescension or 
 ridicule, may be led to see that there is a deeper significance in 
 the comparative study of the Versions and their interrelations, 
 as also of their relation to the Greek recensions, than has hitherto 
 been allowed by a small band of experts. For this interrelation 
 pushes back to very early times, far earlier than has generally 
 been supposed or admitted. 
 
 We can make but little progress until we understand the con- 
 flations of Origen, what gave rise to them, and what lies behind 
 them. 
 
 My excuse for this publication is patent. Reviewers and 
 critics have thrown doubt upon the interrelation of Bohairic and 
 Latin as early as I see it, and have even denied the existence of a 
 bohairic version before the vi th or vn th century, placing it at a 
 period when the coptic languages were about to fade away. 
 
 To explain my position I wish to adduce certain facts. They 
 do not represent the arguments of dilettantism, because many of 
 the pictures have been before us and are available to view in the 
 footnotes of sundry text books, as in Tischendorf's edition and in 
 the editions of Mr. Horner's boh, and more recently of salt. But 
 in order to bring out the full significance of the readings of some 
 of the Greek witnesses and their relative apposition, it became 
 necessary to examine a long array of junior Greek documents. 
 This I have done, f and with Dean Gwynn's publication some 
 years since of the important syriac texts of the Apocalypse, we 
 are supplied with what we still lacked to take a comprehensive 
 view of the situation. 
 
 I would therefore ask attention to the fact that when X — A 
 
 or 
 
 are mentioned without cursive support as registering coptic 
 readings, the situation is doubly interesting, for it means that 
 none of our numerous new witnesses agree with them, although 
 
 | The picture is not yet quite complete, but I hope that the collations of the 
 remaining Greek mss. will soon be finished. 
 
PREFACE. VU 
 
 some of them cover the ground from which the stock of N and A 
 originated. 
 
 My excuse for analysing the writings of some of the Egyptian 
 monks in the second section is that so far I have not seen any 
 deductions drawn from certain marked characteristics which 
 pervade their texts, and I believe a fresh study of the situation 
 may throw additional light on Part I of this essay. 
 
 By those who are wrapped up in an impenetrable scholar's 
 mantle of self-sufficiency I may be deemed to be travelling over 
 well-worn ground. I leave it to the candid ones to decide 
 whether I have marshalled new facts, or presented them in a 
 more readable form than has hitherto been the case. 
 
 The Rev. George Horner has been kind enough to spare the 
 time to look over my proofs, but I am alone responsible for all 
 that appears in the following pages. 
 
 H. C. Hoskier. 
 
 Carr Bridge, N.B. 
 August 191 1. 
 
. . . As things are at present conducted, a sudden transition is 
 made from sensible objects and particular facts to general pro- 
 positions which are accounted principles, and round which, as 
 round so many fixed poles, disputations and argument continually 
 revolve. From the propositions thus hastily assumed all things 
 are derived by a process compendious and precipitate, ill-suited to 
 discovery but wonderfully accommodated to debate. The way 
 that promises success is the reverse of this. It requires that we 
 should generalise slowly, going from particular things to those 
 which are but one step more general ; from those to others of still 
 greater extent, and so on to such as are universal. By such 
 means we may hope to arrive at principles not vague and obscure, 
 but luminous and well-defined .... 
 
 Bacon. 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 It is with some reluctance that I have decided to present a partial 
 exhibition of the full argument which is in preparation as regards 
 the text of the Apocalypse. But I claim to be a dealer in' 'facts 
 and not in theories, and therefore, at the risk of marring the 
 complete picture of Syriac, Latin, and Coptic before the scribe of 
 N gr , I propose to exhibit the coptic element in N in the Apocalypse 
 as an answer to those who think the bohairic version is later than 
 the time of X. We cannot indeed divorce the argument from the 
 Latin altogether, and Latin influences will be seen intruding as 
 well. 
 
 It would seem particularly appropriate to exhibit the coptic 
 features in the book of the Revelation, as this work is admitted 
 to have been the last book received into the coptic canon. There- 
 fore the latest in point of date. 
 
 If we can show that the Apocalypse in bohairic was in the 
 hands of X in a graeco-coptic exemplar, we prove at any rate that 
 the bohairic antedates X and 400 a.d. How much earlier depends 
 upon the date of the ms. which X was copying, but it requires no 
 great stretch of imagination to carry it to 250 or 200 a.d. 
 
 Serious students of Horner's text and apparatus may have 
 already gathered some of the facts upon which our contention is 
 based. Our object is to show how it occurred that X is a witness 
 to bohairic translation in his day by submitting a running com- 
 mentary on the textual situation. 
 
 Naturally this presentation of proof may seem cold or even 
 inadequate to any who do not follow the investigator step by step 
 over the ground. Nor can I expect that the picture can be as 
 compelling as if the full collation of all the Greek documents were 
 submitted at the same time. The picture there is indeed very 
 striking when you see N alone among 120 Greek witnesses 
 
2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 agreeing with Coptic or Latin. We print specimen pages (i 12/1 16) 
 in an endeavour to give the effect. We also print separately a hand- 
 list of the Greek mss. collated to date, which can be used apart 
 from the essay in following the argument page by page. 
 
 I wish to state distinctly here that the self-same features are 
 to be observed in the Gospels and Epistles as in the Apocalypse 
 as to N having had under his hand concurrent Syriac, Latin, and 
 Coptic versions. 
 
 [Where the term Coptic is used it means generally boh,, but 
 
 occasionally includes sah ; it never means sah alone]. 
 [For sah we use Goussen's edition 1895 and Balestri 1904; 
 Balestri supplies none of the lacunae in Goussen]. 
 The first point which should engage our attention is a 
 preliminary consideration of whether N used the bohairic or the 
 sahidic version, which, as in the case of the other books of the 
 New Testament, differ very materially. 
 
 Thus at Apoc. ix. 20 N (with only one special cursive family of two 
 mss. 1 19-123 closely related to him) gives the unusual 
 order kou ra £,vhiva /ecu to. \1Q1va. This is witnessed to of 
 all others only by boh and syr S, but not by sah, nor 
 by the Latins. 
 Again xii. 9. Boh drops the koll between 8ta/3oX.os and 6 craTavas, 
 as does K alone among Greeks, writing 
 
 (all boh mss.) ni^.!<sJio?\oc ncA.TA.rf AC 
 while sah = nXiAKo^oc aycju ncATArt ac 
 so that it was distinctly boh which X followed. 
 (See xx. 2 where N adds 6 to Sia/3o\os with ^//against most Greeks.) 
 xiii. 7. CAP the 1 family and Iren and sah omit the first part 
 of the verse /mi eSodr) tisque ad viK-qaai aurous. Not boh, 
 which goes with X and the rest. 
 Again xviii. 16. papyapiTTj is given by NCAP 95 alone of Greeks 
 for /xapyapircus of the rest. This is the equivalent of all 
 boh mss. (but one = til) which write the singular next 
 njAJiAprApiTHC , while Goussen's sah is merely gl 
 JUAprApiTHC, using the copula gi for kcu all through 
 the verse, so that the singular seems to come really from 
 boh to NCAP 95 and not from sah. Prim, alone of 
 Latins apparently, gives margarita. 
 Again xix. 9. X*P (with some cursives) omit tov yapov. This is 
 agreed to by boh (all the mss.) but sah has it. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 3 
 
 On the other hand there are a few slight traces of sah rather 
 than boh (as at x. 10, xiv. 13, xx. 12) and a strong one (although 
 also Latin to some extent) at xxii. 14, where NA 38 have 01 
 tt\vvovtvi to.<; CTToXas avTcov ; 56 108** conflating both readings; 
 while at xix. 5 N* favors sah and K a boh. In other places, as at 
 xii. 12, a change of order by N alone agrees with both boh and sah, 
 although the two coptic versions use different verbs. See also 
 vi. 2 fin., viii. 11, xiii. 12, xix. 17. 
 
 But the impression made by a view of the whole field of the 
 Apocalypse is such as to strengthen the view, and that very 
 distinctly, that N was using a graeco-coptic MS. with the bohairic 
 version. 
 
 There may have been closer relations between boh and sah in 
 the earliest days than obtain to-day (see vi. 2, xxii. 14). In fact, at 
 the curious place xx. 8 where copt adds " the servants and" before 
 ra e9vr), and N adds navra with syr S, a third Egyptian version, the 
 middle Egyptian, seems to yield the nearest alliterative form which 
 might have caused the confusion, f 
 
 With this short preliminary notice, let us take a view of some 
 of the passages where we think we see the bohairic version behind 
 X, and then proceed to a more detailed review of the matter. 
 
 The important thing to remember is that after examining a 
 hundred greek cursive mss. (of every possible line of descent) the 
 points to follow in nearly all cases covered by N and boh remain 
 peculiar to them. Also note that by this process most of the 
 unique readings still recorded among Greeks are eliminated, 
 leaving comparatively few unaccounted for. 
 
 iii. 3. For eav ovv \lt) yprjyoprjo-yjs boh substitutes "unless there- 
 fore thou repent and watch." Cf. K* alone (with Prim) 
 fj.eTavorjarjs for ypijy 0/317 0-77?. (Sah follows the rest of the 
 Greeks.) 
 v. 13. Boh [not sah~\ omits /cat vrroKaro) T175 y^s. So N and a 
 few cursives. 
 
 f See Homer in the St. John volume of the sahidic version, published this 
 year, vol. iii., page 390, as to boh and sah having once been closer than appears 
 to-day. He refers to sah codd 73 n 1 134 and m 1 conforming to boh; and boh 
 codd DAE conforming to sah in Matthew (but not in Mark). 
 
 M boh also, he says, bears traces of sah influence, as also T. The peculiarity of 
 boh F and K sometimes suggests sah affinity. We may add that sah ms. 113' shows 
 traces of very ancient handling. 
 
 E 2 
 
CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 v. 13. ev ttj OaXacrcrr) (pro etri ttjs 6a\ao-o-r)<;) X (alone) boh syr 
 la't. All Greeks have em, except 114 = vno. 
 Sah retaining " and under the earth " merely adds A.YGU 
 «A?\ACC<*., reading "and under the earth and sea," 
 turning the difficulty and approximating 114. 
 
 vi. 2 fin. N is quite alone with boh and sah, writing vlkcov /cat 
 €VLK7]crev for vlkojv koll ivol viktjo-y). This is a particularly 
 noteworthy place as to Egypt and N. For the Latins 
 are quite clear thereagainst with " vincens ut vinceret," 
 while only syr S and Gr 32 36 show knowledge of the 
 Egyptian form by conflating. In fact sah in Balestri 
 conflates : eqxpoeiT ayuu Aqxpo • xekac eqexpo 
 while Goussen only eq2epA>eiT A.YCO Aqxpo. 
 
 vii. 16. 8 and 53 only omit en prim. So boh, but not sah (syr 
 S and 36 omit twice). 
 
 viii. 9. + /u.epos primo loco N 34-35-68-87 36 copt latt. 
 
 11. N* alone writes a\\nvdi.ov (for axpivdos or o axfiwOos) with 
 <fo/2 and .?#,&. 
 
 xi. 9. tcov <f>v\o)v Kat, Acuui/ N only with syr S agrees with boh 
 order (against sah). 
 
 xii. 8. For + irpo<> avTov of X and Coptic see full note beyond. 
 1 7. For eai \oltto)v of X and coptic see explanation beyond. 
 
 xiii. 12. TTpoaKvviv for iva npoo-Kvvrjcrcao-i by K = &?^ and .ffl/z and 
 Z«# (except /r^» Prim Anonym gig). 
 17. Order of tf 38 to va/acty/ia. tov 6-qpiov 17 to ovop,a. avTov = 
 
 [Already please to observe we have regular substitutions, 
 
 transpositions, omission, and addition ; now after following 
 
 coptic form at viii. 1 1, we have an instance of error ocult] : 
 
 xiv. 19. For eis T-qv y-qv N 38 97 write eiri ti;s yr}<;. Boh = enK<£.pi 
 
 not really greek em but looks like it [sah wanting]. 
 
 xv. 3. aSovras N and 1 19-123 only (for aBovo-Lv) = boh (and syr 
 
 and some Latins) [sah wanting throughout ch. xv.]. 
 xvi. 19 fin. — avTov N alone and gig with boh exactly [sah 
 
 wanting]. 
 xvii. 9. e7rra /3acn,\eis eio-w N and boh [sah wanting]. 
 
 10. Cf. fMLve^ei of K* alone (for Sei fieipai) and fo/& "he will 
 stay a little " or "he stays a little." 
 xviii. 6. — /cat (a«^ St77-\wcra,Te) X 23 and some &?/* mss. [sah 
 wanting]. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 5 
 
 xviii. 12. fxapyapirav N 3 5—8 7 59 95 with syr gig and boh \sah 
 wanting]. 
 ibid, fivcrcnvoiv N absolutely alone with boh mss. AD HZ 
 itltyertc {sah wanting]. 
 
 19. em 7175 Ke<j>a\.r)<; avT<av (for em Tas Ke<£a\as avroiv) S 59 
 only with boh " upon their head " \sah wanting]. 
 
 ibid, ovai semel N only of uncials with fifteen cursives and 
 boh {boh adds " to her" as usual oyoi rt*.c but only has 
 the ouat once) \sah wanting]. 
 
 21. + on {ante ovtcds). Only tf 16-39-69 102. = boh + X6 
 \sah wanting]. 
 
 22. — 7racn?s re^^s KA only and boh. No Greek cursives 
 nor Latin. [See below for A and copt elsewhere.] 
 
 xix. 17. aWoc ayyzkov for eva ayyeXov X 36 and syr S, also eva 
 a\\ov ayyeXov by the Egyptian group 34-35-87. This 
 + aXkov (eKe«*.we£\Oc) is added by both boh and sah. 
 xx. 8. — tov (ante ymy) N* only of Greeks (with Latin of course) 
 and boh plainly rtiur , while sah has rtrtor. 
 
 xxi. 4. — ert X. Cf. copt in full note beyond as to this matter. 
 Apparent confusion by N between bohairic xe and eni2^.H, 
 heightened by substitution of Trpofiara for irpmra {latt 
 priora, as well as prima, pristina), and substitution by 
 syriac of TrpoacoTra. This place should be weighed in 
 connection with a basic polyglot of gr-syr-lat in which 
 there was confusion at this place. 
 
 20. ToiraSiov N* alone. So the boh mss. DN. 
 
 21. X 65 omit SouSeKa sec. Cf. boh exactly "and the twelve 
 
 gates of pearl." 
 xxii. 6. + /xe ante ayyeXov 8*26-41-42-53-107 only. " And the 
 Lord God sent me his angel to show to his servants . . ." 
 A reference to boh shows to the eye UneqA-VFe^oc, 
 while sah (as extant in Goussen) exhibits more forcibly 
 j[iuu.oineq<&.rFe?soc. And this has nothing to do with 
 the Latins. A later syriac (see syr*** 1 ) seems also very 
 definitely to have this p.e. 
 As to other points compare : 
 i. 16. <f>aivei ws o 17X10? ^ = Coptic order with h and Cypr 
 "splendebat ut sol." 
 
 ii. 1. + x* L P a ** 34-3 5- 68 - 8 7 = c °pt- 
 5> _ ^ei NCAP 56 syr S latt - copt. 
 
6 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 ii. 9. - ra epya koli KAP 47 syr S /«# = copt. 
 
 13. - ra epya crov Kai NCAP 38 .Sjr S latt = copt. 
 17.-8 N* 2 8 = *#£ 
 iii. 16. on outws (for ourcos on) X alone = copt exactly and 
 
 cf. latt sed quia, 
 v. 5. — tov N 14 28** 32 5jyr S latt = copt. 
 vi. 4. /cat eiow /cat tSov egr]\0ev N. Q\ «// [«<?« sah~\. 
 9. + rav av6 po)iTu>v KP I £/£. = £<^/. 
 
 13. en-i (/ra as) N 22 23 47 55** 56 81 102 syr S /«# = copt. 
 ibid, (mo {pro vtto) N* 14-92 31** syr. Cf copt. 
 viii. 9. ipvxyv N 46-88-101 syr S. Cf. copt. 
 ix. 2. — /cat 7)vot,£e to <f>peap ttjs a/3vo-(rov KB £&. and «//. 
 13 m«V. — «ai N 56 5_yr S = copt. 
 1 7. CTrai'w (/ra £77-) X. C/i «?// glSCUJOY. 
 f x. 1. 7} 0pig {pro ipis) 8*. £/! *#/ +ipic. 
 
 4. ocra (/ra a) X 1 8 = c^>/. 
 
 xi. 15. + aju/jjv 8 12 18 38 40 only of Greeks, some Latt and 
 some copt mss. 
 17. Kcoec {pro xvpie o Oeoi). Cf. copt n6c. 
 xiii. 14. ir\r)yr)<; {pro ttjv Tr\r)jiqv) K. Cf. copt. 
 fxvi. 3. o)o-t {pro o>s) 8. £/] «/^ AAcppai - {cf xvi. 13). 
 6. 4- o7rep 8. Cf. copt 4- see <?^ aw + ut. 
 
 8. \Habet ayyeXos] 8 et copt contra CABP etc. 
 
 16. — tov {ante tottov) N 62-3 72. Cf copt et latt. 
 xvii. 2. eTroifjo-av iropveLo.v {pro eiropvevo-av) N alone. Cf. copt. 
 xviii. 14. a7rwXo^To X and fourteen cursives. Cf. copt et lat. 
 xix. 4. — £&>a 8 with «?// C*. 
 
 5. — /cat .?#:. NCP with copt B. 
 
 9. — tov yafiov N*P twenty cursives gig = £0^ [w;z .svz^]. 
 16. — £7ti iw. 8 12 62-3 72 and both Coptics. 
 
 xx. 1. ev T7j x^ipi avTov {pro cttl ttjv x ei P a aVT0V ) ^ 38 s yr fat 
 = copt. 
 1. + o {ante Sia/3oXo?) 8 and eleven notable cursives (re- 
 presenting but three or four families) = copt [contra fat]. 
 
 6. 4- ra {ante ^iXia) KB fourteen cursives = copt. 
 
 xxi. 9. Tt)v vvp.<§>r)v ttjv yvvaLKa tov apvwv NAP 34-~35 _ 87 3& 
 65 77 J[y S lat = «// and sah. 
 
 f Such things are only mentioned here to ask attention to them in the discussion 
 which follows. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 7 
 
 xxn. 8. o fiXenov kou aicovav tovto. N twenty-seven cursives syr 
 S Dionys = copt and sah. 
 A peculiar place may also be noticed at ii. 22, where for ySaXXw 
 
 (/3aXw N a BP and eleven cursives future tense) N* wrote /caA.«. 
 
 This Tertullian gives as dabo with boh ("t"!t<VTHlc), while Wz is 
 
 't'rf&.ftOYXe. Both future, but rt<s.rfOY2fe = projiciam, while boh 
 
 "i~rf<VTHlc is clearly dabo. The question is : what made X* write 
 
 kolXo) ? 
 
 Turning to the correctors of N, note as to N a : 
 v. 1. + Kai (ante ea^payLa-p-evov) N a 13-23-55 27 90 &?/z .Tyr S 
 
 but no Latins, and not sah. 
 vi. 4. — avro) (post eSoflij) N a with A only and MS. 31 of Greeks, 
 with the Latins gig Prim and Anonym only. Cf. boh 
 which brings c|>h very early in the verse, and cf. sah. 
 ix. 13. See beyond under A gr . 
 
 xiv. 8. N* here omits 8/9 from homoioteleuton. N a supplies, 
 and alone substitutes TrenTcoKav, with boh «wg,ei, for 
 TT€iTOTiK€v of other Greeks, reading "all the nations fell " 
 instead of " all the nations drank." This is noteworthy, 
 for we see N* using Coptic almost involuntarily, and then 
 N a here witnesses, probably in the very same place (as 
 hiopdotTiqs), to a distinctly bohairic reading, perhaps in 
 the self-same graeco-coptic copy which N* had been 
 using. [This is corrector C a , see Lake's new edition 
 ofK.] 
 
 xix. 5. This also is interesting. N a corrects N* from /cat (fxovcu 
 e£r)\0ov to /cat (jxovr) efyXOev, which agrees with boh. 
 Goussen's sah does not begin until verse 6, but an arabic 
 note in A copt says sah is wrong with kcu ^oj^cu efyXdov. 
 X a also corrects Aeyovcrcu to Aeyovcra. 
 
 Note further that the order of both K* and N a of kgu 
 <f>cji>. e£r)\d. agrees with copt against all other Greeks and 
 Latins (except Prim) km (fiav. ck tov Opovov e£r)\8. 
 
 xxi. 6. — yeyovav K a (N* yeyoua with A ; X a adds v, then takes 
 it away and marks the whole word for deletion). This 
 omission of N a alone among Greeks has the countenance 
 of boh [not sah~\ with aeth ? lux and Anonym Tich only. 
 (See Tischendorf's notes in editio minor of K rather than 
 his note in N.T. ed. viii.) 
 
 xxii. 20. Note that K a removes uvai of N*. N* (following perhaps 
 
8 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 a corrupt graeco-bohairic text ; see Horner, note) has 
 something approximating boh's " They will happen and 
 they come quickly." N a removes this, 
 xxii. 20. In the same verse X a (with many cursives) adds yjpia-Te, 
 which is the reading of boh. 
 
 [Now consider X c as to the ms. remaining in Egypt or 
 having returned thither. 
 xi. 8. Boh and sah insert a verb " shall be " before em 7-775 
 •n-Xa/mas. So do 21-28 37 73-79-80-103 eaaei, and X c 
 eorat. Also latt "jacebunt" {Prim "ponet"; cf. Prim 
 Tick and Anon ad loc). 
 12. rjKovcra (pro y)Kovcrav) by N a or N c = boh sah, gig Anon, 
 but not other Latins, 
 xii. 6. See note further on. 
 
 xix. 7. 7] vvfi(f>r) for 77 yvvr] N c alone, with sah copt and Latins. 
 
 See note further on. While N c was in the habit of 
 
 accommodating to the Latin, and very likely followed it 
 
 here, yet we see from sah and boh that it already existed 
 
 there when S* was copying. Yet N* did not follow, for 
 
 his Greek rj yvinq clvtov could mean nothing else than 
 
 ttxor. The cop tic holds the clvtov, but writes distinctly 
 
 uje^sET" = sponsa as in gig."] 
 
 We will now turn to NA in combination, to show that this 
 
 matter is a fixed Egyptian tradition (besides the Latin part of the 
 
 original graeco-latin stem). 
 
 We have just seen N a and A in conjunction (vi. 4) ; now see 
 N*A together : 
 
 v. 10. ySacrtXeiai/ (pro /Jao-tXeis) KA 56 copt latt. 
 ix. 12. e/D^erai (pro e/j^ovrai) K*A and a good many cursives 
 
 and boh [not the Latins], 
 x. 11. Xeyovo-Lv (pro Xeyei) NAB etc. boh\non sah~\. [Not the 
 Latins except Harl and am*~\. 
 
 xi. II. ev aurois (pro err aurou?) A etc. \ 
 
 w> r> , ( boh sah latt. 
 eis avTov<s ,, ,, „ JSrJ etc. J 
 
 16. — ol prim. N*A 72 only with boh (and of course latt) 
 
 (see note on this verse further on), 
 xvi. 2. See note further on as to KA. 
 
 14. — eKeivrjs NA with only 38 95 and 14-92 = cop tic 
 
 [hiat sah] and vg with gig [against Prim and Auct de 
 
 prom~\ aeth arm Tick Haymo. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 9 
 
 xviii. 22. — Traarjs Te^rys NA and boh \_hiat sah~\. No Latins, no 
 Greek cursives. Hippolytus has it. Surely this is very 
 noteworthy, 
 xxii. 5. + <f>(DTo<; ante \vyyov NA 18 47 56 80 108** \ cf. copt 
 
 syr S. I and note 
 
 4- </>w? „ ,, 21-73-79-100-103 65 (further 
 
 latt. J on. 
 
 As to NC and copt : 
 xiii. 17 init. — kch N*C some cursives syr Hipp Iren Anonym 
 = fo,& .ra/z and /a/'/ against the rest. 
 As to C and copt : 
 xviii. 18. + TavTrj C 104 latt = fo/z [sah wanting]. 
 
 As to NP : 
 xix. 9. — tov yapov N*P certain cursives ^z^ [not other Latins] 
 is agreed to by boh but not by sah. 
 
 (N a with his Latin before him adds and does not 
 recognize the omission). 
 See also xvii. 16 etc. 
 
 As to NAP: 
 xxii. 5. ere (pro e/cei) NAP 35-68 56 65 108** (108** = 56) 
 all noteworthy cursives = latt with copt. 
 Now for the picture finally of A alone and copt, which 
 absolutely ties A down to Egyptian soil. 
 
 ii. 2. — /cat (ante otl). A alone and boh [not sah~\. 
 
 23 init. — Kai A (with two cursives but opposing their 
 sister mss.) = boh and sah. 
 iv. 11. o KvpLos Kai o 0eo? rjficov A alone, among many varia- 
 tions, seems nearest to boh and sah {cf. also 21 119: 
 K.vpio% o deos rj/jLCov). 
 vi. 4 fin. fieyaXv) pa^cupa A = copt and sah order against all 
 Greeks and Latins. 
 13. A alone writes 0eov for ovpavov, no doubt due to confu- 
 sion of Coptic [as in the Gospels, the Freer ms. (we are 
 authorized to say) shows an overlying bohairic or sahidic 
 influence, giving ovpavov for deov, from the propinquity of 
 the Coptic word for kingdom JUE TOTpoY , or possibly 
 from apparent similarity of the words for "God" and 
 " Heaven " in sahidicl] 
 vii. 3. Kai (pro p.7)Te. prim.) A 38 106 vg. Cf. boh sah rtejn and 
 vg " et " with am harl** lips. 
 
IO CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 \Tisch adds 41-42 of Greeks. I have not noted this 
 for these mss.]. 
 vii. 9. — /cat tSou. A alone with syr S boh and sah and latt 
 
 and Cypr bis. 
 ix. 13. — Teacrapcjv A 14-92 18 21-28-73-79-103 and boh 
 and sah and s« Latins am fu harl lips tol. See 
 Teschendorf's note. Cf. H* and addition of X a without 
 Tecrcrapcov. 
 x. 2. — avewypevov A alone of Greeks with boh [sah wanting]. 
 And not all of Horner's boh, but only three, viz. AD mg N. 
 Surely this also is most noteworthy. These things have 
 been carefully tabulated by Tischendorf. Why think of 
 rejecting Egypt as the home and origin of A then at 
 this late date ? 
 xi. 18. — /cat {ante Ziafydeipai) A 21-73 an d b°h only [not sah] 
 as often does boh in such descriptions. This also seems 
 significant. Tisch does not note this as to copt. 
 19. As to CA etc. see beyond in the general tabulation, 
 xii. 8. 10-yyo-ev copt with A and many cursives including 34-3 5— 
 87. See longer note beyond. 
 1 6. to vSojp (pro rov iroTapov) A only. Cf. copt top iroTapov 
 vSaros as in verse 15 [sah tov noTap-ou], 
 
 - Set A. Cf. copt). 
 + to (ante yeypappevov) A. Cf. copt. 
 avTa) (pro aureus) A alone. Cf. some of Horner's codices. 
 
 — aytwv A 26 77* 107 108 = boh \non sah]. 
 See note beyond). 
 
 4, 17. See notes beyond. 
 18. avdpunro'i eyeveTo (pro ol avdpanoL eyevovTo) A (and 38 
 only : eye.ve.To avOpMiros) = boh [non sah]. 
 xvii. 8. "they whose name" Cf AB etc. 
 
 1 5. eiirev (pro \eyei) A alone. Cf. copt syr S. 
 (xvii. 17. — /cat TToirjcrau pt,av yvojfjbrjv A etc. See beyond), 
 xviii. 12. bis in versa. As to papya.pt.Tcus A and copt, and cr/ceuos 
 
 for gv\ov A see beyond. 
 
 16. papyapiTf} NCAP 95 (no others) = all boh mss. but one. 
 22. — irao-qs re^ijs NA and boh alone (we have already 
 
 referred to under NA together), 
 xix. 20. ol peT avTov (pro pera tovtov) A 32 41 = copt. 
 (xx. 2. o cx^ts o a.pya.i.0% A. Cf. syr S copt.) 
 
 (xiii. 
 
 10. 
 
 xiv. 
 
 I. 
 
 
 Cl- 
 
 
 io. 
 
 (xv. 
 
 4- 
 
 xvi. 
 
 2, 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION.. I I 
 
 xxi. 5. + /ecu {ante iSov) A alone. Note -f xe introductory, 
 
 sah and boh. 
 xxii. 19. — e/c A 10 38. Cf. boh. 
 
 21 fin. — a/jirju A 21 58* 59 67 73-79-80 81 boh \_habet 
 sah~\. 
 
 After this preliminary and I hope instructive exhibition, we 
 will let a general commentary follow, for without it any con- 
 sideration of the peculiar turns of versions would be out of order. 
 But here, if the student will be at the pains to follow, he will see 
 the general Coptic trend coupled with its " intervention " \ as a 
 version in quite early times. 
 
 We may add here that the question of Biblical interrelation 
 between Latin-speaking Africa and Greek- Coptic-speaking Egypt 
 has been questioned. We would therefore call attention to the 
 place at ii. 22 where Terhillian writes dabo for fiaWco or fiaXco 
 of Greeks (/caXw X). Dabo is exactly as bohairic expresses it, 
 using the future rfA. = '^TfA.'THJC, but sah adds the rt<Mtovx:e 
 projiciam of others. 
 
 But we will reserve a few more words as to the Latin to 
 complete the picture after printing the running commentary 
 which follows. 
 
 We wish to confine our proofs here of the existence of the 
 bohairic version in Aleph's day (no doubt X is circa 350-400 a.d.) 
 as to an overlying Coptic influence on X's greek. 
 
 Although the scribe of K was Greek-Coptic = Egypt, yet he 
 seems to have had under his eye or in his mind a Latin version, 
 so that Alexandria vindicates in him its trilingual character apart 
 from Latin " Africa," but the Latin with the Syriac formed also in 
 a large measure the characteristics of his underlying text. See 
 beyond the commentary pp. 14 (i. 16), 19 (v. 13), 27 (ix. 20), 36 
 (xii. 11), 40 (xiii. 2), 41 (xiii. 12), 47 (xiv. 18), 48 (xv. 2, xv. 3), 50 
 (xv. 3), 57 (xvi. 14), 58 (xvi. 19), 61 (xvii. 16, 18), 62 (xviii. 2), 
 64 (xviii. 11), 65 (xviii. 14), 73 (xix. 17), 74 (xix. 20 bis), jj (xx. 8), 
 81 (xxi. 3, 4), 83 (xxi. 6), 88/89 ( xx i- 2 7)> 89 (xxii. 1), 89/90 (xxii. 
 2), 91 (xxii. 6), 93 (xxii. 14), 95 (xxii. 17), 105/107 etc. 
 
 f This expression I think we owe to the Rt. Rev. F. H. Chase, Bishop of Ely. 
 It is an excellent one. 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 PART I. 
 
 The Coptic Versions of the Apocalypse. 
 
 An examination of Horner's bohairic shows that as" a rule his 
 mss. exhibit a wonderful unanimity in this book, and that not- 
 withstanding a large number of unique variants in the Coptic. 
 Boh and sah on the other hand are not at all in accord any more 
 than in other books of the N.T., yet occasionally very perfect 
 basic agreement is to be found, sometimes apart from the Greek. 
 
 Testing the coptic with the small "Egyptian" group 34-35- 
 68-87 we are struck early by very forceful agreement with the 
 coptic. This, however, soon gives place to absolute disagreement 
 in a number of important details. Therefore, in a large measure 
 this Greek group is independent. 
 
 A most patent thing develops, however, as regards N, who is 
 nearer copt than this cursive group, having several quite unique 
 agreements with the coptic. A also in places shows the same 
 feature. 
 
 The difference between the 34 group and copt might indicate 
 a late date for coptic Apoc, yet (1) when we consider that 
 Horner's codices agree among themselves, and (2) that frequently 
 gig and syr S support copt (often with sah) in strange places, we 
 are forced to conclude that copt ranges with the earliest Syriac and 
 Latin and has weight. 
 
 Its aberrations (appearing largely fundamental) must be due 
 to the opportunity to enlarge and enhance the graphic character 
 of the narrative, and to "accommodate " to similar diction in other 
 parts of the book. For details refer to the following account. 
 
 We may learn a good deal here. Syr S and 2 seem to be 
 often very close to coptic. The family we have called ' Egyptian ': 
 34-35-68-87 is shown to be very close to coptic at times. This 
 can be seen in the first chapter, where i. 4 fin. avrov is omitted 
 by 35 and copt alone, while in i. 5 the construction 6s r)yaTr7)crei> . . 
 eXovaev is given, as in copt, by 34-35-87 and 102** only ; yet they 
 
14 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 do not follow at i. 7 oxfiouTau for Koi/iovrai, where apparently all 
 Horner's codices make this error, which only 102 and h retain, 
 while avTov for eir avrov following is also read by it* 102 h with 
 copt. 
 
 56, while having certain sympathy (i. 3 p.a.Kapioi oi avayivmcr- 
 kovtcs, 56 only of Greeks with c opt), does not run freely with copt 
 
 as 34-35- 8 7- 
 
 Such mss. as 36, while of syriac proclivities, do not favor copt 
 except in spots. This can be seen at i. 3, where 36 alone writes 
 on o /ccupos eyyvs for the o yap Kaipo% eyyvs of the Greeks, the 
 coptic retaining yap literatim. 34-35-87 are really however a 
 clear Egyptian Greek type, probably antedating the coptic. They 
 do not follow in such things as i. 9, where the construction is quite 
 different and ev rt) dXnpet. /ecu (ev ttj) /SacaXeia kcu vno/jLoviq Iiqaov 
 XpLcrTov becomes ' in the tribulations because the kingdom and 
 thy endurance were in Jesus.' Yet 50 shows a trace of this here 
 [50 is with two coptic mss. in an unusual inscription, ' Apocalypse 
 of the holy John?~\ Perhaps even 59, which is with copt alone at 
 i. 20 + £777a {ante ayyeXot) and often later. 
 
 The above sympathy with h prepares us for + p.01 post \eyovo-r)<; 
 (or \eyovcrav) of copt alone with h in i. n. Copt follows this 
 (alone) with 'hear' for 'see,' but h is mutilated and yields no 
 testimony, unless the editors read the first letter right u, beginning 
 of vides, and not a. Compare immediately after the copt 6T6 for 
 ets ante efaaov. No Greeks thus. But harl omits this eis. 
 
 1. 16. Coptic order of X §awzi w? o ■jjXios = h Cypr splendebat 
 
 ut sol. 
 We pick up copt and N* 34-35-68-87 at once in ii. 1 + yeipa. 
 [We may say here that the place where N was written seems 
 to us almost certainly to be Egypt and not elsewhere].f 
 Just as ii. 2 — kcu ante on of A corresponds only to copt \non sah\ 
 At ii. 5. copt omits ra^ei with only NCAP and 56 of Greeks and 
 syr S gig vg. 
 
 \ We find ourselves thus in agreement with Professor Lake in his Introduction 
 to that most valuable contribution to our critical materials — the new edition of N. 
 Our essay, I hope, will supplement and fill in some gaps in the studies of Harnack 
 and Lake. 
 
 As regards B and Alexandria the situation is more complicated, and in Part II. 
 of this essay nothing has been said of Athanasius, because it seems to involve a 
 separate study. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 5 
 
 ii. 9. copt omits ra epya /cat with a somewhat different group 
 = NAP 47 syr S gig harl vg. 
 13. copt omits ra epya crou *ai with NCAP 38 this time 
 syr S £•«£■ harl vg. 
 Such things as the above five points are interesting as to a 
 polyglot, for in the Coptic is very much difference which finds no 
 place whatever in the Greeks KCAP nor in 34-35-68-87 nor in 
 56. If the Greeks had consulted the coptic version they would 
 have surely changed some other things. They merely wandered 
 to it occasionally by chance as it were. Thus ypaijjov begins the 
 various verses in coptic. Not so any Greeks, and there are many 
 other things too lengthy to mention in this brief sketch. 
 
 Different seems the omission of o p.iao) or o/xoiws at ii. 15 with 
 38 104 ioo ann , aeth, for the coptic closes at rtrflKO^sAJTCJurr, and 
 the sahidic at ItrtlKO?\A.n~HC. 
 
 Again ii. 16. /cat is substituted for ei Se p-rj by all Horner's coptic 
 codices except A*N, while his TC and A mg conflate with 
 syr S Kai ei Se prj. No Greeks. 
 Again ii. 17. Horner translates " I shall give to him from the 
 hidden manna" (— <f>ayeiv). He has 'from ' then, efk>?\ 
 *)EJt (which 34-35-68-87 omit, writing tov pavva. <j>ayet.v 
 [— a7ro] ). In K and syr S airrw cjxxyeLv is omitted, and 
 in CAB etc. <f>ayeiv airo is omitted. Coptic therefore 
 steers its own course rather wide : "I shall give to him 
 from in the hidden manna." 
 Same verse. — o of 8*28 is answered to by coptic ; and for ouSeu 
 or eyva, coptic substitutes rt&.x with 26 33 59 88 92 txt 
 101 106 108 eiSey. Note 108 here (the counterpart of 
 56) but not 56. 
 ii. 22. N* says /caXw for /3aX.X.&> or ySaXw N a P etc.: but Tert dabo 
 = boh T i"rf<vrHic while sah is -J'rfA.rfOYxe. 
 ibid. fieTavorjar] for [^eravorjaaaLV 56 only = copt and sah. 
 In 56 followed by ex tmv epycov avTrjs (with most, but not syr S) 
 while half the coptic mss. omit the clause altogether and the 
 others insert it with avrqsjin. Horner omits the clause from his 
 text. It is present in Goussen's sahidic. He reads AJiET<Mtoei 
 eRo?s gi? rtecgRHove. 
 ii. 23 init. — kcu, by A (+ 16 and 77, which hardly count, as they 
 oppose sister mss.) is supported by the coptic. 
 Same verse. Matter of order : wrapSias /cat ve<j>pov<; by 51-90 and 
 
1 6 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 the important cursive 1 1 4 and Vict Tun is given thus 
 by coptic (apparently every single one of Horner's mss.) 
 but not by sah. 
 Same verse. 38 alone supports avrov fin. for vficov. Thus 
 coptic all mss. and latt vg lips tol Cypr Quaest (cf Vict 
 Tun). 
 So do such cursives apparently show the deepest knowledge 
 of coptic variants. 
 
 ii. 25. The ay/H? ou av rj^oi is rendered by copt (and sah) as 
 tyA.'f'l = donee venio. 56 has e\0o> and 81 has av 
 e\0w as the Latin vg harl Auct yuaest Anonym donee 
 veniam. 
 iii. 1. The addition of Kvpios by 34-35-87 before o e^cov finds 
 apparently no counterpart in copt. 
 3. For eav ow /xr) ypiyyoprjo-y)? copt substitutes " unless 
 therefore thou repent and watch." Cf. ixeravorjarj's for 
 yprjyopr)ar)<; of X* alone with Prim. Sah goes with 
 ordinary Greek. 
 Same verse. For iroiav cupav cf. rroia copa of 12 22 23, qua hora 
 latt, " the hour in which " copt. 
 iii. 4. We have passed over many unique readings of copt. 
 Here is one: "these which polluted not their garments 
 with woman " (cglxtl) which is not found in any Greek 
 copies, 
 nor in iii. 8, where copt adds " with thy faith" after crov to, epya. 
 See also iii. 15/16 and 17, which are interesting, 
 iii. 5. eiakeLxjjuxTL of 21 (104*) for efaX.eu//aj. Cf. copt. 
 
 9. " All shall know " copt, for Greek yvcacriv. Cf. yvoicrovTai 
 of 36 56 67 syr S. 
 10. — tt}<5 copas copt is only omitted by syr S besides. 
 14. Copt starts all these verses with ypaxpov (c*)<m). 
 Hitherto no Greeks agree. Here 15 agrees to drop /cat 
 init. 
 16. oTi ovto)<s X alone (for ourws cm) = copt exactly, xe 
 
 n^ipH-i" (cf. latt). 
 18. — irap e/i,ou omitted by 34-35-68-87 and 31 97, is not 
 omitted by copt, which emphasizes it. 
 Same verse fin. Cf. a^a^Xe^s of 59 102 (for y8Xe7rrj?) to copt: 
 rrreKit <w j5B.o?\. 
 iii. 19. 4- VA.p copt. Cf. 21 cyw 8e [non lattj. 
 
OF THE BOHA.IRIC VERSION. I 7 
 
 Same verse. "Be zealous then for the good" copt. Cf. gloss ex 
 com. which 21 (23) 73-79 insist upon incorporating in 
 the text. 
 The double presence here of 21 is instructive. (Crede ergo 
 Prim only), 
 iv. 6. — /ecu, kvkXcj tov Opovov copt and 28 29 30 67 98 io9 gretar,n 
 harl Anonym but not 34-35-68-87 [while gig omits the 
 other part of the clause ko.i ev p,eo-u tov Opovov]. 
 
 But iv. 7. 35 joins copt (and gig Victorin) adding o/jlolov after the 
 third living creature [cf. N and 15]. 
 iv. 8. This whole verse is differently rendered from any by 
 copt, beginning by omitting the first words km Teacrapa 
 £wa (not so sah). It then proceeds " and each one of 
 them" (literally 'and the one the one of them') "all 
 over " (txt Horner = eYKuo'f" epuuov, his margin 
 ' encircling '). This addition stands in place of + ecrrws 
 by the group 34-35-68-87 with syr S. Not so 
 apparently Goussen's sah either, which has riTrtg as 
 Tattam edited. If so all three recensions copt, sah, 34 etc. 
 differ. Copt then proceeds quite differently up to the 
 trisagion. 
 
 Same verse. Curiously enough, the order <av ko.i o -qv of some 
 twenty cursives is agreed to by copt, but this does not 
 include the Egyptian group 34-35-68-87. 
 iv. 9. The oTav of Greeks may be conditional in both copt 
 (ApecyAff) and sah (eptyAff), translated by Horner "And 
 if the four living beings should give," but can be rendered 
 equally well " But when the four living beings give." 
 No Greeks thus with eav, but X 67 81 92 write Swcrwcriv, 
 and B and others Scao-acn. 
 
 10. Copt turns the phrase, omitting evcaniov tov ko.0. em tov 
 Opovov and adding evmircov before tco ^(dvtl. Not so the 
 Greeks. Prim Ftdg Vigil Taps omit tov Kadr\p.i.vov eni. 
 with 63 81 gig. 
 
 11. The simpler form of A o /cupios koli o deos r/ficuv seems 
 to be the way copt expresses it. 
 
 Same verse. Compare the tov Xafieiv of 56 with copt etfr 
 
 Copt says ' and thy will was done ' for /cat Sia to BeXyj/xa 
 crov eicri. There seems to be no variation among the 
 Greeks except that A writes Sta OekrjjiaTi. 
 
 c 
 
10 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 v. i . + Kan ante KaTea<f>pay. Copt (not sah) and so syr S with 
 N a 13 2 3 2 7 55 90 Orig (not 34 etc). 
 2. Copt does not supply the aXXov of 34-35-68-87 syr S 
 Orig, so that it is perfectly clear already that this small 
 Egyptian family partakes of the double syriac and coptic, 
 and that must be very early. 
 Same verse. " This book " copt ; no Greeks. 
 
 So also avoiijai pro Xvcrai some copt (with Cypr 1/2 
 only). Cypr actually says : accipere librum et aperire 
 signa ; no Greeks. 
 v. 4. "And they all were weeping" for ' /cat eyw €kXo.lov iroXXa 
 (or 7roA.u) ' says copt, but no Greeks, nor do others omit 
 iroKv. But 1 114 123 ? have iroXXoi. [<*.rto< Xe Aipme 
 eju<VTe sah Balestri, <wuj <Mpnte ejut<vre sah Goussen.] 
 5. X (with 14 28** 32) now reappears in the combination 
 syr S gig and copt in omitting 6 cdv [wv omitted by 
 nearly all others]. This is rather noteworthy, for copt 
 preserves the Greek order exactly with eviKrjaev before 
 the Lion. 
 
 7. Horner translates -eoYirfAJUi ' right hand,' which is 
 legitimate enough, but the Greek is Sefta? only, which 
 should be noticed, as 16-39-69-102 supply tijs x 61 / 305 
 and syr S writes ^eipos for Seftas. Sah confirms 
 TOYtt A.JH ; so copt and sah agree to reproduce the Greek 
 strictly without TOT or XJX. 
 
 8. For /xecrras of 7-16-39-45-69-102 instead of ye/iovcras 
 compare copt and sah eYJUeg. 
 
 9. In this important verse, which coptic (and sah) render 
 truthfully as the Greek, we find the order 77^0.5 ru> Oeot 
 of copt gig covers a few cursives including 34-35-68-87, 
 so that this is the true coptic base. The only difference 
 coptic makes afterwards is to add ' every ' after yXcoaa-qq 
 and Xaov and edvovs as well as after <f>v\r)<;, which the 
 Greeks do not do. 
 
 10. Coptic changes the construction just as the Greek, but 
 has fiaaiXebav with A 56 latt. 
 
 This shows conclusively that A is in error in v. 9 
 omitting 17/xas, and in error v. 10 omitting tw dew rj/xcov. 
 Now /3ao-t\eiai' is the common base of A 56 copt, while 
 A's omissions find no countenance in copt. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 9 
 
 v. 12. Copt substitutes kingdom for riches and omits /cat io~xyv. 
 No Greeks. 
 
 13. Copt omits /cat vnoKaTco T175 y^s [not sah~\ with X 12 14 
 22 txt 33 47 59 6l 67 6g 92 95 II9 *_ 
 
 Conclusive for an old polyglot base is ev tyj dakao-o-r) 
 of copt with only X and syr and latt, while all other Greeks 
 have 6tti (but 114 = vwo). 
 
 (Sah retaining ' and under the earth ' merely adds 
 A.YCO 0<s.?\i\.cca. , reading ' and under the earth and sea,' 
 turning the difficulty and somewhat supporting 114 
 above.) 
 Same verse. Copt omits /cat tco apviw, but no Greeks apparently, 
 nor does sah. 
 
 14. Copt = apparently Xeyovatv to a\in)v. No Greeks give 
 Xeyovcnv, but the to ap-qv is plain in copt 2C6 «5UUHrt, as 
 sah xe g«SJl!Hrf. 
 
 vi. 1. Copt introduces this chapter with + \i.era. Tavra [not sah]. 
 
 Copt has gOT6, sah omits the preposition (with Greek 81). 
 
 Copt does not add e-rrra with most, but omits /cat before 
 
 r)Kovo-a with 7-16-39-45-69-104 (see this group and 
 
 copt above at v. 8 in a matter involving retranslation ; 
 
 therefore the " intervention of a version," as Chase calls 
 
 such things, can be decided upon with some probability 
 
 here as to which version). Note, however, that this very 
 
 thing draws Lat and Copt very close. 
 
 2 fin. N is quite alone with both copt and sah, writing vlkcov 
 
 /cat evLKr/aev for viKbiv /cat iva viK-rjar]. This seems quite 
 
 conclusive about N and Egypt, when we find both 
 
 Versions agree exactly in a special turn of phrase. 
 
 Notice that Latin is quite definite (with the Greek) 
 
 ' vincens ut vinceret,' while syr S and 32 36 conflate the 
 
 readings. 
 
 syr S = vlkcjv /cat eviKTjae /cat iva vtKrjar) 1 as sah^Bal.). Not Goussen. 
 
 32 36 (both connected with syr and copt) {Prim "ut vinceret et 
 
 = vlkcov /cat iva viKTjar) /cat eviKtjcre J victor exiit j. 
 
 vi. 4. As between copt and sah, note sah goes with the 
 
 plurality here init. " /cat e£y)k0ev," while copt says /cat 
 
 eiSov. egrjXOev, which X further amplifies to /cat etScw /cat 
 
 iSor (i?V) efrXdev, and 34-35-68-87 with 1 19-123 say 
 
 /cat etSov /cat tSou egrjXuev. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Same verse. Copt omits aXXos with syr S [not Greek] but substi- 
 tutes thus : " a horse of colour of fire all over (THpq)." 
 
 Same verse, -avrco {post ehoBrj) by X a A 31 gig Prim Anonym is 
 supported by copt which brings 4>H very early in the 
 verse ; cf. sa/z. 
 
 Same verse fin. The order [xeyaXr) /xa^aipa by A alone (for 
 /jLaxoupa peyaXr}) is Coptic and sah order against all 
 Greeks and Latins, 
 vi. 5. Here Horner's English text has a mistake or misprint : 
 AlcuJTeJH I saw instead of/ heard. All Greeks rjKovaa. 
 So also sah. 
 
 N.B. — To show the somewhat eclectic text of X note 
 that in all these verses although copt (with ACP) omits 
 /cat fiXene in the phrases epx ov Kat ' fiXeire, N retains. 
 
 6. Copt [not sa/i] reads " a harsh voice " eoYCJUH ecitAcyT. 
 No other support. 
 
 And again before Xeyovaav copt adds alone ' as a voice 
 of an eagle ' [not sah, nor others]. 
 
 All Horner's mss. seem to read thus. He mentions 
 aeth as to this addition, as in some other like cases, but it 
 seems strange to think copt could have got this from aeth, 
 since all Horner's coptic read thus, so that aeth must 
 have got it from copt. 
 Same verse. Copt (and sah) read Be for km sec, thus nirteg ^.e 
 rtGJH nmpn. No Greeks, but 35 (of the Egyptian group 
 34-35-68-87) omits this #cgu. 
 
 7. (jxov-qv is omitted by copt as by gig [see remarks above 
 on vi. 1] and also CBP and numberless cursives. I judge 
 rightly here against N and syr and sah. 
 
 8. — ev (ante Xl^oj) of X 98 only (and 57 by mistake 
 against Colinaeus) may be a reflection of coptic. But 
 although N (and others) repeat the omission before 
 davarco, copt has quite a different word from death, and 
 writes jreJix. ntgoxgex: = cum afflictione, although sah 
 holds rteA* ITJUOY = aw (or /cat) davarco. 
 
 Same verse. Note that gig omits viro before t<dv drjpiuv = " et 
 bestiis terrae " = copt and sah rtEJU rr iOHpioit. Surely 
 all these things tie up coptic sah syr K and gig to an old 
 polyglot base. 
 
 9. Order of copt r-qv cr^payiSa tt\v TTefjnrTrjv is here agreed 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 2 1 
 
 to by 14-92 and 59 with syr S, and practically by K* 
 who omits i by mistake. 
 
 4- T(ov avBpoyrruiv of ftP 1 etc. [not the group 34-35-68-87] 
 is supported by copt. 
 
 — Sia sec. by A, and gig tol Cypr Prim only, is supported 
 by copt [not sa/i] with rteJU for /cat ( - Sta). 
 vi. 10. After quite a long time we get (evidently a basic) agrees 
 ment between 35 [non 34] and 87, with only 44 besides 
 in writing with copt o ayios o a\r)6i.vo<; (— /cat the copula 
 between the two attributes). 
 
 11. ert xpovov /jLiKpov of the Greek is completely agreed to 
 by copt (and sa/i), not conforming to syr S, nor counten- 
 ancing the em (for ert) of N (which must be an error 
 [compare however ews of syr S]), while piKpov, omitted 
 by B and so many cursives, is distinctly present in sah- 
 boh, while omitted among the cursives by 34-35-87 
 (kiat 68). 
 
 Same verse, 'qui occidentur' of gig for 01 p.e\kovTe<; anoKTeLveadau 
 of Greek, agrees more closely with coptic ; while the 
 addition of vrro avTav here by ft* is not countenanced by 
 coptic. 
 
 12. + ohq (post aeXrjpr]) with ftCAB etc. is agreed to by copt. 
 The coptic however frequently supplements the narrative 
 with THpq alone, where the Greek and Syriac do not 
 admit the word.f Sahidic frequently disagrees in those 
 places, as it does here, omitting 0X17 altogether. Some 
 cursives put 0X17 {before crekt)vri), viz. 7 8 14 19 28 29 31 
 93 94 95 97 98. This is merely a later development, 
 although it includes 28. It is noteworthy that 34-35-87 
 {kiat 68) agree with sah and a good many cursives in 
 omitting oXrj. This is a good test place for the influence 
 of copt. It is very doubtful if o\j) belongs in the narrative 
 notwithstanding additional support of gig and syr S. 
 
 Same verse. — ws sec. copt and sah is agreed to by gig and by no 
 
 Greeks, although ets for &>s is substituted by 4 29 45 64 
 
 98 and i09 gr (while i09 arm omits with gig and sah copt) ; 
 
 " sanguinea " Novat Auct de prom Victorin. 
 
 1 3. et stellae ceciderunt de caelo pro xai ol aarepes tov ovpavov 
 
 t Sometimes syr S does, as vi. 14 4- iracra. ante 1170-05, syr S and copt alone. 
 
2 2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 eneo-av of gig is supported by copt, and this is rather an 
 important point of order. No Greeks agree. This is 
 interesting as to X, for X follows immediately with em 
 for as (exert of copt) with 22 23 47 55** 56 81 102 and 
 syr S latt. Now X must have been copying a polyglot 
 or he would have shown us /cat 01 aarepes tireo-av airo tov 
 ovpavov enu if looking simply at Coptic, whereas he holds 
 the Greek order, but then prefers ettl. As em is sup- 
 ported by 47 and 56 also this ori is probably basic 
 graeco-copt. 
 
 As bearing on a graeco-copt under the eye of A, note 
 that A writes 6eov for ovpavov alone. 
 
 Same verse. The Coptic order of clause /SaXXei tovs o\vv6ovs avr^s 
 vtto fieyaXov avepov o-eiopevr) does not appear to find other 
 support, but compare the airo for vtto of N* 14-92 31** 
 syr S and 2. 
 vi. 14. The construction of copt differs. aire^oipLo-6-r] is eliminated 
 (syr S and sah had a little difficulty here) and the rolling 
 up of the document is given prominence. For the whole 
 clause /cat ovpavos aTre^wpLo-drj cos /3t/3\iov eiktao-opevov, 
 copt says et caelum revolutum est sicut librum, while gig 
 retains discessit but says sicut liber involutus. 
 
 Same verse. 4- rraaa {ante vrjaos) only syr S and copt (cf. insulae 
 
 vg latt). 
 See — avTcov X 26 31 107 and compare copt. 
 aneKeivrjaav A and compare copt. 
 
 15. Copt says ' with all the freemen' for /cat tto.% e\ev0epo<s 
 which X* omits. N* is wrong. Copt turns the end. 
 For /cat ets ras ireTpas raw opecov copt says ' and the holes 
 of the rocks' (cf 107* irepm for Trerpas ; f/l /«#: "in 
 petris "), while some coptic mss. say " and the holes of the 
 
 EARTH." 
 
 16. G?// changes the order to rats n-erpais /cat rots o/xcri 
 without apparent support. 
 
 The group 34-35-87 (Mat 68) omit /cat &//. before a™ 
 Try; opyq%. Copt does not omit, but Coptic's form of rteJU 
 efi.o?\ may have given rise to this. Note sah has plainly 
 a.yuj eRo?\. 
 
 17. Coptic order rfkOev 77 peyaXrj yjpepa ttjs opyr)<s avrov is 
 witnessed to only by cursive 114. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 23 
 
 As regards tijs opyr)<; avTov, for which NC 18 38 syr S 
 and ~%gig, an important group, witness to T7?s opyc\<i avroyv, 
 copt seems plain for'avTov, thus copt : rrre neqxojrtT, and 
 sah : IrreYOpFH. 
 
 " To stand before him." Copt amplifies unjustifiably. 
 Sah is even briefer than the Greek, 
 vii. 1. While sah omits /ecu init. with latt and the greek uncials 
 CA only, copt writes jLierferrcA. rt<M 2^.e. 
 
 — ttjs yijs sec. copt and also syr S with the cursives 
 38 62/3 72 80, this family generally running with syr 
 rather than copt. Not omitted by 34-35-87 (Mat 68). 
 
 Copt (all MSS. apparently) adds /jur/Te em. tous noTap-ov? 
 (post 6aka<r<T7)<;) but not sah nor any Greeks. 
 
 2. The treatment of this verse is essentially after the Coptic 
 manner. Compare the verse throughout. 
 
 3. /ecu pro pyre prim. A 38 106 vg. Cf. copt and sah rfEJUl. 
 Same verse. — rjpwv 28 47 61 90 95 syr S is also omitted by 
 
 Coptic. 
 
 4. Copt adds e7u to fj-erunov olvtcov after ea<^payicriia>oiv 
 without Greek support. 
 
 5/8. e<r<f>pay. is missing everywhere except in the last place 
 
 in copt, thus agreeing apparently alone with syr S. 
 5/8. Copt transfers aarjp from verse 5 to verse 8 after t,afiov\cov. 
 6. "K&.n is substituted by copt for p.dva.acrr). Not so Greeks 
 
 (but see verse 5 aan pro TaS a few), while 30 39 69* 
 
 91 98 omit. 
 9. Copt, with -y/r S [not sah~\, adds /cat zVzzV. 
 
 — /cat iSou £<?zV .svzA and syr S with Greek A only and 
 
 latt and Cypr bis Prim, 
 ibid, e-rn for evwrnov prim-, of A very likely comes from the 
 
 coptic column of this ms. from misreading jutrtejueo 
 
 jutm eportoc. 
 
 11. The order of copt 'upon their face before the throne' 
 does not appear in the Greek mss. 
 
 12. Copt omits /cat 77 i(jyy^ (or Kai -q Swajius), writing only 
 iteju. 'f'XOXt, but sah preserves the double expression. 
 
 13. otl (pro ovtoi) 29-30-98. Cf. copt x.b ruxx where it 
 takes the form of a question at the opening ; so also in 
 sah, omitting rives etai later. Not so the Greeks. 
 
 14. — km init. copt and sah, perhaps, as is often the case with 
 
24 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 them, for a graphic touch ; perhaps from confusion of 
 2C6 following, with 2^.e ; 
 
 Copt introduces the clause "My Lord" with xe, as 
 also the next (alone), and the third: "these are they" 
 where 29 of the Greeks supports with 6tl. 
 Same verse. For eXevxavav copt glosses "made them glorious." 
 Not so sah — sanctified, purified, or merely munda- 
 vemnt. 
 vii. 15. The differing Coptic order 'and they serve him in his 
 temple in the day as well as in the night ' is not 
 supported by any Greeks. 
 16. X (and 53 103) comes in here with copt omitting en 
 prim, with vg Cypr Fulg and in such a way that it is 
 clearly not an accident, but basic Coptic or Latin agree- 
 ment. Omit twice syr S and 36 syr {not sail). 
 
 Copt adds "neither shall they toil" after hi\{rqcrovuriv, 
 and substitutes shadow for o tjXlos, omitting the article 
 with 38 59 73-80. This is rather curious on the part of 
 these cursives, who do not alter 17X105, while copt writes 
 distinctly ^>HlJS.l against sah npH. 
 viii. 1. For ws rjjjucopiov copt has cyA. OYOYrtOY "up to {usque 
 ad) an hour," but sah rtAOYtflc ovrrov. 
 
 3. For iva Sioatj (or 11/a Scoo-ei) 81 writes iva Swaeu avra 
 which agrees with copt, but copt follows with rtCA. {"cum" 
 or "besides" before reus irpoaevxcus) while sah is more 
 definite with rtjui. 
 
 4. Here 100 agrees with copt, adding iravrcov after ay lcoi>. 
 
 5. Copt adds tmo;v\fi. after tov \ifiava>Tov, but no Greek mss. 
 so far recorded. 
 
 7. Copt has the additional clause /ecu to rpnov riys y>j? 
 KareKar), but (using rtEJUl as the conjunction) elides the 
 verb after SevSpwv with 16. Sah acts differently (q.v.). 
 
 8. Here my whole Egyptian group 34-35-68-87 adds /xepos 
 post TpiTov with the Coptic epper, and sah novit and 
 latt pars. 
 
 9. In this next verse the same latin sah and cop tic expres- 
 sion is observed in 34-35-68-87 and also in 36 and our 
 friend N 4- /xepos, while syr S and 2 add ttclvtcov with 
 copt. 
 
 This double conjunction is decidedly interesting as a 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 25 
 
 combination. While it is to be observed that the cj>pev 
 and novit secundo loco in this verse and of Latins is not 
 shared by the Greeks. 
 . On the other hand another sympathetic point occurs. 
 The Greek runs to. e^oura ^u^as, but the Coptic : " those 
 in which there was soul of life," the "soul" being (both 
 in sah and copt) a transliteration of the Greek and 
 written \|/YX H - Observe then that N with 46-88-101 
 gives \pv)(y]v for i/w^a?, ~ a ^ s0 s y r S- 
 viii. 10. Note here again + pepos 36. copt latt. 
 
 fin. uSaros copt and sah without Greek following. 
 
 1 1. Notice that ^ does not write uSaros in previous verse, yet 
 in this verse 1 1 for all Greeks a\piv6o<; or 6 a\jii.u6o<;, N* 
 alone agrees with the Coptic form a\piv6iov (copt : 
 A/vJ/irreiorf, sah ^ncmeiort). This to my mind is 
 specially noteworthy for it seems to be sympathy of eye 
 as much as anything, for no Greeks nor X follow with 
 ' bitter as an alloe ' (rtOY<x.?\?\OH) as do all the coptic 
 mss. for aipivOov or a\piv9iov of the Greeks secundo loco. 
 
 Notice however that h (with Print) has "quasi 
 absentium " for " in absinthium " and eis axjj. of all Greeks 
 (but 81, which writes ws axjjivdos), while copt writes 
 5!4>pH T t' itOY«5.?\?\OH. (Prim sicut absen.) 
 
 12. pepos seems to be absent from all Greeks in this verse ; 
 As to /ecu ecrKOTicrBr) for iva aKOTicrdr] of 34—35—68—87 see 
 copt : " that they might become dark and that their third 
 part might not shine "... Cf. aeth. 
 
 ^>ert niegoov rfexs. niexujpg appears to find no 
 counterpart in Greek. 
 
 13. X alone of Greeks omits evo? ; so both copt and sah, the 
 one writing goya^oijui , the other eyaetoc. 
 
 Tre.Tuip.evov is omitted by copt, while it adds " crying 
 out," retaining "saying," thus: "crying out in a great 
 voice saying " ; apparently no Greek support for this. 
 
 Copt does not add rpis before oucu ouat ouat, but 
 
 prefixes the usual coptic introductory xe. 
 
 ix. 1. P goes here with copt gixert or exerf writing eiri Trp> yiqv. 
 
 So 38 eiri 777s yyjs. 
 
 2. Copt omits /ecu r)vot£e to <j>peap Tr)s a^vcraov with KB etc. 
 
 while one coptic MS. " B " omits eK tov &pea.To<s ws Kairpo<; 
 
26 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 following with i 9 27 35 41 57 75 87, which includes 
 two out of four of our Egyptian group (in bold type), 
 ix. 5. A few Greeks (23 102** 104) add avrous after fiaaavO. 
 So does copt. 
 
 o-Kop-mwv seems to be read by 37*. So copt. 
 
 For brav copt writes ecyum . Only 21-28-73-79- 
 103 vary brav, writing &>s brav. 
 
 The point made by 23 above [without 55] of + avrovs 
 in sympathy with copt, is now made clear by 23-55* ixi 
 writing Sa/oj for iraKj-q. Cf. copt A.YtyArf 2CeKg_, also sah. 
 
 6. It is noticeable that 23-55 a ^d clvtcov after davarov, but 
 not sah copt. Possibly the Middle Egyptian version did 
 this. 
 
 7. to o/Aoiw/m of syr S = copt here. 
 
 ibid. " being of color of gold " does not agree with others. 
 
 8. Copt reverses the order of " their teeth . . lions," and 
 " their hair . . women," but not others. 
 
 9. Copt substitutes " wings " for dwpaKas primo loco ; not 
 sah nor others. 
 
 ibid. Horner translates 'fcJU.H "sound," as h 'sonus' for 
 ' vox ' and ' <j>wvr),' but it is equally or better the equiva- 
 lent of (fxovrj and vox ; while sah actually does have 
 'sound' or 'clamor' (negpoov). 
 
 ibid. Copt omits noWcov without Greek authority. 
 
 10. Copt and sah " and there are tails to them " = Semitic ; 
 cf. h ; coptic cannot directly express the verb e^w. 
 
 11. Cursive 81 (and Compl) alone go with copt 6 arroWvaiv. 
 Copt = xe c|>h ettako and sah = 2s.e see hettako . 
 
 12. ep^erat (for ep^ovTai) of N*A etc. = copt. 
 
 — ert copt with the 1 fam etc. 
 12/13. I n this matter of punctuation apparently copt and sah 
 agree with a good many cursives in joining juera ravra to 
 ver. 13, and they omit kch (13 init.) with X 56 and syr S, 
 a noteworthy little group. 
 
 13. — reaaapcov A 18 (21-28-73-79-103) some latins and 
 so copt (while X omits /uav ck tojv Tecrcrapav Keparcou). K a 
 in supplying the clause omits recra-apcov. 
 
 ibid. Coptic adds tov Opovov before tov deov. No Greeks nor 
 sah. 
 (ante oculos vg etc , sub oculis Prim, pro in conspectu al.). 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 27 
 
 ix. 14/15. All Horner's Bohairic mss. omit m tov<; SeSe^evovs 
 eui T6i iroTapco Ten jxeyakoy Ev^parr). <is) /cat e\v07]crai> 01 
 recrcrapes ayyekoi. This is an error of homoioteleuton 
 from ayyeXov; . . . ayyekoi where in the coptic both 
 terminations &tye?\oc would be similar. But it is not 
 omitted in the sahidic (Goussen's ; passage not extant in 
 Balestri) nor in any Greeks. 
 
 Some pretty arguments could be based here as to sah 
 and boh if any Greeks omitted, but they do not, only X 
 41 51-90 98 and 100 omitting ol before ^rot/xacr/Aei'ot in 
 verse 15. 
 15. X [ omit /cat rjfxepav with Compl\ Not so copi, but 
 copt says "the day" with 10-21-37-49-77-91-96-110, 
 28-73-79-103 38, which grouping does not however 
 include our " Egyptian" codices 34-35-68-87. 
 ibid. Likewise + p-epos (copt vg) found in 21-28 37 73-79-80— 
 103 gig is not observed here in 34-35-68-87. 
 16/17. Copt says ' I heard their number thus. And I saw" . . . 
 Apparently no Greeks, although 38 omits ovtos in ver. 16. 
 17. glXOJOY. Compare X eiravoi pro en. [See xx. 11.] 
 ibid. Copt says Xe for /cat sext. but no Greeks (om. gr 4 et 
 Anonym). 
 18 init. /cat ojtto (pro vvo) 18 syr S and vg copt (oYOg e£.o?\) but 
 not sah = only efio?\. 
 ibid. 4- /x.epo? of copt latt does not occur here among the 
 
 Greeks. 
 ibid. — eK sec. and tert. is implied by copt, which uses next. 
 ibid. As to tojv eKTropevofjievav of 21-28 38 80-103 1 19-123 
 vg ; cf. copt ITH. 
 19 fin. Copt " and in this they were hurting the men five months." 
 This addition of "the men five months" appears un- 
 authorised elsewhere. 
 
 20. — ol sec. by copt =67 and 119 (supra lin. insert.) also 
 gig of Latins only. 
 
 ibid, /cat ra fiAiva /cat ra \i#tm This order of X 1 19-123 
 syr S alone, is the order of copt, but not sah. 
 
 Such places prove pretty conclusively, with what went 
 before in earlier chapters, that N was handling the 
 bohairic and not sah. 
 
 2 1 . While sah omits ovre e/c tou /cXepjitaTaw avrcuv with syr S 
 
28 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 and Prim, copt holds it : oy2ve eRo?\ *>ert rfOYtflbvi , and 
 inserts before it rteJUl itovcujq ('cum abominalionibus 
 eorum ') without other authority, 
 x. i. ve(f>e\.rj (pro ve<j>e\r]v) of 21 only. Cf. lat nube, and copt. 
 ibid. N* writes r\ 6pt^ for ipts [N a corrects to ipts without the 
 article]. Whence this ? It is again a possible mental 
 process from the coptic column ^jpic. 
 
 2. — avecoyfievov A alone of Greeks. Horner's bohairic 
 text omits this with part of his mss. Who shall say that 
 A gr is not Egyptian in the light of this, and who can 
 possibly controvert an Egyptian copy for both X and A 
 in the light of the foregoing facts ? 
 
 \_sah of Goussen is wanting from middle of verse i to 
 verse 4, and also Balestri.] 
 
 The point is that these sympathizing Greek mss. never 
 reproduce a thing like Aqcuty e&0?\ in the next verse, 
 for that could plainly be avoided by the eye. 
 
 3. Horner translates Eqg,eJU.g,eJUi " roaring." The Greek 
 curs. 19 writes iivKo^evos with Prim ' rugiens ' ; gig has 
 ' sicut leo mugit ' (Karlsson ; Belsheim prints ' rugit '). 
 
 ibid. For eXaXrjcrav copt says ' gave their voice ' : Avf" 
 htoycjuh. This is to be noted as regards X* because 
 X writes (fxpvcu for fipovrai, again as it were from an error 
 oculi. 
 
 Quite a different expression for e\a\r)crav in the next 
 verse 4 is used by copt. 
 
 4. The coptic here is quite different and evidently basic. 
 It says "And I heard the things which the seven 
 thunders said ; I was about to write them also ; and I 
 heard a voice . . ." There is therefore no confusion at 
 the beginning from the second ' I heard.' Observe that 
 for ore X 2,7 73-79-80-103 have oaa with Prim and 
 gig which approaches more nearly the Coptic, but copt 
 alone says ' I heard.' 
 
 ibid. Copt says " I was about to write them also." Cf. 41. 
 
 102 + «au ante e/xeXXov. 
 ibid. The order of the clause afypayicrov a . . ypaxprjs is quite 
 
 different in coptic. Note that the 6<xa for a of N 18 finds 
 
 an exact counterpart in coptic jih. 
 
 5. Copt entyuui eTcJ>e for " ets" rov ovpavov is a fine and 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 29 
 
 strong expression conveying ' up to.' The only change 
 
 by Greeks is e7u for ets by 14-92. Had N been wilfully 
 
 accommodating, such a place as this would not have 
 
 escaped him. 
 x. 6. — ev ante tco £,covtl KB etc. Cf. copt Jx and lat ' per 
 
 viventem.' 
 ibid. Copt elides /cat ra ev avrco with 21-28 62/3-72 73-79-80 
 
 — 103 ; also /cat tol ev avrrj prim, with 102, and adds iravra 
 
 in the last clause after daXaacrav, alone. 
 
 7. — aXXa init. copt [_non salt] with gig only as it appears. 
 ibid. For orav /xeXXyj aakTnt^iv, /cat TeXecrOrj to p,v<jry\piov tov 
 
 0eov copt says " when he shall sound. For (v<*.p) the 
 mystery of God was completed . . ." No others appar- 
 ently. 
 
 8. — Ttahiv copt. No others. 
 
 — /cat ante Xeyovcra copt with 28. 
 
 9. /cat enrov [pro Xeyav) 59 and cf. copt. 
 
 ibid. — Karacjyaye copt. Apparently no others. But copt 
 says ' Take it to thee ' for ' Take and eat it.' B 7 29 39 
 67 69 have avrco, but perhaps only an itacism. 
 
 ibid. For aXX' copt says ovog. No others. If tf had been 
 wilfully accommodating he would not write AAAA as he 
 does. 
 
 10. For /cat Kare(f>ayov avro. /cat i)v ev toj gto\lo.ti fiov a>s fieXi 
 yXvKV /cat ore .e<f>ayov clvto copt says : ' and it was sweet 
 in my mouth as honey and having eaten it.' Not so 
 others. But 34-35-87 omit ore e(f>ayev avro, while 
 retaining /cat /carec/>ayov avro above, which copt omits 
 there. This is curious. 
 
 ibid. eye/j.Lo-07) pro ernKpavdrj of K does not appear to find any 
 counterpart in our Coptic mss. (most write T<Mtext 
 epujA.cyi while two mss. say cycuni ECOI rtcy^tyi), but 
 compare sahidic of Goussen ^.e a.qcitye rt61g,HT. 
 
 (gig : repletus est venter meus amaritudine ; Prim 
 repletus est venter meus [absque amaritudine]). 
 
 11. Xeyovaiv pro Xeyei of copt [non salt]. Not Latin except 
 Harlam* = NAB etc. 
 
 ibid. For rraXiv copt has " also." No others, but 21 73. 
 
 79 103 add /cat before Ttpo^Tevaai, retaining iraXiv. 
 xi. 1. Copt says "a reed of gold," as aeth. 
 
3Q 
 
 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 For ofioios copt says ecjOl "being," and some mss. 
 eqorfi "being like." See 38 which alone says <ws pa/3Sos 
 for o/^otos pa/38a>. 
 
 + pot {post Xeycov). Copt is only witnessed for by 
 1 1 9- 1 2 3 vg dem lips. 
 
 — /ecu (ante (jLerpr/o-ov) of copt = 7-45-104. 
 xi. 2. — /ecu sec. copt, but not by Greeks. 
 
 eveguoJUU rt^HTC for TTarqaovaiv conveys the French 
 "fouler par leur pieds," i.e. they shall trample in it, and 
 also the French parmi. No other support. A alone 
 erroneously ixeTprjcrovcrcv. 
 
 3. — /ecu see. copt. Not Greek (Cf. syr S). 
 
 4. — Ti)<i yrjs copt and 1 2 only. 
 
 5. "And that which they wish they shall do," copt ( — 
 aZiKTjaai). No Greek support. Only 50 varies, sub- 
 stituting SoKtjLtacrai. 
 
 octtis (pro et rts) 38 80 copt cpH and syr S. 
 
 airoKTeivcu (pro aStKrjaai, sec.) 21-28 36 37 73~79-8o- 
 
 103. Not copt nor .ra/z, which however use different 
 
 words. 
 
 6 init. Sah agrees with Greek ou-roi, writing itA.1, while 
 
 £0^/ substitutes ze, and 5jyr S introduces the verse with 
 
 KCU. 
 
 ibid. Horner renders "to cause them to turn and become 
 blood." Cf. the convertendi of lat for arpe^eiv. 
 
 7. For otolv copt substitutes Ejxjum (sah GYtyA.lt), stopping 
 at papTvpiav avTmv (continuing ni-eHpiOIt Xe ). Only 
 1 12 57 62-3 72 80 81 1 19-123 write ore, while gig says 
 
 postquam against Prim and the usual latin «wz. 
 
 8. Copt and Wz insert a verb "shall be" before e-rn 7775 
 nXareias. So do 21-28-37 7 3-79-80-103 (eacrei), with 
 N c eo-Tcu, and latt jacebunt (Prim : " ponet," f/[ Pn>» 
 Pichon and Anon, ad loc). 
 
 Sah = coXoxitA a.yuj KHXte, but boh coXojua. ttTe 
 
 XHAXI. 
 
 — km ult. by the 1 group etc. and .syr S is omitted by 
 copt, but not by sah, which has on. 
 
 Both copt and sah have "their Lord," clvtcdv for ^//.wv. N* 
 23 alone omit -qp.o)v. It is always wonderful to see how 
 deeply N* was considering as he wrote, without rising 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 3 1 
 
 from his seat apparently. This place, like others, bothered 
 him. He refused to follow his Latin, Copt, or Syriac 
 here, 
 xi. 9. Horner translates copt eveitAY "they shall see," but 
 NCABP etc. all /3\errovo-ii>. 
 
 Sah ( = greek) CENA.Y ' they see.' 
 
 Copt inserts "their body" after "see" alone, retaining 
 bodies twice later in the verse. 
 
 xwy (jivXcov /cat \acov K syr S (cf 23) agrees with Coptic 
 order \non sah'] and vg, but not other Latins. 
 
 10. Horner gives these verbs in the future. Against present 
 of NCP etc. (see D* copt ) (sah has the weak future). 
 
 Copt adds ' saying ' before cm. 
 
 1 1. Copt and sah say " and a spirit of God " for nvevfjua £0)775 
 e/c tov deov. Exceptionally 21 73 substitute /cat for e/c 
 here. 
 
 For eir avrovs copt says e^OYJt epuoOY (so also sah). 
 Cf. only A 18 21-28** 36 59 73-79-80-81** 95 100-103 
 114 (syr S conflates with both) with ev an-rot?, and K etc. 
 (inch 34-35-87, hiat 68) eis aurous. 
 
 12. rjKovara. copt and •?#/& for rjKovcrav. So N aorc B 1 ^. 
 including 21 28 etc. and 34-35-87 Anonym gig. 
 
 — T7) ante ve(j>e\r) 21-28-73-79-80-103 Cf. copt. 
 
 13. Copt (apparently all Horner's codices) says "the third 
 part" for to Se/caroz/. Not so N and the rest, but 
 curiously enough B here. No others add /xepos here. 
 
 e8o£av pro eSw/cav &o£av of 44 106 (although I believe 
 errors) may be compared to copt. 
 
 14. For the TraprjXdev of N 21-28-73-79-80-103 (instead of 
 anrjXdev) compare copt Aqcmi. 
 
 /cat (pro lSov) 104. Cf. copt. (Et ecce vg am Prim 
 [non gig harlj). 
 
 15. Coptic says .wtyconi . . efi.o?\ *>ert Tc[>e "happened 
 out of Heaven " for " eyevovro . . ev tco ovp." and " factae 
 sunt in." No Greeks or Latins appear to follow this. 
 And sah has gp<M g,Tt — rather ev than e/c. 
 
 2 - <fo/. tou Kvpiov rov Oeov rjficov copt followed by new. neq^pc. 
 
 No others seem to say ' the Lord our God,' but 38 and 
 
 syr S substitute Oeov for Kvpiov. 
 fin. + o.\ir\v by N 12 18 38 40 is supported by some Coptic 
 
2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 mss. Note presence of X 18 and 38 and latt in this 
 connection, 
 xi. 16. Immediately following, copt omits oi prim., with N * A 72, 
 before et/cocri (/cat) reo-crapes, writing OYOg, K"K. 
 
 This should be noted as to XA and copt, for this whole 
 matter of eye, ear and mind of X while copying (evidently 
 a graeco-coptic ms.) will bear the most careful watching ; 
 for note, immediately following again, X has + /cat 
 (alone with 95) post Bpovovs avrcov. Not so copt. But 
 the Coptic for ewecrav is AYglTOY, the first four letters 
 being easily confused for OYOg, = /cat. This is quite 
 instructive. 
 
 In the same verse cop tic omits /cat fin. before TrpocreKv- 
 vrjo-av (as often in such descriptions) and is followed by 
 one of the Egyptian group 87. 
 
 1 7. Again N (alone) has kc o ©c for /cupte o deos of all others. 
 Compare copt noc where the sigma would mislead the 
 eye of N. 
 
 X (alone) omits 6 before iravroKpaTcop. Not so copt, 
 but the article m hardly shows to a rapid glance of the 
 eye nm<s.rfTOKp<VTUjp , while sah (Goussen) writes 
 n'n<s.rnrujKp<VT(Jup . 
 ibid. On the other hand /cat o epxopevos omitted by N a ABP 
 and many, is found in coptic OYOg, ^rtHOY. What does 
 X* do ? A most curious thing. N* (with C ut vid) 
 omits only o ep^o/ievo? retaining the /cat, thus : 
 KC O ©C nai'TOKpa 
 Top o o)v /cat o rjv 
 
 KOLL OTl etX^^a? T7) 
 
 Now for this on in Greek, coptic writes xe. Hence 
 xe could be mistaken for the copula Xb or Greek /cat. 
 An involuntary process by X*. In fact one coptic ms. 
 writes OYOg xe, which Horner calls attention to in 
 connection with X*C. 
 ibid. — T-qv peyak-qv by copt [nofi sa/t] finds a counterpart in 
 the eclectic but otherwise sympathetic 36. 
 
 18. Copt [non^saA] says "because (xe) thine anger came," 
 xe Aqi rtxeneKxujrfT (following with rtejui for /cat 
 tert.). No Greeks follow this. 
 
 Copt amplifies, writing "cum tempore judications judi- 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 33 
 
 care mortuos." Cf. k: " et tempus judicandorum mor- 
 tuorum." 
 xi. 1 8. Copt says "and all that fear thy name." This is the 
 usual Coptic amplification. In such things K does not 
 follow. 
 
 ibid. Syr S now agrees with the coptic form of rreju, writing 
 tois jui/cpois /xera tojv p.eya\b)v {Cf also xix. 5 likewise). 
 No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. — kcu (ante Sia^eipai) copt \_non sali\ as often in such a 
 description. This is followed by A 21-73 on ly> an d 
 seems significant. 
 19. Here is evidence of polyglot handling. No Greeks add 
 6 between o vaos tov Oeov and ev rat ovpavoi except CA 
 14-92, 34-35-87 38 95 but the Latins gig: "quod in 
 celo est," and h Victorin "quod est in caelo." Note the 
 Greek group with the half-way Egypt-syr 14-92. Now 
 Coptic, most mss., although Horner does not admit it 
 into his text, write eT*>erf TcJ>e instead of *>eit Tc|>e. 
 
 ibid. As regards 4- ava post ovpavoj by N* it might be caused 
 by dittography, or from seeing and mentally repeating the 
 Coptic OYOg which follows Tc|>6. 
 
 ibid. The order ftpovrai /ecu cj>covau of copt is also witnessed to 
 by 14-92 and the 34-35-87 group with 28 etc., and syr S 
 (which latter omits olvtov sec. with copt). 
 ibid. fin. For creioyxos 34-35-87 80 write a-e.icrp.Qi. So copt 
 definitely ol creicr/uoi. 
 
 For kcu xaXa£a peyaXr) copt says " with stones of Heaven," 
 the regular expression for hail. No change among 
 Greeks, 
 xii. 1 . + tioov {ante crqpeiov) Hippol. Compare copt + IC 
 (ecce or ioov). No others add anything. In fact IC 
 (voici, voici que [Mallon, Gram. copt.J) can be the equiva- 
 lent of tSou or eiSov. But copt is actually redundant with 
 IC gHnne copt codd plur and text Horner, ABN reading 
 gHnneic and others gHnne without ic (as I understand 
 the note). 
 
 ibid. Copt idiomatically supplies a verb: "being given upon 
 her head." No others {Cf. Victorin "habens"). 
 2. For KpaZpvcra. of syr S am compare copt. 
 ibid. fin. Copt expresses " about to bring forth," future : ecrt<sjuuci. 
 
 u 
 
34 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xii. 3. Compare Coptic order and irvppos or Trvpos //.eyas of 
 NC etc. 
 ibid. — /cat itlt. Copt, but no Greeks. 
 
 4. The latter part of this verse is slightly different in the 
 Coptic : " that if she should bring forth the son, the 
 dragon might swallow him." Cf. fin. 4- auro by 34-35- 
 87 and 23 only. 
 
 Above, some coptic mss. (and Horner's text) omit 
 
 T7/S p.eWoVO"qs TCKELV. 
 
 38 alone substitutes to iraSiov for to tgkvov. Cf. copt. 
 and sah niujHpi. 
 
 5. This word is repeated here for vlov. Coptic says : 
 jLtnicywpi rtgcjuoYT. 
 
 ibid. — iravTa copt (which so often adds it). So only Greek 88 
 
 (against 46-101). 
 ibid. CP and the 1 fam. etc. omit ev. Not so copt which has 
 
 i£>err 
 ibid. — avTr)s copt, with 21-28-73-79-103. 
 ibid. 4- 77-pos {ante top Opovov) NCABP and most ; 4- ets 
 
 Hippol. Compare the usual graphic coptic : encytoi 
 
 gA. c^'f- (for 777305 tov 0eov) xteju. gA. neqeportoc. 
 
 6. 4- avrrj post •qToijxao'p.i.vov by 36 alone. Compare copt. 
 ibid. fin. Copt codd plur "ninety" and Horner text c Jtq 
 
 ttegooY but sah {Goussen) ruye juut ce rtgoov (sixty). 
 None of Horner's codices appear to read sixty (g or ce), 
 while the e in ce, or in item (foe some copt read rfexiq) 
 may be responsible for the + nevTt of N c greek, \_gig 
 reads quadraginta /] 
 
 7. + fieyas ante 77oX.ejnos copt. No Greeks, but so vg and 
 gigas: "et factum est proelium magnum." 
 
 ibid. — 6 (ante Mi^arfk) [of course with Latin] is only witnessed 
 to by greek 13. This is rather curious among so many 
 graeco-latin or latinizing greek codices as we have. Is 
 it not significant perhaps of early Latin action on coptic 
 instead of vice versa, so that above magnum of gig may 
 have engendered ovrntyf" of copt instead of the other 
 way about. 
 
 ibid. " TToXeixTjcraL Kara" apparently copt for " en-oXe^crav Kara " 
 of textus receptus. Most have TToXefirjo-au /xera but 
 2 5~58-7o-78-84-94 have woAe/x^o-ai Kara with copt, and 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 35 
 
 so of the Latins Victorin and Ambrosiaster " adversus," 
 while gig and the rest are content with "cum." 
 xii. 7. "and the dragon warred against them" of copt finds no 
 amplification of iiro\ep.r)ae among Greeks. 
 
 ibid. While 87 drops the final avrov, both copt and sah have 
 definitely rteq. 
 8. icr^yaev copt apparently, with A and many incl. 34-35-87. 
 
 ibid. Although above, verse 7, copt was alone in the phrase 
 "warred against them," here in this verse N (quite alone) 
 adds something. Copt = " and he prevailed not against 
 them in fighting with them." N retaining 10-yyo-av must 
 needs add irpos avrov instead of rrpos aureus of copt, 
 reading "and they prevailed not against him." Now if 
 anything were lacking to prove our contention this 
 appears to prove it. For K retaining lo-yyaay yet 
 let his eye wander to the Coptic and add (ex copt.) 
 Trpos avrov instead of 7r/>os avrov; ! No Latins add 
 anything. 
 
 The various readings icr^yaav or Lo~)(yo-£v merely refer 
 to " the dragon and his angels " or "the dragon" himself. 
 The verse goes on "nor was place found for them any 
 more in the Heaven," that is for the dragon and his 
 angels who had been fighting with Michael and his 
 angels. 
 
 Some Greeks found trouble here following their 
 Lo~)(y(rev and substitute avrco for avraiv with copt, but K J 
 got himself into a terrible mix by his rrpos avrov and 
 therefore drops the avrcov altogether. That is N* for K c 
 adds avrois. This corrector had not struck out the irpos 
 avrov above, nor have any correctors, they no doubt 
 reading that the dragon and his angels had not prevailed 
 (io~)(vcrav) against Michael. 
 
 The one little letter e or a in to-^vo-ev or io-)(vo-av 
 might have caused more mischief if ayyeXoi had not been 
 mentioned as accompanying both champions, but K 
 is for excluding both hosts and both champions from 
 Heaven ; or rather, for N* substitutes rore for to7tos, 
 reading Kai ovk iay>yaav 7ipos avrov ouSe rore evpedr) ert ev 
 to ovpavco, he adds indefiniteness to the proceedings by 
 saying that after they had not prevailed against him, he 
 
 d 2 
 
36 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 was then no longer found in Heaven. A pretty muddle 
 to get into from letting your eye wander to the Coptic 
 
 OY&HOY. 
 
 xii. 9. Coptic (with Greek 61 74 95 6 o<£is 6 /*eyas) leaves 6 
 (UpaKwv without attribute and applies "great" to 6 o<£is. 
 
 X seems to have looked at the coptic too, for he drops 
 the article before o^>ts (with 1 12 57 81) writing o SpaKmv 
 
 /xeyas oc^is o ap^aio?, so that one can read either : 
 
 o SpaKcjv o p,eyas, o<£is o apYjxi.09, or 
 (with £<?/>/) SpaKCJV, o /xeyas o^>ts o ap^aio?. 
 
 1 submit that all this absolutely proves that X was using 
 graeco-copt. If the reader is not yet persuaded, let him 
 consider this. Following immediately in this place, 
 N [alone] drops the kcu following Sta/3o\os, that is 
 between Sia/3oAos and 6 o-arcwas. Now boh writes 
 niXlAiio^oc nc<VTA.rtAC. What more proof is 
 required, especially when we point out that sahidic does 
 not drop /<ca. Salt = n2UA.fi.o?\oc <wcu ncA.TA.rtAC, 
 so it was from boh that X followed with the omission. 
 
 ibid. For eis rqv yrjv copt gives eiTGCHT XUTKAgl which 
 Horner renders " below the earth." No Greeks vary, nor 
 Latins. I think the Coptic merely intends " usque ad" 
 the French "en bas, jusqu'a la terre," as coptic does not 
 amplify enecHT. 
 
 Copt uses this again as a complement for epkr^Orjaav. 
 
 Copt omits K.aifin. but no others. 
 
 10. tv toj ovpavo) keyovcrav, order of all uncials and most 
 cursives, is also that of copt. 
 
 ibid. — avTcov copt is only supported by 32. 
 ibid. — rjfxmu tert. by copt and about twenty cursives Erasmus 
 1 2 3 Aid. Col. and by syr S {arm aeth). 
 
 11. Copt begins this verse xe apparently all mss. Not so 
 sah, which has ATU) (kgu) as all Greeks and Latins, 
 except Prim (q.v.). 
 
 ibid. For avToi X alone substitutes ovtoi (ipsi latt). Cf. the 
 definite use of rteooov by copt here. Horner's note here 
 is : " rtecjuov] cf. Gr. (exc. K)." He intends, I suppose, 
 to convey that H©cx)OY = avroi, but I question very much 
 whether the presence of rf&tooY here did not influence 
 N to use ovtol instead of alroi in his copy, as showing 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 37 
 
 emphasis in the Coptic, which he borrowed thus (illegi- 
 timately), 
 xii. ii. For some time our friend 56 has been absent. He now 
 takes the place of X. 
 
 The Coptic substitutes blood for Xoyov, writing blood 
 twice, thus : 
 
 ota to aifxa tov apviov /cat Sia to ai/xa {pro Sta tov \oyov) 
 T7)<; /xapTvpias avTcov. 
 56 conflates thus : 
 ota to at/xa tou apviov ko.i Sta tov \oyov ttjs papTvpias 
 avTbjv + «at tov at/xaros olvtcjv. 
 
 ibid. For /cat ovk copt has xe OYHI r<\p. No Greek copies 
 vary (but A with ovx for ovk). 
 
 ibid. Copt Horner text toy \|/YX h "their life " and so sah 
 (Goussen) tgy \J/Y,XH- But Gr 34-35-87 with 23 
 \_non 55] say ras i\)vya% for ttjv ipvxyv. Whence this 
 unless from rfOY \J/YX H °f C0 P t ? Consulting Horner's 
 note we find " toy \{/Y5Ch] rfOY \Ja, B plur." He adds 
 that an arabic note in A marks the sahidic for the plural, 
 but the Coptic for the singular. Perhaps other sahidic 
 mss. than the only one I am using here (Goussen! s 
 edition) may show the plural when Mr. Horner completes 
 his edition of other sah mss. 
 
 ibid. Copt is emphatic : cy^G*>pHt. The only change by 
 Greeks is /u.ey/>t (for aypt) by 56 13-23 and 36 (all having 
 shown coptic friendliness) and 16-69-102 22* 27 39 55. 
 Here 55 accompanies its sisters 13 and 23, which it has 
 opposed sometimes in their Coptic leanings. [This group 
 is the well-known one with SaKTj in ix. 5.] 
 12. The changed order by X alone of 
 
 KarroiKovvTVi ev aurots (for ev aureus o-KrjvovvTes) 
 is exactly borne out both by copt : eTtyon rt^)HTOY 
 
 and by sah : TOYHg, rtgHTOY 
 although copt and sah use different verbs for habitare, 
 tyon and OYHg respectively ; /caTot/cowres (pro aKrj- 
 vovvtzs) without change of order is used by 26 29 30 31 
 61 62/3 72 80 81** 98 and 107. 
 
 ibid. + Se post ovai by Apoc. 1 alone is supported by two 
 coptic mss. CZ. 
 
 ibid. — rots Ka.TOLK.ovat. most Greeks with copt and syr. 
 
3S CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xii. 12. N slips in ets before tt]v yqv alone, whether as a substi- 
 tute for coptic Jx before the direct complement or not it 
 is impossible to say. 
 ibid. X omits p,eyav. Both copt and sah have it, but place it 
 before @vp,ov {cf 1 19-123). 
 
 12/13. KE oi copt and sah in the last clause of ver. 12 appar- 
 ently finds no counterpart in Greek. Gig vg beginning 
 ver. 13 with Hippol. write postquam {Hipp. Tore) which 
 may be the commentary on this <e (rendered by Horner 
 " only "). 
 
 13 Jin. Copt expresses tov appeva by "the son male" in 
 two words jutniujHpi n&ouoyt. Note that 26-107 a ^d 
 tov viov before tov appeva. 
 
 14. Copt says " great wings." Not so the Greeks. N Greek 
 omits tov before aeTov, but does not say " as those of an 
 eagle " as copt does, which {quasi) is however witnessed 
 to later by Prim. 
 
 Copt seems to have confused "great wings" of the 
 woman with great as an attribute of eagle which it alone 
 omits. 
 ibid. K omits xaipov in error. Not so copt or sah. 
 
 1 5. The order of practically all Greeks e/c tov o-toju,o.tos avTov 
 on. tt)<; yw. is agreed to by copt as to placing ck tov 
 o-ro/Maros first, but copt further varies the order by placing 
 oTTLo-a) 7179 yvvaiKos last, thus : " and the serpent cast 
 
 from his mouth as a river of water behind the woman." 
 15/16. Copt omits wa TavT-qv TTOTap,o(f)opyjTov iroi'qa'r). kcu 
 €J3o7]6r)o-ev rj yrj ttj yvvaiKi. 
 
 Cf. a longer omission ut vid. by Hippolytus. 
 
 16. — kcu tert. by copt is not followed by Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Note that the Coptic expression used both in verse 15 and 
 here of iroTap.ov vharos is followed partially here by A, 
 which substitutes to uSwp for tov iroTap.ov. 
 
 17. C omits £7n before T-q yvvatKi [so Lachmann] and Prim 
 writes mulieri. The other Latins in muliere or in 
 mulierem. Copt (most mss.) says g,l2C6ft (evri) but a few 
 with sah ETecgme. 
 
 ibid. Now comes another curious and roundabout but very 
 conclusive matter as to X. N chancres the order of 
 TToiqaai TTo\ep.ov to iro\ep.ov iroi-qo-ai.. Not so copt or sah. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 39 
 
 But immediately following he writes eirikourojv (in one 
 word), thus : 
 
 voXejJLov TTOLrjcrou 
 
 [xera tou ettlKol 
 
 ttcov tov anepfxa 
 
 TOS aVT7]<; TOJV TYj 
 
 It seems to me almost certain that his eye dwelt on 
 the coptic which expresses jxera tcdv Xolttojv by ttejui 
 nc eni. 
 
 ETn\oi.TT(t)v is quite permissible Greek, but as X is alone 
 here one can see his mind working as clear as day, even 
 after these 1500 years have elapsed, combining in his 
 interesting polyglot mind the cem of coptic for Xolitos 
 with the expressive Greek word e7n,A.oi7ro5. 
 
 As to the change of order above of iroXepov Troi-qcrai, 
 without copt, it merely shows (to me) that X was dwelling 
 on this place, and while considering it as he copied, let 
 himself write as his mind dictated after his eye had left 
 the written page. 
 
 At any rate either these things are due to the scribe 
 of N or to a forerunner who was similarly influenced by 
 the Bohairic version under his eyes. 
 
 Coptic follows here with a substitution of rt]% yvvaucos 
 (rc^cglJUil) for aim?? after cnrep/iaro?, which no Greeks 
 share, and that X did not follow such things lends 
 countenance to the theory that he did not intend to 
 conform to coptic rather than Greek. In the same way 
 the substitution by X of Oeov for lv ^v \non copt] is merely 
 an error oculi from the Oeov above which occurs in the 
 same place in his line : 
 
 ToXacr tov 6v /cat e 
 yovTutv tt)v jxap 
 Tvpiav tov 6v K.a.1 e 
 OTadrj em tyjv 
 xiii. 1. Copt makes the order drjpiov a.fa/3. ev tt) 6a.\acro-r) with 
 62/3 80 and 23, but 23 has onro 717s dak. and 62/3 80 
 
 €K TTjS 0a\. 
 
 ibid. The order of " ten horns and seven heads " of most 
 
 Greeks is also that of copt. 
 ibid. All Horner's coptic mss. appear to conspire with 
 
40 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 X ny^TsOSJL, that is four crowns instead of Se/ca 
 SiaSr)fj.aTa. There is no confusion in sahidic, which gives 
 the numeral Sexa in full (jUHTe). X greek is clear for 
 Se/ca, except that he changes the order from Se/<a 
 SiaSrjix. to StaS^ara Sexa, as if he had paused, being 
 surprised at the Coptic X and then, being quite convinced 
 that Coptic was wrong, had written in Se/<a afterwards in 
 full, 
 xiii. i. Copt omits /3\acr<£i7/xia? but not sah nor any Greeks. It 
 is a perpetual wonder how all Horner's coptic codices 
 conspire in such things. 
 
 2. XeovTcov for Xeot-ro? of X 14-92 and syr % is not agreed 
 to by copt or sah ; so that we see N using all the 
 authorities. 
 
 3. — eiSot' is agreed to by copt. Coptic somewhat amplifies 
 the first clause without Greek support. 
 
 Kai edav^aa-ev o\r) 17 yy) (or -q yr) o\rj) of nearly all 
 Greeks is agreed to by copt. 
 
 The curious ottmtw here is confirmed by copt. . 
 
 4. — tov SpoLKovTO. usqtt,e ad 7TpocreKvvrjcrav sec. by copt 
 (apparently all Horner's mss.) is witnessed to by 1 29 114 
 of the Greeks, although it seems clearly to be only an 
 error from homoioteleuton. Note that N does not omit, 
 nor sah. 
 
 ibid. " saying who is like to this wild beast " copt. Cf. syr S. 
 
 No Greeks, but Prim adds Mi, and as showing that the 
 
 reading is old, Iren confirms it. 
 tbid. — /ecu (ante rts sec.) by all Gk uncials etc. agrees with copt. 
 
 5. "Great blasphemies" copt (- /cat) is not confirmed by 
 sah nor by N nor by other Greeks or Latins. 
 
 ibid. Note that 14-92 write iroXe/i^o-cu for vrot^aat as all 
 coptic, but not NCAP, although this was reintroduced 
 later by B and cursives with voXe/Mov iroirjcrau. No 
 doubt the harder reading noir^o-ai is to be preferred. 
 
 ibid. Here occurs- a very curious thing. K supplies o Bekei 
 after ^ow/o-cu, having omitted efowia (alone) before 
 iroLrjo-cu. There is no authority for this (except aeth : 
 "signa quae voluit ") nor any reason for the introduction 
 of the words, although the correctors have not changed it. 
 The coptic for efoucria is epcyicyi. The Coptic for o OeXet 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 4 1 
 
 is 6T6g,rfe. Balestri's sah = egOYCIA. eTpequucxje , 
 while Goussen loses the egOYCiA. 
 xiii. 6. The substitution of avrov for to ovop.a avrov here by X 
 is not approved by copt. 
 
 7. The omission of the first part of the verse by CAP the 
 1 family and Iren is not countenanced by N nor by copt 
 but is by sah. 
 
 ibid. Copt expresses e7rt nacrav <pv\rjv by " over all the tribes " 
 in the plural, using however the word 4>y?\H. NABP 
 and most cursive Greeks add koli \aov after <f>v\7]v (C kcu 
 Xaows). Copt drops it from similarity of ?\«sx [lingua) to 
 ^\A.oc ; so Anonym and Auct de prom. 
 
 8. N* omits ov before ye-ypa-rrTai., changing the sense [from 
 ov ov [common txt £>v ov]). Not so copt, which has <»ut. 
 
 ibid. N* 95 114 add o.vru>v after names (or name); CA add 
 
 avrov. Cf. copt rtH ETE JTOYpAtt. 
 ibid, ev /3l/3\co (— rrj) by N* 36 59 114. Cf. copt nxcOJU. 
 
 definite article but feeble, not ruxuujm. 
 ibid. + tov {ante ecr<f)ayu.evov) all uncials and most cursives, is 
 
 strongly confirmed by copt " he who was." 
 
 9. Copt says " He who hath an ear to hear let him hear." 
 Not expressed by Greeks. 
 
 IO. — Set avrov, and airoKTavOrjcreTai (for aTTOKTa.v6rjvai) by 
 syr S and gig is found to be the construction of Coptic. 
 A gr omits Set. No Latins omit. 
 ibid. The closing clause is quite different in copt, omitting coSe, 
 and substituting at the end " blessed is he." Cf aet/i 
 + et non admirandum satanae. No others wish to change 
 this. 
 
 12. Compare the first clause in copt. Not so read by 
 Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Trpoo-Kvviv ( — «>a) for wa irpoaKwiqcrwai by X compares 
 exactly with copt and sah and latt (except gig Prim Iren 
 Anonym). 
 
 13. e7Tt {pro et?) of 56 1 19-123 and B etc. may be compared 
 to copt, the same word gixeit being used for the €7n of 
 all in the next verse. 
 
 14. " ut faciant " of gig for 7rot^crat sec. finds an exact equiva- 
 lent in the copt ze , and an echo in N which (alone) adds 
 acgu before Tronqcrai. 
 
42 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xiii. 15. — iva /cat XaXrjo-rj 77 eiKuiv tov Qrjpiov. Copt [non sah~\ 
 is also omitted by syr S and (2) and Hippol. and by 
 fourteen cursives, including 14-92, 23-55. But all our 
 uncials (except C) and including tt, with Iren, confirm it. 
 The following clause in Coptic is completely turned 
 round, "And to kill " taking the place of /ecu 7701770-77 at 
 the head of the sentence. I do not find that this obtains 
 among any Greeks, but vva sec. is omitted by N(C)ABP 
 etc. syr S gig Hipp etc. 
 16. After SoiAous the construction in Coptic is different and 
 hcao-q clvtols x a P a 'Yl JLa ls expressed by eqecyo?\g,OY. The 
 coptic runs (without /ecu lvo) : "He shall mark them in 
 their right hand with their forehead." 
 
 The others do not change this phrase. Some of the 
 Latins seem to be nearer. 
 1 7 init. — /ecu N*C and some curs. ; syr Hipp {bis) Iren and 
 Anonym go with copt and salt and latin against the rest. 
 ibid. fiTjSeis (pro /j.77 tis) of the Egyptian codices 34-35-87 
 seems equivalent of both copt and salt " no one," and 
 copt and sah use different words, each language however 
 expressing " not anyone." 
 ibid. The order of N 38 only 
 
 to yapay/xa tov Orjpiov 77 to ovo/jlol clvtov 
 is exactly the order of copt : 
 
 tycju?\g, (— to) ittg nieHptoit to! giuuTq le neqp^rr . 
 36 also agrees but says kcu for 77. 
 
 C gr , with Lat and Syr, seems to agree better with sah 
 here. 
 
 A close examination of this passage will show enough 
 variation among other documents to make our point as 
 to N and copt stand out all the clearer. 
 18. Copt says " (The) wisdom (is) here," against Greek and 
 Latin order, but sah retains it with n«MnJUA. TrrcocpiA.. 
 ibid. eya>v tov vow is our received text. Nearly all Greeks 
 however omit tov. 28 reads ovv for vow ; but X* reads 
 ovs with only 16-39-69-102. Copt and sah both play the 
 variation gHT (= heart). Now gHT and g,H can mean 
 almost anything connected with animus or with the 
 viscera, but not with ous. N seems to have run wild 
 here. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 43 
 
 xiii. 1 8. X (and 62/3 72) with syr S omit ko.i o apiOpos clvtov. 
 
 Not so copt. 
 xiv. 1 . kcu iSou is omitted by copt and gig but retained by Greeks 
 and by sah. 
 ibid. + to (ante apviov) most Greeks as well as copt and syr S. 
 ibid. + to (ante ye.ypap.p,evov) by A alone, may be the 
 equivalent of copt eqc^iHOYT". 
 
 2. Copt omits cos (jxovrjv vBaTcov ttoWwv kcli but not X. 
 ibid. X omits peyaXrj^ after ySpoirr/s but not «^/. 
 
 z'<fo£ Gy^ says "and the voice which I heard was like to 
 harpers" (— KidapilpvToiv ev reus KiOapais avrmv). No 
 Greeks appear to omit the last part of the clause. 
 (See Prim.) 
 
 3. aSovTwv of 1 19-123 alone, aSoucr&w IOO (for a§ovo-iv) is 
 to be compared with copt and syr [see below xv. 3]. 
 
 ibid. Copt alone omits kcli init. \jton sak~\. 
 
 ibid. Copt not only elides w? (with NBP and most) but says 
 "in (^>ert) a new song" [X* has a muddle here]. 
 
 ibid. For paOew " to learn " copt alone seems to substitute 
 "to know" (eejuu) as also sah. No Greeks alter, but 
 gig with the Latins and Prim says dicer e. St. Jerome 
 (Apol. pro libr. contr. Jov.) says cantare. eeJUU is rather 
 curious, followed so close by the Greek et /at) (which 
 copt renders eB.H?\). 
 
 4. The form a.Trapyv)<i of X 16-39-69-IO2-1 14 (for a-Trapyrj) is 
 not agreed to by copt = rfAJTA-p^H (sah rtOYAn^p^oH). 
 
 5. Copt and Wz agree as to i/zeuSos for SoXos ; copt: rtOYX, 
 Wz : T<5s.npo. 
 
 Copt and .r<2/£ also have yap with X and most cursives 
 against CAP 12-59-67 81 100 114 gig lux. 
 Prim has quia. 
 Copt and sah omit the last clause with practically all. 
 
 6. N*, with B and many Greeks, omits a\\ov with sah, but 
 all Horner's Coptic mss. seem to have it. It is represented 
 by the little prefix K6 and might be passed over 
 (eKe<VFre?\oc). 
 
 ibid. + em (ante tov%) is curious by XCAP 34-35 (Mat 87) 
 and Orig syr ; rtrtH copt may however be considered in 
 this connection. On the other hand sah uses a double 
 em before ttts yrjs (eg,p<M £X*i). 
 
44 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xiv. 6. Copt varies the order, against Greek, reading Xaov 
 before yXaxraav, but not all Coptic mss. The copt words 
 are so similar, ?\^oc, ?\<5.c, that they were sure to be 
 transposed by some. Compare syr S and Prim also. 
 
 Sah has ?\<*.oc at the end with the Greeks, and uses 
 A.cne for yXuxjaav before it (connecting by gt instead of 
 rteJU as in copt). 
 
 Copt inserts " every " before (f>vXrjv, yXwaaav, and Xaov 
 after its usual manner. Not so the Greeks. As N does 
 not follow this, it is quite clear he did not intend to 
 adopt coptic readings. 
 
 7. Neither sah nor copt omit Xeyovra with X. 
 
 ibid. Copt mss. vary between vox (cjuh) and sonus or clamor 
 
 (*>pajov). No Greeks vary (frovr). 
 ibid. + avro) before tw iroiiqaavTi is not written by X (see 
 
 7-16 etc.) nor avrov tov Troi-qaavra by B** etc., but 
 
 compare copt for this avrov. 
 
 8. Copt writes KBA.TTe7\OC juun^gfi.. So P etc., while X 
 substitutes Sevre/aos for ayyeXos with syr. 
 
 ibid. + avro) of copt and syr and Prim is not shared by X, 
 but N* jumps from r)Kokov6r]crev verse 8 to verse 9 by 
 omission due to homoioteleuton. 
 
 ibid. But rather a pretty thing occurs here at the close of 
 verse 8, for X a , that early corrector, who supplies the 
 lacuna of X*, not only agrees with copt in omitting rj 
 ttoXls and otl above, but here substitutes TreirTcoKav for 
 irenoTiKe of all the rest and syriac. And this agrees with 
 boh <s.Ygei [non sah~\. What more is needed to tie the 
 bohairic up to X ? We see X* using bohairic involuntarily, 
 and then we see X a in the same place no doubt, perhaps 
 in the very same cabinet de travail, revising as a 
 Stop6coTH]<;, or perhaps even as an avTifidWajv, and using 
 probably the very same graeco-coptic exemplar which 
 K* used. This is important as regards X a elsewhere, 
 and I do not think this point has been brought out 
 yet. 
 
 ibid. The order of (TreirrcoKav) ra edvr) iravra is that of 21—28— 
 73-79-103 with copt. 
 
 9. For the avrw of A {pro aurots) unique among the 
 Greeks (with Prim only of Latins) compare rtcouq of 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 45 
 
 Horner's coptic codices BCD mg EF*G against rcccuoY of 
 
 the rest and sak. 
 xiv. 9. — ev <f>ci)vr] peyaXr] all Horner's Coptic mss., but not sak 
 
 nor any Greeks. 
 ibid. For d ns copt reads idiomatically see cJ>H and some xe 
 
 rf H . No Greeks, but 30-98 read on pro ei ti?. 
 z<$zaf. — €7n s£c. fo^/ but no Greeks nor sak. 
 
 10. — Kai init. copt agrees only with greek 100. " Bibit el 
 ipse " of Cypr Jul Firm lux agrees more closely with 
 sak (ort). 
 
 ibid. Copt supplies "wine" before "unmixed" but no Greeks. 
 ibid. — aytoiv copt \non sak'] agrees only with A 26 yj* 107 
 
 108. Sak has ayiu>v and (Goussen) adds avrov with 
 
 aeth. 
 
 11. Copt order here happens to agree with tex'us receptus 
 avaftaiveu (awx) ets atwvas against the rest of the Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Copt introduces the next clause by xe, but thus no 
 Greeks. 
 
 12. For a>Se prim, copt says " But he who," cf. 21 6 Se [pro 
 SSe). Copt actually varies the expression : " But he 
 who will endure with the saints," and for w8e sec. con- 
 tinues " they (are they) who will keep . . . Compare 
 tcov TTjpowTOiv of X 36 38 56 95 (a notable group in this 
 connection) for 01 Typowres. 
 
 ibid. fin. + ^pio-rou copt (all mss.). So 2 1-28-7 3-79-80-100-103, 
 but not sak. 
 
 13. For some time X has been rather drifting away from 
 copt. Here K says \ey0ucn7s ek tov ovpavov for ek tov 
 ovpavov Xeyovarjs, whereas copt does not use this order 
 but sah does ! Copt also amplifies the previous clause by 
 writing : " And I heard another great sound " ; not 
 supported by other authorities. 
 
 ibid. — ypaxpov all coptic mss. but two, and also sak (Goussen) 
 
 which is mut immediately after. So also only 18 31 of 
 
 Greeks. 
 
 For airapTL 21-28-73-79-103 write goto a/m. Cf. 
 
 copt : icxeff 'ffiov. 
 
 Coptic pauses at a-rrapTi. And continues : 
 
 "Saith the spirit, that" (- vai) = qxuj Uaaoc 
 
 rtxemmtX gin*- Here our friend N* joins us, omitting 
 
46 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 vat, and maintaining the order of text. rec. Xeyet to -rrvev^a. 
 Only 16-39-69-102 also omit vm (33 and 88 substitute 
 /cat for vat), 
 xiv. 13. But now copt strikes out with an amplification, only part 
 of which is witnessed for by any Greeks. For " iva. 
 avail avacovTai e/c rcov kottcov clvtcov" copt says "That 
 they may rest themselves henceforth from (in) their toils 
 of their works." No Greeks do this, but 14-92 halve 
 the conflation by writing ano tchv epycov avrcov for e/c tcov 
 
 KOTTOiV OVTCOV. 
 
 The Latin here uses a laboribus suis. It does not 
 therefore look unlike an assimilation to a previous Latin 
 which copt here indulges in, but amplifies. Our friend 
 X is rightly silent here, retaining e/c tbv kottcov avrcov ra. 
 yap epya avruiv aKokovdi /xer avrcov, while copt, having put 
 in epycov above, runs on : " (which) shall walk after them." 
 A possible survival of this occurs in 39, reading ctKoXovOcov. 
 Comitantur for sequunttir by Prim. And not content 
 with this, all Horner's Coptic mss. add a gloss : " and that 
 He may guide them down to a fountain of water of life." 
 14. — /cat lSov copt. No others. But, noteworthy fact, 
 K omits /cat etSoi\ 
 
 Now if any others made any change, my contention 
 for insensible assimilation to Coptic by N might not apply, 
 but here I think I may say we can put our finger again 
 on a mental process of N. He looks at his Greek and 
 sees /cat eiScw /cat tSou. Before starting to write, he 
 glances at the coptic and sees oYOg AirtAY, then starts 
 to write /cat etSov (= OYOg, &mA.Y), but the sound of 
 AtriAV in his mind causes him to write tSov instead of 
 eiSov ; glancing back at" the Greek he sees /cat iSou 
 (following /cat eiScw which he misses) and is satisfied. 
 This seems a very simple and yet very adequate explana- 
 tion to me of many things which cannot be accounted 
 for otherwise. 
 
 Syr S also omits /cat etSov with N. So that we can take 
 our choice of assimilation to the syriac column of his 
 exemplar (see other instances elsewhere) or of this 
 mental process ex copt. 
 
 In N's copy, if /cat etSov was present, it would be 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 47 
 
 written kch l8ov (as CA), which still further confuses the 
 eye, and probably led first to omission by syr S. 
 None of the Latins appear to omit either phrase, 
 xiv. 14. — 7-775 Ke^aXijs copt. Copt says merely "there being a 
 crown of gold upon him." Not followed by X or any 
 others \_sah continues mute until xvi. 12]. 
 ibid. — /ecu ult. copt alone. 
 
 15. For ev fj.eyakr) (f>covr) of text. rec. nearly all Greeks have 
 ev <f)0)i>ri jAeyakr) (1 has jieyaXr) ttj <j>wvr)), but copt goes 
 with text. rec. order, ev p.eya\r) fior]. 
 
 ibid. + Xeycov {ante toj Kadrffievoj) copt. No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. While syr S and t shorten the reaping clause by 
 omitting otl e£r)pa.v8r) o 6epio-fJiO<; ttj<; 7175, copt does the 
 same but supplies the earth in the previous clause, thus : 
 "because the hour of (the) reaping of the earth came." 
 
 For tov OepLo-cu note that K 38 41-53* substitute 
 tov Oepio-fiov and compare copt rtTe nu)C*>, noticing the 
 article n . But X does not add " of the earth " here. 
 
 16. — ko.1 €0epio-9r) -q yrj copt. No Greeks. 
 
 17. It is rather curious that here 34-35-87 and 26-107 
 should write ayyeX.05 aAAo?, for aXAos ayyeXos, when copt 
 as usual prefixes kg to A.rre?\oc. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits tov vaov tov eu, reading e/c tov ovpavov. 
 
 Apparently no Greeks (30* only). 
 ibid. — /cat avros copt. Cf. 98 \_non 30]. But 30 and 98 are 
 
 sisters, so that" between them they give what lurked in 
 
 their exemplar ! 
 
 18. — €7ri 38. Cf. copt. 
 
 ibid. For Kpavyrj p.eya\r) copt has " ev (with cursives only) 
 ixtyakiq fior) " (or Kpavyq) with CP and most Greek 
 cursives. 
 
 XAB syr S gig h 31 38 44 $ 2 61 82 95 however 
 substitute <l>o>vTq here. So that X was not by any means 
 slavish to his Coptic. No Coptic mss. have cjuh here as 
 some of them elsewhere. 
 
 ibid. — oTi TjKpao-av ai ara^uXat avTrjs copt and only Greek 
 50 102*. 
 
 19. For €l<st7ju yr\v copt writes enKApi "against the earth." 
 Now N 38 97 (syr S) write erri T179 7775. Whence this 
 €ttl ? I call attention to enK<\pi which is not in itself 
 
48 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 But KA.pi as Greek, but e m KA.pi against or " towards \ 
 the I earth," but looks like Greek etn. [Sah wanting.] 
 xiv. 19. The order of 34—35—87 rqv Xrjvov ttjv fieya\r)i> tov dv/xov 
 tov 6eov is evidently intended to copy the order of copt : 
 
 v\ nityf" rtgpcuT rrre nejuKorr ju<|>'T" 
 although jxeyakrjv here precedes Xr/vov. But in both 
 cases it is moved back from the end of the verse. 
 20. — airo [ante o-raStwi/) copt. No others ; but copt prefixes 
 KOY to tyo . 
 ibid. N* with 26-107 (against the other three family mss. 41- 
 42-53) and syr S substitute hiaKoo-icov for egaKocnwv 
 without other support. Coptic is plain with 5c for 600, 
 while in Greek it is the same. Two hundred in Coptic 
 and Greek would be c. The confusion must be between 
 the symbols «>C for 600 and k for 20 (Gk and Copt). 
 It might arise from the Latin misreading oc for cc, 
 hardly from the syriac. 
 xv. 1. Copt transposes jxeya and places it after aXXo, thus : 
 eKemcy^ - . No Greeks. 
 
 2. Copt adds (as often) TravTas before viKcovras. No Greeks. 
 ibid. Copt says e | nj | -©HpiOIt for e«- tov drjpiov and continues 
 
 rf6JU TeqgYKom for kcu e/c rqs eikwos aurou. Note 
 that N (with 7-16-39-45-69-102-104, 38 and 98) omits 
 tK here, and cf. Lat : vicerunt bestiam et imaginem 
 illius. 
 
 tbtd. Copt omits ex tov ^apay/xaros avTov with most. 
 
 ibid. Copt continues neJLt THni rrre neqpA.lt . Note 18 only 
 seems to elide the third e«r. 
 
 ibid. The last clause for e^ovras Ki6apa<; tov 6eov runs in Coptic 
 epeovorr gA.rfKYeA.pA. Tire cjj^f- ^h rrroTOY , which 
 Horner renders simply " having harps of God." The 
 Egyptian group 34-35-87 with 36 have an addition 
 after vaXivr)v and before eyovTa.% of ttjv p.e[juyiJLevr)v irvpi, 
 evidently repeated from the beginning of the verse. 
 Coptic does not have this nor do I see how the coptic 
 here could have engendered the greek, for ecjJUOYXT 
 *>erf OY^opouJU does not resemble ^qh itTOTOY , only 
 one letter being similar. 
 
 3. While above at xiv. 3, N did not read aSoiras for aSovcriv, 
 here it does with 1 19-123 only. This seems to agree 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 49 
 
 with copt and syr and the latins h Prim, vg, \_non gig 
 Cypr\, but these have et can/antes with the Greek, while 
 copt suppresses k<u init. This again is noteworthy for 
 X connecting with Latin and Coptic. 
 
 Coptic here changes the order, making it "the song of 
 the Lamb and Moses (jucjuychc) the servant of God," 
 instead of " the song of Moses the servant of God and 
 the song of the Lamb," thus suppressing " the song of" 
 in one place. The Greeks do not do this nor change 
 the order, but 34-35-87, curiously enough, give us 
 <j)(Dvr]v for oiSrjv sec. before tov apviov. The Coptic is clear 
 rt T t"g,uj2^H . I do not know how 34-35-87 got this. 
 The sahidic is missing, but an arabic gloss in a Coptic 
 MS. says : " Sah. they sing the song of Musa the servant 
 of God and the song of the lamb," so that it did not 
 come from sah. 
 xv. 3. Copt again changes the order of ju,eyaA.a /cat davfj-ao-ra ra 
 epya aov to " Great are thy works and they are wonder- 
 ful " ; continuing, "Lord God the Almighty, the 
 righteous," thus divorcing Sucatcu from the next clause 
 and inserting it here as a direct attribute (ni-e-JUHl) to 
 God. No Greeks do this (see 44). Observe however 
 how it might have crept in from the Latin, for gig con- 
 tinues "juste et vere viae tuae." It was only necessary 
 in an old Latin uncial to read juste following omnipotens 
 ("domine deus omnipotens juste ") to account for this in 
 the coptic. See how they all hang together ! 
 
 Copt continues " all thy ways are truth," repeating 
 ^juhj, (rteKJUiuuiT THpov gArtxieeuiHi rte), " (the) 
 king of the nations." 
 
 The Greek is " o /3acri\eus tcov ayiuv." Notice first that 
 N* says /3ao-iAev (— 6), which is again a possible mental 
 process from copt novpo , where, although the weak 
 article appears, the end is suggestive of fiaaiXev coupled 
 with a natural mental attitude of " O King," while a 
 Latin might have slipped in " O Rex " [as codex b did at 
 Luke xvi. 24 " -o- pater" (Buchanan, new edn. of cod. 
 Veron., Oxford 191 1, pp. xvi., 149)]. 
 
 Next observe a good deal of difference of opinion as 
 to Toiv aymv. N a ABP and nearly all cursives agree with 
 
 E 
 
50 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 coptic, substituting tcov edvuv, but N* with C and three 
 notable cursives, 18 56 95, together with syr S and t 
 arm and Vulgate = tcov caajvoov. Am however plays a 
 variation with caelorum for saeculorum ! Gig Cypr and 
 Ambr are content with gentium, but h and Prim say 
 omnium gentium, which even the coptic does not indulge 
 in {contra consuetudinem). K a changed auavwv to eOvav, 
 but seems again to have wished to make it aryiow. 
 
 At any rate, in all this muddle we see that the Vul- 
 gate's saeculorum has the very respectable support of 
 N*C 18 56 95 syr S and %. aicovcov and edvcav are not 
 similar in syriac nor to be confused, nor in coptic. So 
 that N* etc. seem here to be connected only with the 
 Latin. 
 xv. 4 init. Prefix some coptic mss. ovog . So 36 only. 
 
 ibid. The coptic expresses the opening phrase : 
 
 itiju eTermeqepgcH- £><vrg,H Jxnac. 
 It will be observed that no Greeks have followed copt 
 in its composite verb-form (ep^o^f" *)<VT£>H "to fear 
 before ") ; and it can also be seen how the Gk. ere is 
 almost obliterated in e Terr rteq or etc it rteq . This 
 ae is omitted by CABP 1 etc., but it is noteworthy that 
 instead of ns ov ju.77 <f>ofi-q6-q ere Kvpie, N 95 write m ere 
 ov cfroflridr) bringing ae immediately after tis, and causing 
 the Greek ju.77 to disappear (cf. syr) although Ait after 
 epgerf" is present in some of the coptic mss. 
 
 ibid. Only 28 says ~kct for i<i {cf. copt ac). 
 
 ibid. 95 repeats tis ou before Sofacrei, but in this appears 
 alone. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits altogether on jaovos ocrios. Sah is wanting, 
 but arabic glosses in coptic mss. say it was present in sah. 
 There is some confusion and variation as to this phrase 
 in Gk. mss. 
 
 ibid. Copt says " worship thy name" for " irpoo-KW. evcamov 
 aov." No Greeks have this, but A 46=88=101-59 95 
 add Kvpie after evco-rnov aov. This could occur from 
 misreading coptic xe as k$ , for xe immediately follows 
 jmneKp<Mt introducing the last clause. 
 
 ibtd. N (alone) adds evomiov in this clause, possibly suggested 
 by the copt OYUUffg e&0?\ . 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 5 1 
 
 xv. 5. Copt omits /cat before iSov. Not so the Greeks, although 
 they elide iSou which copt has very definitely : gHnne . 
 
 6. + 01 {ante c^o^res) of CA etc. = copt. 
 
 €k tov vaov is lost by B and a company of cursives 
 including 34-35-87. This may be due to its being set 
 back by Coptic as in greek 25-58-70-78-84-94 and syr 
 S : " €K tov vaov 06 e^oi/re? tcis tin a. Tr\r)-ya<;." 
 
 The same word for vaos in vv. 5 and 6 is used by copt 
 epc[>ei, although Horner translates ver. 5 tabernacle and 
 ver. 6 temple ; while a few Greeks (10-49-77-9 1-96-1 10 
 and 56 Compl. [_non 17-37] ) substitute ovpavov here for 
 vaov. 
 
 Hid. The + 01 yjaav before evSeSu/xe^ot of B and many 
 cursives (including 34-35-87) may be compared to copt 
 eovort gAitg,fi.o)C. Surely, if N had intended to copy 
 copt he would have done this too. 
 
 ibid. Now as to the important part of \l9ov or \ivov in this 
 verse. It is to be observed that X is very definite with 
 Kadapovs Xlvovs XajjLirpovs. Coptic uses rtlA.v for linen 
 although it has many other words to express flax and 
 the products of flax. The trouble might have come 
 from f> JcoTOY which I take it means " super eos " [the 
 phrase is EOYOit gArrgR<juc rimv toi gluuTOY] and 
 here we have a clue, for it has a kind of resemblance to 
 pjuortl , which would involve lapis, favoured by the 
 Greeks CA. 
 
 ibid, em (pro nepi) of 21-28, 62/3-72, 73-79-103 agrees with 
 syr S, and copt (exert). (It is rather curious to see how 
 the 1 family divides here, for while 62/3 writes e7ri, 1 . 12 
 omit the word.) 
 
 ibid, ent avrcov ra crT7)9r) copt says, supplying TOY. So syr S 
 and X, but no Greeks. 
 
 7. Here the dropping of kv by H* and a good many cursives, 
 of enra sec. by K and 1 8/u only, is not supported by copt. 
 
 At the close however all copt mss. add afxrjv with only 
 N 12-46=88=101-59 28 and syr S. 
 
 And copt says "unto age of the age" with 23-55 
 which often sympathise. As a matter of fact some copt 
 write cyAertep Trre nienep with 23-55, while others 
 make it mertep, tojv cuovaiv, as Horner's text. It is quite 
 
 E 2 
 
52 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 evident however from where 23-55 g ot their eis tov aiava 
 tov aiaivos. 
 xv. 8. The unique order of X here " eis tov vaov eicrekdetv" for 
 eiaeXdetv eis tov vaov is not supported by copt which has 
 Ft e*>cmt eniepcj>6l, although repeating this cop'ic 
 aloud " ni ekhoun epierphei " really almost corresponds 
 to the sound of X's greek order, 
 xvi. 1. The order /AeyaX/^s $(ovr)s of CAB and about a third of 
 the cursives agrees with copt. As NP do not join nor 
 34-35-87 nor other important documents I take it that 
 the original Greek order is ^wvrjs /AeyaArys as in the textus 
 receptus. 
 
 zbid. ovpavov for vaov of 13-23—55 only (comprising this 
 entire family group here) is witnessed to by all the 
 Coptic mss. and three Latins. We may safely say that 
 I 3 _2 3 _ 55 then derive plainly from a graeco-copt. Such 
 proof has never been offered before. It is new and 
 valuable. Horner quotes "13 demid. tol. lips. ar e ," 
 but he did not know that in 13 it was no accident. 
 Our family groups are now proving of consider- 
 able importance, as all three mss. of this group are 
 agreed here and no other Greeks. It is an old error of 
 copt. 
 
 ibid. — £77Ta (ante ayyeXois), copt. No Greeks, and arabic 
 gloss in copt says it is present in sah. 
 
 ibid. — Kai (ante e/c^eaTe) is witnessed to by both 1 and 
 Compl. groups and gig with copt. 
 
 ibid. Copt does not have "seven vials" with NCA etc. syr S 
 gig, but says "your vials." 
 
 ibid. Instead of eis riqv yrjv copt merely says "below" 
 " enecHT," that is some copt mss. and Horner text. 
 Others (quite a large number) say eneortT or en-eorfTert. 
 There is an old corruption here. And one ms. con- 
 flates enecHT eneorcTert. Latin h omits as rr)v yrjv 
 altogether. 
 2. + ayyeXos post TrpwTOS 12 21-28 34-35-87 36 59 73- 
 79-80-100-103. So copt. [H is missing, owing to an 
 omission, from /cat anr)\0ev init. up to and including ri)v 
 yr/v, which may very likely have something to do with 
 the omission of tt]v yrjv in verse 1 in the coptic] 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 53 
 
 xvi. 2. ko.1 sec. is omitted by 59 (which has coptic sympathy) 
 as by copt. 
 
 ibid. For eni ttjv yrjv copt writes exert niK<5.g,l . 
 For eis rous avdpcoirovs *)6rt tt tpcjUJUU . 
 
 ibid. Notice that for kcikov koli irovrjpov copt supplies only one 
 adjective (eqg,ojov) while A 123* omit kclkov and 119 
 (sister of 123) omits /ecu kcxkov. This is very significant 
 as to A. Note also that X alone varies the order novrfpov 
 km kolkov and the picture of XA consulting coptic is 
 complete. No others change, except 59, which indulges 
 in ^a\aiirov for ko.kov in its text, apparently an attempt 
 to describe the plague-sickness. 
 
 ibid. Coptic order confirms irpoaKwovvTa? ttj cikovl avrov 
 which nearly all Greeks have, and tf 17 1 19-123 use the 
 accusative ttjv euiova avrov. It may be interesting to 
 enquire why here (and elsewhere) such things happen as 
 these changes of case in a few mss. 
 
 3. X* omits the first part of the verse, substituting ets, 
 without authority. 
 
 ibid. Again 59 comes in (with 91 104 only) in supporting eni 
 of copt (exert) for eis of the rest before tyjv 6a\acrarav. 
 
 ibid. X writes wen, for cos. Copt jLtcJ^pH't" (phreti). 
 
 ibid. Copt order is ^vyr\ nacra. No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Copt retains £&jcra omitted by a number of cursives 
 including 34-35-87. CA 95 say £00175 but copt 
 eT~ I ort£>. 
 
 ibid. For ev ttj daXao-crr), X (alone) says eiri ttjs 0akaacr7]<;. 
 Note that while ^>ert is used by coptic (= in), it has a 
 wider significance and means "among," so ^>ert rtipumi 
 "among the men" (Mallon, p. 158). Here X actually 
 changes the sense. Every living soul perished on the 
 sea, or in the sea are two very different things. X may 
 have dwelt on this verse and looked at the coptic, some 
 of whose mss. substitute rtumouoY for cptoxt, while one 
 conflates with ^bert c[>ioju rt ijucjuoy . 
 
 ibid. The differing order of ev ttj Oakacrar) airedavev of 21—28— 
 73-79-100 only occurs in one Coptic ms. 
 
 4. Copt has cvyyeXos with the minority Greeks. 
 
 ibid. ewL pro et? prim, of copt agrees with 18 31 \oo vg Prim, 
 but the second eis (or 67ri of 18 31) is suppressed by copt, 
 
54 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 which uses the usual rf 6JU . Note that NCAP 10-17-21- 
 49-7 7-9 1-96-110 59-67 73-79-81-100-103 95 114 all 
 omit ets sec. (while in the commentaries of 49 and 59 they 
 have e77-i rav vSarcov). One Coptic MS. supplies exert 
 secundo loco. 
 xvi. 4. The little prefix ay to iWepcrtoq seems to point to 
 eyevovro of A 36 5695100 syr gig h Prim, as against 
 eyevero at/m of the rest. 
 
 5. Some copt omit /cat init. No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Alone 95 adds tov ent after ayyekov. This might come 
 in various ways from copt (en!<vrre?\oc rtTe mJUOJOY) 
 and it is clear that the eye of the scribe of 95 also 
 wandered in and out over a graeco-coptic ms. 
 
 ibid. — Kvpie copt with most [two Coptic mss. have it]. 
 
 ibid. Copt (all mss.) omits /cat o ocrtos with 123 only [sah (still 
 missing) does not, according to gloss in a Coptic ms., but 
 with KP etc. suppresses /cat, reading " the holy," not with 
 CAB who suppress /cat 6]. There is some division of 
 opinion here among the Greeks, but none omit outright 
 except 123, nor do the Latins. 
 
 There is however no justification for 56, who adds /cat 
 o aytos after ocrtos, nor for 59, who adds ev rots e/oyots crov 
 after ocrto?. 
 
 6. X says at/xara for at/xa primo loco with 16-39-69-102 and 
 36 but not copt, all mss. appearing to read nicitoq or 
 ncrtoq . 
 
 ibid. Some of the Coptic mss. substitute martyrs for aytwi' and 
 so Horner's text. Six of them do not, and the arabic 
 gloss says the sahidic also read " the saints." No 
 Greeks or Latins or Syr support /xapTvpoL. Syr S alone 
 with greek 32 and 109 (gr el arm) invert the order 
 Trpo^rjToiv /cat ayuov. 
 
 ibid. — /cat sec. by 40 is the Coptic way of reading (most mss.). 
 
 ibid. N changes the order to ai/m eSai/cas aureus 7rieii' for aiju.a 
 at/rots eSw/cas inziv, and although this is not the exact 
 Coptic order it is nearer than that of any other Greeks 
 = syr S and gig. 
 Coptic writes : 
 
 A.K"f" crtoq ituuoY ecou ) 
 eSw/cas aL/xa aurois ttizw ) 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 55 
 
 xvi. 6. Nearly all Greeks omit yap with copt, but only 16-39-69 
 —102 and 36 prefix on (with copt 2Ce) to aftoi eicn. {Prim 
 quoniam). X however adds owep, meaning "who indeed 
 are worthy." 
 
 The mind of N is always interesting to follow, as he 
 sticks piously to his task. But xe must have suggested 
 this " qui quidem." Cf. also am lips who supply tit 
 before digni sunt. 
 
 7. Of course copt omits a\\ov €k with all Greeks. This 
 " alterum ab altari " of Vulgate Latins seems to me un- 
 doubtedly a mere conflation of gig's error of alterum 
 (he writes no more than this) for altorem. Prim says 
 aliam vocem, to turn the difficulty, I suppose. 
 
 ibid. Again copt seems to couple hiKaws with Oeos following 
 ira.vTOKpa.Toip {vide supra) and to divorce it from Kpicreis by 
 eliminating Si/ccucu and substituting navTe<;, thus : " Yea 
 Lord God the Almighty the righteous all Thy judgments 
 are true." Some copt. mss. omit "all." No Greeks do 
 this nor Latins (as vera here agrees with judicia and is 
 not verae as at xv. 3 with viae where gig wrote "juste et 
 vere viae" confounding for others juste with justae. 
 
 Only 14 [non 92] omits /ecu tilt. 
 
 Nor does X here change KvpLt to Kvpws. 
 
 8. While CABP omit ayyeXos, X does not, thus agreeing 
 with copt. The Egyptian group 34-35-87 also retains 
 it, with vg some latins and Prim. 
 
 ibid. For Kavparicrai rovs avdpunrov; ev -rrvpi copt writes : 
 
 eepK<VY\ii<s. exert rtipumi *>ert ovmcyt" VtK«w\u.A.. 
 
 This emphasis of exerr does not appear elsewhere, 
 while X 81 actually drop ev before irvpi with one Coptic 
 ms. " B," and 18 with syr S drops ev vvpi, for which 
 copt substitutes ev peyakot Kavpart,, using the Greek word 
 Kavpa, and agrees with Anonym, " ustione magna." 
 
 9. In this following verse copt drops Kavpa peya. This is 
 quite significant, for among the Greeks Kavpart peyakoj 
 is here substituted for Kavpa peya by 18 21-28-73-79- 
 80-8 1***- 1 00- 1 03 (aestu magno latt). So there was an 
 ancient muddle of punctuation here. Anonym, having 
 agreed with copt above "ustione magna' in verse 8, 
 agrees again here omitting entirely aestu magno. 
 
56 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 N here steers a clear course, but I think a reference to 
 the original gives away the secret, for e/cau/xar lo-07] crav is 
 there found so divided that it gives to the eye Kavp,aTL 
 only on one line, thus : 
 
 TTvpi /ecu e/catijuan 
 crdrjcrav 01 avot kclv 
 jxa p.eya /ecu e/3Aa 
 xvi. 9 fin. Most Coptic mss. substitute Hc[>"f" for avTco (but six 
 do not) and so Horner text, without other authority. 
 
 10. Here X joins the other uncials in omitting ayyeXos. 
 Not copt. 
 
 tbid. For e/c tov ttovov, K, with 17 67 only, substitutes euro. 
 Compare the e£o?\ 4}Elt of copt. 
 
 1 1. For this airo tov ttovov of verse 10, e&o?s *>err niJuiKAg, , 
 copt repeats exactly the same in this verse for e/c rac 
 
 TTOVCOV aVTCOV. 
 
 Note that 56 62/3 and 72 adopt this singular e/c tov 
 ttovov while retaining avTcov (which 108 only drops). 
 The conjunction of 56 62/3-72 here is interesting ; 56 
 we know already favors copt to some extent, and we 
 have shown that 62/3-72 occasionally come away from 
 the rest of the 1 group in the same direction. 
 ibid. Another muddle follows, which X recognises. He elides 
 /ecu e/c tcov eXkcov avTcov, with 87 [non 34-35] 43 67 and 
 iOc/ r * (109°"" e/c ttovov yokov) and also omits e/c tcov 
 epycov clvtcov (with gig). K writes : 
 
 /ecu e/3\ao-(f>7)fir] 
 
 crav tov 6v tov ov 
 
 pavov e/c tcov tto 
 
 vcov avrcov /cat ov 
 
 p.eTevorjo'av 
 I think what happened was this. From the fourth 
 line clown his copy really read 
 
 vcov avTcov /ecu 
 
 e/c tcov epycov 
 
 aVTCOV KCU ov 
 
 p-dTevorjcrav 
 e/c tcov epycov 
 avTcov 
 If we assume epycov by N with copt for ekucov it gives 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 57 
 
 N two lines with e/c tcov epycov and accounts for the 
 omissions. 
 
 \Primasius does not give the verse, and Anonym is 
 very short: " et paenitentiam non egerunt."] Now 
 copt substitutes epyav for eX/cwf in the first clause, and 
 adds iTovrjpcov to epyav in the second clause. 
 The syriac is clear. 
 
 [Here sah begins for part of verse 12.] 
 xvi. 12. Copt has ayyeXos, but sah omits with NCABP and most 
 Greeks [sah only runs to ev<£paT7is and then breaks off 
 (to verse 17)]. 
 
 — tov ante eo^>parr\v XBP is not shared by copt, which 
 has the strong article ni, while sah has n, as often before 
 proper names. 
 
 ibid. — clvtov sec. by 1-12-46=88=101-59-67 36 81 114 is 
 shared by copt. 
 13. X* omits e/c tov <TTOjj.aTo<; tov SpaKovTos /cat e/c tov crro/xaros 
 tov Brjpiov /cat. No doubt by error ; similarly C 9-27 
 39 44—52—82 omit cktov o"to/ao.tos tov SpaKovTo? /cat ; and 
 16 36 omit /cat e/c tov o-ro/xaros tov drjpiov. This last is 
 omitted by one Coptic ms. H copt . So we see that these 
 Greeks merely made blunders from the repetition of 
 o-tojacltos, and the coptic checks X nicely here. 
 
 Hid. We have already seen that X prefers ojcti to «s (vide 
 supra) when looking at coptic Jnc|>pH" c t~ • Now, N* 
 writes etwcrei ySarpa^ons (merely changed by K a to 
 e'uocret fioapaypi) for op,oia ^aryoa^ois. So that the 
 final *f" in the coptic word seems really to have caught 
 his ear. 
 
 14. Copt omits eKiropeveaOai, saying " doing signs from among 
 (e&o?\ *>err) the kings of the earth." So that N's eis 
 rows /SacrtXeis for ewu tov? /3acr. does not seem well taken. 
 
 ibid. As to 717s yqs /cat and ttjs oiKovfievrjs 0X779 see the colla- 
 tion and note 56 59 i09 arm and syr S. Copt writes "of 
 the earth," omitting /cat riys ot/cov/xei^s 0X775. 
 
 ibid. Both K and A omit e/ceii^s with 14-92 38 and 95 Tich 
 gig Anonym and vg (against Prim and Anct de prom of 
 Latins) with all coptic mss. [hiat sa/i], while A 95 of 
 Greeks gives the Coptic order 7-775 /xeyaX^s rjixepas 
 (— eK€Lvr)s). 
 
5 8 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xvi. 16. — tov (ante tottov) N 62/3 72 (latt) is the reading of 
 copt (some mss. : eyjui* = eoyju*, others eniJUA.). 
 
 A appears to go wild here with iroTap-ov, yet a sight 
 of the coptic with ni might have led to this. 
 
 17. [Here sah begins again.] — ayyeAos sah (non copt) with 
 AB £/£. X* substitutes ore for o e/JSo/xos ayyeAos. 
 
 €77-1 for eis by NAB £&. is read by copt (exerf). 
 
 «'&#. CV^ says " and he cried a great sound." The Greeks 
 do not vary from /ecu e£r)\0ev <j>b>vr) jaeyaXiy, nor sah, but 
 A and some omit /jueyaX-rj, as apparently does sah. 
 
 ibid. — tov ovpavov copt and sah and A 14-92 95 syr S ; 
 (N omits tov ovpavov, but also airo rov Qpovov, substituting 
 rov deov for the whole ; we may assume however, I 
 think, that his text lacked tov ovpavov.) 
 
 18. av6pcnTro<; eyevero pro ol avdpwirot, eyevovTo A, and eyevero 
 avdpcowos only 38. So exactly copt with pumi, while 
 sah distinctly neppcome. 
 
 ibid. — ty)\lkovto<; creicr/ios ovto) fieya<s copt alone, but not sah. 
 
 19. X* alone 77 u-oXis for cu 7roAets with latt. Compare copt 
 JTlfiAK! clearly cu iroXets, but m to the ear is close to 
 Aleph's h, while sah not HfiAKl but actually juno?\lc. 
 
 ibid, tov Sowcu for Sovvcu K and a few (21-28-73-79-80- 
 100-103 22** 47) Cf. copt e'f" (ut daret Prim), 
 ibid. Jin. — avTov N alone {rescript in 123) and gig, with coptic 
 exactly ! [Hiat sah.~\ 
 
 20. "And the mountains found not their place." copt alone. 
 
 21. "And stones as of talents in weight" copt alone. But 
 Prim = " talenti ponderis " (— ws). N* (suppl. ipse) 18 
 40 omit ws. 
 
 z'<fo/. " came from out of Heaven " copt for Karafiaivei e/e r. 
 ovp. Cf. eyeveTo of syr % ("ruit" Prim). 
 xvii. 2. eTTomjcrav -nopviav pro enopvevcrav H alone. Cf. copt: 
 rfWepnoprtEYirt . 
 4. For the kgu ra aKaOapra 7775 iropvtas aurij? kou T175 yrjs of 
 X alone, compare «^ where avrri? «^«f 7175 yri? find a 
 place, while A etc. give aur^s, and B #/£. give ttis y^s. 
 6. — ti)v ante yvvaixa 35-87 (hial 68) = <:<?// and latt. X* 
 38 say Tw aijxaTi for e/c tou at/^aro? prim. This with 
 /a//. This agrees with Horner's translation " with the 
 blood " ; the- coptic is efto?\ <£>en mcrtoq, which can 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 59 
 
 clearly agree with the ordinary Greek e«- tov aipaTos. 
 Why therefore should we try to connect X with a Coptic 
 form ? That is very simple. Coptic follows this with 
 rtext £&lo¥\ *)ert ncnoq itTe Jm^pTvpoc in the second 
 place, which not only justifies Horner's " with " in the 
 first place, but connects X* 38 with this. They write 
 to) aifxari tov ayiaiv /cat e/c tov at/xaros to>i> fiapTvpan/. 
 xvii. 6 fin. Copt omits tSwf avrrjv 6avp,a p.eya. 14-92 omit avrrjv, 
 while X 38 syr S alone vary the order to 6avp.a p.eya iSow 
 avrrjv. There must be a connection and a reason for 
 this. Notice how it occurs. Copt merely says "And I 
 wondered." X says " And I wondered a great wonder," 
 adding tSwv avrqv afterwards. Copt expresses " I 
 wondered " by <MeptycJ>Hpi. 
 
 8. — Kai sec. of copt agrees with syr S. 
 
 I call attention to this because following immediately 
 we get the daXao-o-rjs for afivacrov of syr S alone (which 
 it does elsewhere, xi. 7). Copt is clearly " abyss" With 
 cj^rfovrt , but this could easily be confused with cJ>ioju , in 
 both cases the article n becoming c|>, and both appear- 
 ance and sound being similar, as the sound in syriac 
 as well. 
 
 tbid. avafiaivav copt for /xeWei ava/3aipeiv. Cf. /at. 
 
 ibid. " they whose name." Cf. to ovo/jlo. AB etc. Hipp. 
 
 ibid. Copt puts a stop after ^cotjs and says " Since the be- 
 ginning of the creation of the world they are looking at 
 the wild beast;" and continues "because it is and it is 
 not and it fell" (^qget). No Greeks vary from 
 TrapecrTLV or nape<jTon. (kcu iraXiv napeaTe X*). [»Sa^ still 
 wanting until xvii. 12 ] 
 
 9. Copt for &>Se o vovs o e^cav aocfiLav has " He who hath 
 heart with wisdom let him understand." 
 
 ibid. — eiTTa sec. copt agrees with B 40 14-92. I think B 
 comes in here by chance. With 40 and 14-92 it is 
 otherwise. 
 
 ibid. " Upon which the woman is sitting " copt, for ottov tj 
 yvvrj Ka.Qr]Tai en avTcov is a turn of phrase not counten- 
 anced by Greeks, but = latt. Only 80 omits en clvtcdv. 
 
 ibid. fin. enTa ySacriXets eio-iv X. So copt (ver. 10 inil. apitd 
 editt. alio.). 
 
60 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xvii. 10. For eis copt gives aXXos. 
 
 Copt adds /cat before 6 aXXo?. So 62/3 72, and 56 
 (o Se aXXos) and /<z#. 
 
 For ov77w T^X^ev copt substitutes " was not yet," but 
 continues "and if he should come." Finally, copt closes 
 "he will stay a little," or, "he stays a little" (qrt^ogl 
 MOYKOYXl) for oX.i/yoi' ai/rov Set [xeivcu. Compare /«ve£ei 
 for Set yiteii/at by N* (/xtve Set N a ). 
 
 11. — /cat quart. Copt and 45 81* 114 
 — ecrrt ter/. C^/^ and 30* 98 syr Sj 
 
 «'&#. "and he will go to destruction." The rest do not seem 
 to vary from vvayeu and vadit, except Auct de prom, and 
 Primasius with z'foV. 
 
 12. "these who received not yet an authority as kings 
 for an hour having followed the wild beast" by copt 
 appears singular in construction. Not followed by 
 others. 
 
 [Here sah begins again]. 
 
 13. Here also copt exchanges (alone) positions of e£ov<riav 
 and Swafiiv, reading : " These have one mind with an 
 authority ; they will give their power to the wild beast," 
 eliding /cat sec. Not so others. Sah shortens to : rtA.1 
 cert^p ovgHT oycjut rtce'i" rtTevtfojm rtjm tev 
 egovciA. lineeHpioft. 
 
 14. — /cat to apviov copt two MSS. [not sah]. A copt - N copt = 
 "he overcoming them." 
 
 ibid. 4- toiv ante Kvpicuv and fiao-iXeav is not countenanced by 
 
 Greeks. Nor + 01 ante e/cXe/crot and ante tuo-toi, as copt 
 
 has it. 
 ibid. Copt also says /cat ot /cXrjrot (itexi rtH eTe-AgeJu) /act 
 
 avrov. Compare vg gig " et qui cum illo sunt." No 
 
 others. 
 
 15. etnev (pro Xeyet) A and copt sah syr S vg Tich Prim 
 Anon. 
 
 ibid. For iropvr) copt \110t sah] substitutes yvv-q. Note confla- 
 tion of some Gk cursives. 
 
 ibid. Copt shortens Xaot /cat oyXot eicrt /cat edvr) /cat yXcucrcrai 
 to : gArt?\*oc ffe rteju gArfjmHcy rteerroc. Not so 
 Greeks. Only 59 omits anything and that /cat ovXot etcrt, 
 while copt drops the yXcocrcrat altogether, combining Xaot 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 6 1 
 
 o)(Xoi and edur] into " the whole people and entire 
 nations." Sah writes 2\*^<MDC rte nXi ju<4>y?\H rTsut 
 
 rt^cne, retaining yAojcra-cu (<*.cne), but using fyvfct) for 
 edv-q and also dropping /ecu o^Xot eicrt with 59. 
 xvii. 16. Copt and sah agree to substitute rceju for e-m here, with 
 nearly all others /ecu. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits Ka.iprim. but expands yjp-qfxoi^ievrjv ttoitjo-ovctlv 
 avTTjv /cat yv\x.vY]v to : "they will desolate her, they will 
 make her naked." Cf. B** etc. including 34-35-87. 
 
 ibid. — ko.1 ult. copt. Not sah nor others. 
 
 ibid. — ev NP and latt but not copt sah. 34-35-87 with B 
 and the important 40 56 61, all hearty Coptic and syriac 
 sympathisers, also omit a>"with the Latins. Surely this, 
 although apparently an insignificant place, is absolutely 
 conclusive for a concurrent polyglot. Here we have 
 ardent syriac and coptic sympathisers in NP 34-35-87 
 40 56 61 abandoning syr and coptic where the pre- 
 position is practically indispensable, to follow the Latin. 
 See what they do in other places, against the Latin, to 
 make this important point clear. [See below xviii. 2 
 A contra X.] 
 
 17. For " koll TroLTjcrai jjLHiv yvoiprqv" (omitted by A gr and 
 some cursives) copt expresses: "and for them to be in 
 one mind " (ovog, eepoYtyouni *>ert OYYTfcjuJUH 
 rtOYOJT). Note 56 95 syr S add avrcov. 
 
 ibid. — /cat {ante 8ovvau) Cf. gig and vg " ut dent " (— et). 
 
 {: 
 
 106, and A substitutes avrco for avrcov, making it avrw rco 
 6-qpioi, which agrees with coptic. {Sah begins to be 
 mutilated here, until xviii. 13.) 
 ibid. Copt agrees with the plurality in the final clause ; only, 
 according to coptic system, writing (KrekecrOrja-ovrai. ra 
 prijxara rov deov (ty<VTOYXUJK 6&0?s). 
 
 18. X omits 17 here with 25-58-70-78-84-94 51-90 95 but 
 not by copt. This would equal latin habens, but all we 
 know seem to write quae habet. Possibly this omission 
 is due to an early Latin which translated habens and 
 which X was following. 
 
 xviii. 1. Note — /ecu in.it. by copt with XABP and most cursives, 
 
 ibid, j" — T7)v {ante fSacrikeiav) copt no others, but 
 
 avrcov sec. of copt is agreed to by 21-73-79-100-103 
 
62 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Hipp Atig s " on and gig, but not by the Egyptian group 
 
 35-35-87- 
 xviii. [. + aXXov All, including Egyptian group. 
 
 ibid. " From his face with his glory " for e/c ttjs 80^175 avrov 
 copt has no such addition in Greeks Syr or Latin. 
 
 2. £>ert ovrncyf" rt^pcjoov copt (at. Fcjuh), ev lo-^vpa <^a)^ 
 AP e&. (X omits ev with Prim and minority /a// [see 
 above on xvii. 16]) but none have Kpavyr) or other word 
 at this place. "In fortitudine " Aug^° n vg. 
 
 ibid. — Xeycov copt (which substitutes xe). So P 114 syr S 
 but not X. Here however N is replaced by 114, its 
 'alter ego' in some respects (as 1 19-123 in other 
 respects). 
 
 ibid. " Fell Babylon the great city " copt. No Greeks Latins 
 or Syr add city here \_sah is wanting]. All Horner's 
 coptic mss. add Jitfi.A.Kl but one, and that one adds 
 Iino?\ic. 
 
 ibid. + t(dv [ante Saip,ovo)v) copt but only Gr. 31. 
 
 ibid. Copt has both unclean clauses with text. rec. and X (against 
 AP etc.), and does not add (or substitute) the third clause 
 as to every unclean beast as do A 34-35 gig here. 
 
 3. €K tov Ov/jlov tov oivov copt for e/c tov olvov tov Bvfxov with 
 P etc. gig against X, and against A which omits tov olvov, 
 and syr S, which omits tov dvpov. 
 
 ibid. Copt adds "all" after ot /SacnAet?, as often, but has no 
 
 support. 
 ibid. Copt says " they who committed fornication with her." 
 
 Cf. 4- ol {ante per aur^s) by 16—69—102 and wopvevcravTes 
 
 16-39-69-102. 
 ibid. — T-qs Swapecos copt is agreed to by 59, who has 
 
 sympathised often previously. 
 ibid. Prim Aug man and gig give mercatores for 01 epnopoi. 
 
 So copt mcycrf". So also xviii. 11. 
 ibid. For o-Tpyvovs or o-Tprjvov (deliciarum gig) copt gives 
 
 necxepxep deliciae, luxuriae. 
 
 4. Copt omits aXXrjv with Gr. 104 only and arm. Some copt 
 MSS. omit KotvouvrjcrrjTe reus a/mpricus aur^s Kai without 
 support. 
 
 5. Copt mss. are divided between AVTOiLtOY (joined) and 
 A.Yc|> & (reached) for 7)KoXovdi)o-av or eKoXXrjOrjcrav. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 63 
 
 xviii. 6. — vfjt.iv copt and NCAP and some cursives and syr S 
 
 Hipp and some Latins. 
 ibid. — Kat (ante S17rX.ajcra.7e) part of the Coptic mss. and only 
 
 X 23 of Greeks. 
 ibid. Omit Kara 35-87 but not copt. 
 ibid. + avTrjs (post iroTrfpiui) copt and so NB and a good 
 
 number of cursives including 35-87 40 56 114. 
 ibid. For <£ e/cepacre copt has a? e/cep. So 35-87 with 38, and 
 
 78 (one of a sevenfold group). A few others write 6 for 
 
 d) and 102* : eu to aurrjs o for ev tco TTOTrjpiw co. 
 ibid. For Kepaaare avTrj BlttXovv copt has " double it to her." 
 
 Gr 84* omits Kepaaare. 
 
 7. There has been some confusion here but it has not 
 affected X (see my collation of the mss.). Copt says 
 " The glory in which she was with the luxury" for ocra 
 eSofao-ev eavrr/v /ecu ecrrp^i'iacre. Gig and vg are near : 
 Quantum glorificauit se et in deliciis fuit. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits too-ovtov, saying "give it to her of grief and 
 mourning." 
 
 ibid. " that I will sit " copt for ku^/agu. Cf. on KaQua of 
 14-92, 22** and B here. 
 
 ibid. " being a queen." Some Gr cursives have + w? before 
 /3ao-t\to-cra as 46-88-101 97, some with Kadcos as 23-55 
 56, and a few thus : on. ei/xt Kadws for /ca^fy/ucu, bringing 
 in the eufju. Sum having no present participle no Latins 
 can agree with copt, but Prim equates with " quia regina 
 sum " and Cypr " regina sum." 
 
 8. /cat Kav9r)<Terai ev ra irvpt So copt order against all 
 Latins and Greeks kcu eu nvpu Kara/cau^o-erai, while copt 
 adds the strong article to irvpi without Greek support. 
 
 ibid. "The Lord God" Copt and Gr Lat is opposed here by 
 
 N with o 8eo<; o /cuptos. 
 ibid. For Kpwa>v or Kpivas copt has £TA.Cf\~g,&.n . Compare 
 
 Latin qui judicabit and qui judical. 
 
 9. — avrrjv copt with NACB and nearly all cursives. 
 
 Copt begins a new sentence at orav, substituting " But 
 
 if," that is to say some coptic mss. add 2s.e (all have 
 
 etyujn = si or orav). This is not agreed to by Greek, 
 
 Syr or Lat. 
 
 ibid. H alone substitutes iBcoaw for fiKenuicrw. Copt is 
 
64 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 rfWuj^rm <w. There may be a connection. Copt uses 
 several words for videre, and coajic is the stronger term 
 for fiXeweLv perhaps, or 2C0YUJT. 
 xviii. 10. "That woe to her, woe to her" copt for ovai ovai. No 
 others. As I have said before, in such things N and A 
 are careful not to follow. Therefore the other agreement 
 is the more interesting, sidewise, and important. 
 
 ibid. The order 77 p,eya\r] 77-0X1? fiafivXcov copt for t\ 7ro)us 77 
 fieyaXr] /3a/3. is not found in the Greeks I have examined. 
 
 ibid. ' luxurious ' (eTxepxep) copt for 17 10-yypa. has no 
 counterpart in Gr Lat or Syr, the only variation played 
 on Mjyypa by the Greeks being oyypa by a small group 
 21-73-79-80-100-103, while the Latins do not vary 
 from fortis \sah still missing]. 
 
 ibid. Copt says " in one hour came her fall," for on tv fjua copa 
 7]\9ev t] /cptcrts (tov, omitting on, retaining ev (dropped by 
 NCABP and most cursives with syr and latin), and 
 substituting fall (rixenecgAn) for /epicrt?. That is, 
 Horner's text; but is not gA.n intended for judicium f 
 No others vary from Kpuns [necgATT most coptic mss. ; 
 four of them necgei]. 
 
 11. Again rncyo't" (mercatores) for 01 efi-rropoL here. See 
 xviii. 3. Here mercatores Prim and gig, negotiatores vg. 
 
 ibid. " Shall weep, they shall mourn " copt. — kcu sec. No 
 Greeks, but — kcu ireudovaiv a group of cursives. Note 
 however Prim alone jlebunt plangentes earn. 
 
 ibid. — ou/cen copt, no Greeks. 
 
 12. Copt says "their freight of gold, with their freight of 
 silver." No Greeks nor Latins. 
 
 ibid, "with the precious stones" for /ecu \\.Qw n/xtov. So CP 
 114 \iQov<i tl/xlovs and \i6o)v TifxicDv syr and Prim \_non 
 gig = lapidis preciosi ut vg~\. 
 
 ibid. Copt continues rteJUt rtm<s.pr<s.piTHC "with the pearls." 
 So A, observe, p-apyaptraL? exactly with copt, involving 
 the dative, while X [which did not share the plural above 
 of XlBovs Tt/xious or Xidcop n/uwv (yopov understood)], with 
 35—87 59 and 95, writes p,apyaptT(ov in the plural with 
 syr S and 2, and gig Prim here " margaritarum." 
 
 ibid, fivo-aivwp N, alone. This should be decisive. Copt 
 mss. ADHZ = mcyenc clearly plural. All other 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 65 
 
 Greeks, including ACPB = fivao-ivov as Lat. Coptic 
 T'G C T = nityerrc, al. eyerie. 
 xviii. 12. — /cat trav £v\ov dvivov copt here. So Gr 69 only. 
 A gr substitutes cnceuos for %vkov in this phrase (alone). 
 As the Coptic was missing here, the cr/ceuos following in 
 coptic would at once attract his eye, for the coptic uses 
 the same word as the Greek in the next clause : rtext 
 ckeyoc ffiRert tteSsecp^rtTmorf, which in coptic takes 
 the place of the missing phrase /cat 7rav £v\ov Qvwov, 
 which coptic replaces after e£\ec|>A.rtTirtorf, writing there 
 + rteju eye ru&ett Fevmorr. 
 12 fin. Copt has /cat p.app,apov. N omits with 1 57 Er Aid Col. 
 
 13. /cat oivov is present in copt as in XCAP. B and most 
 cursives omit (possibly owing to an old change of order). 
 
 ibid. For /cat cre/AtSaXw /cat o~nov copt has " with symedalion 
 of wheat." Cf. a-irov 39 and ctvtov by our old friend 69 
 of the same graeco-latin family. 
 
 ibid. 35—87 vary the order to crejLuSaXtv /cat oivov /cat e\cuov 
 without other authority. 
 
 ibid. After "horse" sah (which begins again at /cat oivov) has 
 an ornate gloss with Prim, but not copt, which omits /cat 
 peScav altogether, continuing after " horse " : with body 
 with soul of man. The Greeks and Latins do not use 
 the singular, and Prim omits with sah. 
 
 14. While 35-87 syr S add crov after onaipa, copt drops it 
 after ^vxn (rfT£ ■ c feni©YJUu<s. | rrre ,c t"\{/vx H ; but sah 
 says Nre nievxii^ rtTewJ/YXH)- 
 
 ibid. anr)\0ov copt = 40 50 57 102 Er. Col. 
 
 ibid. N* writes pnrapa for Xtnapa. We do not attribute this 
 to any coptic influence, merely pointing out that p occurs 
 in the copt: nejm rtEKem THpOY. So N drops ra sec, 
 with C 36 40 59 106 119. Copt is rtejm irecpipi {cf. sah). 
 
 ibid. [an7)\0ev sec. text, rec] = ancoXero most Greeks, but 
 air(o\ovTo X and fourteen cursives and gig Prim latt 
 "perierunt" with copt and sah avtako. Here we 
 cannot distinguish between Latin and Coptic influence on 
 N. Gwynn renders airrj\0ev for syr, but syr sch perierunt. 
 14/15. Copt runs these two together thus : " and thy merchants 
 shall not find them any more because these are they who 
 became rich from thee," not agreeing with sah, nor with 
 
 F 
 
66 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 the run of Greek Latin and Syr witnesses. Some Gr. 
 cursives join ot ep.iTopoL however to ver. 14 with syr S, 
 namely 35-87 36 51-90 and possibly others which I have 
 not noted, 
 xviii. 15. For KAcuovres /cat wevdovvres copt (most mss.) says "they 
 shall weep, they shall mourn." Only one Gr. ms. omits 
 /ecu (98) and sah has it. 
 
 16. — /ecu init. KCAB etc. Agrees with copt sah and gig. 
 ibid. Copt says " woe to thee, woe to thee," not sah — woe 
 
 woe. 
 
 ibid. Order : 17 fieyakr) 770X15 of 38 only = Coptic. 
 
 ibid. Copt : jSnityertc " fine linen " with the article has no 
 agreement among Greeks, nor has " the purple and the 
 scarlet." The exceptional order of A gr kokkwov kcu 
 Trop(f)vpovv /ecu fivao-ivov has no Coptic support nor other 
 attestation. 
 
 ibid. — /ecu [ante Kexpva-wfxeprj) Coptic some cursives (prin- 
 cipally the syriac group) and syr S. 
 
 ibid. (j.apyapiTr) (pro /u-apyapircus) by NCAP 95 (no others) = 
 Coptic with all coptic mss. (but one rtl) which write the 
 article singular fteJU niJLtApvA.piTHC , while Goussen's 
 sah merely gl jmAprApiTHC . So that this singular 
 really seems to come from copt to NCAP 95 and not 
 from sah. Prim alone of Latins apparently gives 
 margarita. 
 
 17. "And every pilot of the sea with everyone who saileth 
 on the sea." Thus copt, = ovog peqepgexu mRert 
 ItTe c|>iojut itejut oYort mRerr eTepgurr ^ert cJ>ioju. 
 The addition " of the sea " appears unique with aeth and 
 the omission of /ecu i>auTcu /ecu ocroi ttjv Oakacrcrav epyalpv- 
 Tai. Sah is rather different : a.y<ju pEqpgJUULte mix 
 rtXt rteTctfHp git rtiepouoY rtju. mt eeq rtli it eTpgcjuR' 
 
 18. Copt (sah now wanting again until xix. 6) adds Tavrrj 
 with C 104 and latt, but inverts the order (as usual in 
 this phrase) : ravTrj ttj fj.eyaXr/ tto\u. 
 
 19. For efSaXov copt says A.YTA.?se . 53 writes e\a/3ov but 
 this has probably no connection. 
 
 ibid. For x ovv co pt says <<*.£!. Only 69 substitutes a word 
 = Kovioprov. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 6j 
 
 xviii. 19. " Upon their head " says copt for ein ra? Ke<f>a\a? avrau. 
 Thus only X 59 ewu 7-775 kc^o-Xtis avraiv = copt exert 
 
 ibid. Kpatpvrzs pro kcu eKpatpv copt. No others. 
 
 ibid, ovai semel with X and fifteen cursives, including 40 and 
 95. So copt, but as usual adding ' to her ' : enrol rt<s.c. 
 
 ibid. 7) [jieyakr) 770X1? copt in this order as usual. No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. — Travres syr S and copt. Copt says " they from whom 
 were made rich whose ships are in the sea," repeating 
 again " having been made rich from her preciousness." 
 
 20. Copt order is " Delight thee, Heaven, over her," with 
 support of Anonym here: "exsulta coelum super earn." 
 No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Copt says "with the saints all, with the apostles, with 
 the prophets." No others add "all," but 56 amplifies, 
 adding k<xi 7ravTe<; ol aytoi after irpcxfrrjTcu. 
 
 kcu ol before 0,73-00-7-0X01 is added by nearly all. 
 
 ibid. " The Lord God " copt for o Beo?. No others. 
 
 21. Copt introduces something novel here: " and a strong 
 angel cried out a great sound, and he took away a great 
 millstone . . ." No others agree. XA omit to-^vpo? as 
 an attribute of ayyeXos and X* adds io-\vpov after \l9ov 
 and writes ws \i0ov for cos fxvkov. There must have been 
 something to bother him here ; Copt is simply OYOg 
 Aqe?\ o-YTfityi - mum JuuuHx^rcH • 
 
 ibid. — /cat ante e/3a\ev copt. 
 
 ibid. Here X rushes in with copt to add on before ourws. 
 Only 16-39-69 and 102 support X. But while X shows 
 us this Coptic 2ce, he does not follow in a peculiar 
 construction and an addition by copt, which writes : 
 "saying that thus in a fall will fall Babylon. And she 
 will be thrown down to the great lake ; and the great city 
 shall not be found any more." Tischendorf does not 
 record this + otl for X in his notes in ed. viii. 
 
 22. — kcu init. X and 1 only. Copt introduces with ovXe . 
 
 Copt shortens koll <f>a)vr) kl6. kou p,ovo~. koi avX. Kat craX- 
 Tiio-TOiv to oyXe tcxih rtoYOYouim item ovpecj^a) 
 neju OYCA^nirg . Note that X 35-87 90 write 
 o-akinyyoiv for aaXincnav, Hipp aaKinyKTOiv and syr S 
 o-aX7riyyos = copt. 
 
 E 2 
 
68 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xviii. 22. — nacrrjs Texvrjs NA and copt \_hiat sah~\. (No cursives, 
 nor Latin). This place is very important. See specimen 
 pages of collations printed herewith. It occurs in such 
 a way as to merit the most serious attention. 
 ibid. On the other hand X and twenty cursives omit /ecu (jxovr) 
 fxvXov to the end of the verse. Not so copt. But this is 
 a mere error of N (from homoioteleuton) as some of the 
 twenty cursives' sisters have it ; just as at : 
 
 23. A omits /cat (£ws Xuy/ou etc., which Coptic retains, like X 
 and most. 
 
 ibid. Copt begins this verse also ovXe for k<u, and repeats 
 ov2^e for the second tcai. Note 38 with 77 for /ecu sec. 
 
 ibid. C gr 19 and syr S prefix (fxovr) to fv/^ris. Not so copt. 
 
 ibid, ev rats (£oy>/xaKe«us plural by syr S and Latins is sup- 
 ported by Coptic but not by a single Greek. 
 
 24. [cLLfjia of text. rec.\ opposed by B and eighty cursives 
 with aLfj^ara, is found in copt: ncrtoq with NCAP 18 
 36 38 56 21-73-79-80/^-100 syr latt, while 34-35- 
 87 go with the mass, as also the good cursives 114 
 1 19-123. 
 
 ibid. + tcdv ante -jrpcxprjTcjv Hippol (no Gk MSS.)lis supported 
 + tcdv ,, ayicov 19 j by copt. 
 
 xix. 1. — kcli init. XCABP and most = copt, opposed only by 
 syr and a few cursives of syriac strain. 
 
 ibid. + cos {ante epeourjv) is in the same case. 
 
 ibid. Copt says p.eyaXyjv Kpavyrjv o)(kov 7ro\\ou bringing 
 fxeyakrqv immediately after 015. The Greeks are content 
 to place {jbeya'k.Tjv after cficDvrjv (except cursive 1 and 
 seventeen others which omit LLeyaX-qv). 
 
 ibid. + to (ante aXXijXouta) 1 80 57 Er Aid Col. Cf. copt 
 + xe introductory. 
 
 ibid. H* omits /cat 77 So£a kcu 77 rifir). Not so copt. 
 
 ibid, tov deov r\Liwv for Kvpica tcd 6eco vjlicov NCABP and most, 
 are supported by copt and gig (not by Prim vg nor 
 Anon). 
 2. — kcli Sikcuch copt, without support [Horner places this 
 clause at the end of verse 1], but copt supplies this 
 immediately afterwards by amplifying the next clause 
 thus : " and in a righteous judgment he judged the great 
 harlot." No others thus. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 69 
 
 xix. 2. But copt omits the clause : 777-1? e<£0eipe tt/v yrjv ev rt) 
 iropveLa cumjs. Only 59-67 81* 114 omit part of it, 
 namely titis e<£0ei.pe rr/v yrjv. Coptic MS. A refers to it 
 as present in sah, but a gloss. Apparently A gr consulted 
 another ms. here for he has it, but, with cursive number 
 9 alone, writes eKpivev for e<£#eipe here, showing some- 
 thing lurking beneath the surface. 
 
 ibid. Horner's English text ends verse 2 : "and he took (the) 
 vengeance of (the) blood of his servants from her" 
 eliding x et P 0S > but no Gk mss. do this, and the coptic is 
 eRo?\ giTOTc. 
 3 init. OYOg c|>JUiA.gfi. Aqxoc. eiprjKey, ut vid., read by B and 
 a number of cursives. 
 
 For Sevrepov eipvjKav : 35—87 read gk Sevrepov eiprjKav 
 (34 efc Sevrepov eLprjKaaiv). 
 
 But C = eiirav and 38 zittov = nearer coptic A.qxoc in 
 form if not in number. 
 
 ibid. + to (ante a\\r\kovia) 23 Cf. copt 4- 2CE . 
 
 ibid. " Shall go up " copt for avafiawei. Cf. aveftaivev 35-87 
 38 and avefir) 21-73-79-80-IOO-103, 50 syr S. 
 
 4. — £wa N gr but only one coptic ms. C*"*'. This is 
 however quite curious. Mr. Horner can help us by an 
 examination of C copt separately for the K base [see on 
 xx. 14]. 
 
 ibid. + 2CE introductory copt before aprjv aWrjXovia, but alone. 
 No Greeks so far examined add to before apr)v here. 
 
 5. Here comes an interesting place, for although sah (ed. 
 Goussen) only begins verse 6, we have a coptic gloss 
 giving the sahidic reading which agrees with N*, while 
 N a goes with coptic, maintaining copt and sah order 
 against all Greeks and Latins {except Prim : " et vox 
 exivit," but he says "de caelo " with B 14-92 103). 
 N* says /ecu (f>mvau e£r]\6ov e/c tov dpovov Xeyoucrcu. See 
 Horner's arabic note : " Sah. and there went outvoices." 
 N a corrects to /ecu (fjcovr) et;7)\6ev e/c tov dpovov \eyovo-a, 
 which agrees exactly with coptic against all Gk mss. = 
 /ecu (f>a)vr) e/e (or airo CAB etc.) tov dpovov e^rjXtfe 
 Xeyovaa. 
 
 ibid. — Kat sec. NCP and one coptic us. B. The rest have rteju. 
 ibid. — /ecu tert. NCABP and most is agreed to by copt. 
 
70 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 The Coptic says " the small with (rfejm) the great." So 
 
 syr S (as at xi. 18) ol piKpoi pera rwv peyaXav. 
 xix. 6. Copt adds "great" before voice. No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. — w? tert. some of the Coptic mss. which say rreJU. TCJUtH , 
 
 not as above rteiLt j5c|>pH"i~ Tttcjuih , but all Greeks 
 
 have the third «s. 
 ibid. + introductory xe before aXXrjXovi.a copt, but no Greeks 
 
 add to here. 
 2^z'tff. N* writes oeooRc for Kupios o #eo9. Not so £<?// = 
 
 rtxenoc <\>^. Sah is wanting. But sah begins again : 
 
 nrtOYTe nn<5armjKpA.T(jup ; NBPand most add rj/xcov. 
 
 7. Copt writes "glorify him" for Scopev ttjv Sofcw avra. 
 The Greeks do not write avrov, but X* 102 say avrcov, 
 and 35-[«c/z 34]-87 97* 106 omit rrjv before Sogav. 
 
 ibid. 7) vvp.<fyr) pro r) ywr) H c alone. So sah and copt uje^sET 
 and the Latins, some uxor, some sponsa as jig". N c was 
 in the habit of accommodating to his Latin, and probably 
 followed it here, although we see that both copt and sah 
 already had it when N* was copying. He avoided 
 changing his Greek because 17 ywr) followed by avrov 
 could mean nothing else than uxor. The coptic adds 
 this avrov, Teqty e2\6T , as the Latins "sponsa ejus," 
 "uxor ejus." 
 
 ibid. For -qroipaaev eavrrjv copt prefers " was prepared 
 for him" ET<w , ceB.TU>'TC rt «&.q , while sah differs. In 
 fact copt couples the clauses thus xe *qi rtxenigon 
 rnre nigiHfi. mix Teqcye?\eT" eTw^ceR-raiTc rr^q, 
 while sah gives : xe *qei ttGt TlFAJUtoc iinegieifi. 
 <vmj TEqcye?\eeT ^ccofire Jxsuloc . 
 
 8. c7z> says " ut operiret se byssinum," vg " ut cooperiat se." 
 So copt (and W?) : girtA. rtTecf" gicuTC rtoYtyeitc . 
 
 ibid. Textus receptus is Kadapov koli Xapirpov. B and most 
 cursives make this Xapnpov koli Kadapov, but NAP 
 7-39-45 91 95 102 with gig (and am lux ' splendens 
 candidum ') elide /ecu, writing XafxTrpov Kadapov and 
 splendidum rmindum [male Belsh. splendens teste Karlsson) 
 exactly as copt eqcbopi eqOY<*.B. [sah seems to conflate 
 here] but for Kadapov and candidum the coptic word is 
 more forcible still = pure. 
 
 9. — tov yapov by N*P 1-46=88=101-59-67, 16-39-102, 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 7 I 
 
 21-73-79-80-81-100-103, 36 106 114 Er Aid Col 57 
 gig [but not other Latins] is agreed to by copt but not by 
 sah. This is a place where, I think, we may fairly claim 
 that it is boh and not sah which was before X. 
 
 (The syr S writes 7-775 SuanovLa? for rov ya/Aov in error.) 
 The omission may be due to indistinctness in a very 
 ancient graeco-syr, but as gig omits without the other 
 Latins it carries him back far, especially as N a with his 
 Latin before him did not recognise the omission but 
 adds rov yap,ov. 
 xix. 9. X* omits /ecu Xeyei [xol sec. (supplied by X a ). 6 1 1 ? 36 
 38 98 also omit, but not copt. Sah merely says nex^q 
 omitting kgu and p.01. 
 
 10. Copt says "and I fell before his feet, I worshipped him" 
 (so sah) for " kgu enecrov (enecra NAP etc.) efnrpocrdev roov 
 ttoScju avrov TTpoaKwr/craL avra>." So P 21— 73— 79— 80— IOO, 
 59-67, 114 syr S /ecu TTpoo-eKvviqo-a. For avrco B with 
 latins writes avrov, but not the rest. 
 
 ibid. After opa p.7) (xe Jm^uup) fl?// supplies xe before 
 crwSouXos crou ei/u, but not the Greeks ; 36 supplies eyco 
 as copt and sah. 
 
 ibid. — crou sec. N* 6 103. Not so copt or .ra/i 
 
 z'<5z'</. " Worship God " (in this order) copt and sah without 
 Greek or Latin support for rco deto wpoaKvvrjo-ov. 
 
 ibid. fin. a\i)Beia% for irpo<f)rjTeia<; copt \non salt] with only 
 Greek 2>o*txt. 80 however writes in the margin 
 V Kai rrpo(f)7]T€La<; Therefore he intends either a\r)0ei.a<; 
 /ecu tt po^-qr eias or (as gig) " spiritus est et prophetiae." 
 
 11. Copt adds init. "(and) after these things." No Greek 
 support, nor sah. 
 
 ibid. <s.m<w\ " I saw," for tSou writes copt, but x\o\.sah{= eic, 
 t,Scw) nor others. (Here copt probably mistook the greek 
 iSou for c&ov, and all coptic mss. faithfully followed the 
 original error.) 
 
 ibid. — Ka\ovfj.ei>os AP and twenty-eight cursives Hipp ; is 
 not omitted by copt sah nor syr nor latin. 
 
 ibid. Copt says " the faithful and the true." Greeks do not 
 supply the articles. 
 
 ibid. For /ecu ev SiKaiocrwrj Kpivei Kai 7roXe/xe<, copt writes "and 
 he gave (the) judgment in righteousness," eliding Kai 
 
7 2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 7roXe/xei. No Greeks, nor do they change the order. 
 
 Sah transfers ev SiKatocrw^ to the end of the verse, but 
 
 has the irokepei. 
 xix. 12. Coptic with Prim and Cypr supply erant before m (£Xof 
 
 but no Greeks supply a verb nor other Latins. 
 ibid. NBP and many cursives with Hipp omit &>?. Coptic uses 
 
 ortl ne rtOY{=y<*.g H^pum instead of the usual 
 
 JttCppH'f - . 
 ibid. fin. 59 adds /acwos. Cf. copt: eB.H?\ rteoq AJuuta.'VViTq. 
 
 13 mzV. — /ecu Some copt and jt^ (not Greek). 
 ibid. Trepipepappevov N*, vepipepavrtcrpevov H c , pepavrtcrpevov 
 
 P 36, eppavTua-p-evov 2>S~[_ non 34] _ 87 95 iog(gr et arm) 
 
 Hipp, epavTicrpevov 32. Compare ^/: eqffOX^} or 
 
 eqitovx*) et latt {sah eqXH6~= tinctum vel coloratum). 
 
 Sah seems therefore not to have influenced X at all here. 
 ibid. + ev {ante aipajri) syr S copt and sah with the cursives 
 
 4-20-48-64-74, 6-31-106 32 34 [non 35-87] 109 
 
 {gr arm), 
 ibid. — to ovopa clvtov Copt. No Greeks. Copt says " and 
 
 being called (the) word of God." 
 
 Only N* varies /caXeiTcu or Ke/cX^Teu, writing zce/cX^To for 
 
 /caXeiTat to, but this is somewhat significant it would 
 
 seem. Only gr 100 with Latin omits the article before 
 
 Xoyos. Copt used the weak and not the strong article. 
 
 14. to tTTparevpa (niCTpA-TEYJUA.) two Coptic mss. say, but 
 no Greeks vary the plural. Sah {Goussen) says rr eCTpa.- 
 TeYJUA. but Balestri rteqCTpA-TEYJUA. . But ^z^ Hier 
 Vigil Taps and Anon 1/2 say " exercitus sequebatur." 
 
 z'<5z'</. — ev rat ovpavco copt [non salt]. 
 
 ibid. For " evSeSvpevou (ev&ehvpevois X*) fivcrcrivov XevKOv /ecu 
 Ka.Qa.pov" copt has (Horner text with eight mss.) eoYOJt 
 &A.rtcyerfc evcpopi toi g,ia>TOY; Gig has purpureum, 
 and the cursives 1 8 80 have \apirpov for XevKov ; //zVr zVz 
 Esai "mundissimo" (\evKofiv<ro-ivov 95). (Horner's CD* 
 G mg HZ have gAitgRujc, and T giMrgftujc ruyertc.) 
 
 15. Contrary to custom copt does not supply iravja. after 
 e^ry, which 38 97 and gig do here with sah. 
 
 ibid. — tov Ovpov kcli some copt mss. 
 
 16. — em j#r. N 12 62=63-72 33 ? and copt sah Vigil Taps, 
 ibid. Copt supplies the article before kings and lords, writing 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. J7, 
 
 fiaariXews tojv j3aaike(t)v kcu (6) Kvpios ray Kvpnav. No 
 
 Greeks so far. 
 xix. 17. aXXoy ayyekov for eva ayyekov X 36 syr S; also note 
 
 eva aWov ayyekov 34-35-87. Note copt and sah 
 
 ejceA.V'FESsoc. This seems pretty conclusive for the 
 
 whole group X 34-35-87 syr S. Note the correctors of 
 
 K have not changed. And eke implies plain aXXo? or et? 
 
 aXXos. The group varied in interpretation, but all hang 
 
 absolutely together. 
 ibid. — To* {ante tjXuu) copt and sah = Latin. No Greeks, 
 
 except "the Angel's" copy (Vergecius) No. 57 = Col, 
 
 and Er 123 Aldus [but not Apoc 1]. 
 ibid. Copt says eqojcy efeo?\ (as sah EqAtyKAK e&o?\ ). 
 ibid. + ev {ante (f>wvrj) KB and forty-three cursives and syr S 
 
 with copt sah. 
 ibid. After Xeyaw instead of the dative irao-i tol? opveois 
 
 k.t.X.. the Coptic introduces the phrase with 2te . 
 
 " All the birds which fly in midst of Heaven come, 
 
 assemble . . ." 
 ibid. This — kcu tert. is witnessed to by the Latin gig and 
 
 Anonym but not by Greeks. A few (1 46—88-101 59 
 
 67 80 81 114, that is the 1 family) omit koli awayeo-Oe 
 
 with Prim, 
 ibid. Copt continues ..." in the great supper (this order 
 
 £>en mmty+ rt2.innort) of the Lord God." The 
 
 " great supper " rather than " of the great God " agrees 
 
 with most Greeks. Most Greeks supply tov before 
 
 6eov but none add Kvptov. 
 
 18. Copt {sah partly mutilated) supplies ras before aapi<a<; 
 throughout without Greek support (except in the fifth 
 place, where 22 29-30-98 47 51-90 add it) and omits 
 ttclvtojv with 1-62=3-72 1 19-123 syr S. It also adds 
 the strong article tcov before fiaaiXecov and before all the 
 nouns without Greek support (except 4-48-64 + tov once 
 before eXevdepcov, and with X 56 95 before peyaXcov). 
 
 19. (Note Kara for /cat tert. by X*. The usual neJU is used 
 here by copt, but preceding noYCTp<VTeYJm<5. might be 
 confounded with fjara or Kara). 
 
 ibia. Copt gives the attribute white to the horse, but no 
 Greeks. 
 
74 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xix. 19. For kgu /xera in the last place copt merely uses rteJUl. 
 See remarks above as to Kara by N*. 
 
 20. (jaera tovtov o xfjevBonp. common text]. BP and most 
 cursives give o /aer avrov xpevSovp., but X 10- 17-37-77-91 
 -96, 21-73-79-100-103, 36, 62=63-72, 1 19-123 5j/r S 
 = jxer aurou for juera tovtov, while A 32 41 =01 jxet olvtov 
 more definite still = copt " those who (ith) were with 
 him " ; copt continues rte.11 ni\I/6v2^onpoc[>HTHC , while 
 sah brings this earlier, writing : «W(ju <wtfujn xtne- 
 ^Hpiort ttjui nenpocpHTHC rt rtoYX etjujua-Y. 
 
 ibid. Copt says " who did the signs among them before him," 
 carrying ev ots back from before enXavrjcre ; not so sah. 
 Copt continues " Having bound them who received." 
 (For some reason 44-52—82 substitute irXavcovTas for 
 Xa/3oiras). 
 
 ibid. For 717 cikovi, N* 38 61 write tt\v eiKova with ^^ and 
 latt ymaginem ; copt and sah have ffEJU. XtH e-eOY(X)cyT 
 ItTeqgYKUJrf . [For tttj ukovl B substitutes to ^apa/y^a 
 following Prim, who gives imaginem . . . caragma.~\ 
 
 ibid. Copt inverts the order thus : " they cast them down both 
 alive," supplying /carw (e*>pm) after e/3\r)07)o-av. No 
 Greeks nor Latins. (In syr S there is a slight muddle, 
 see Gwynn.) 
 
 ibid. X writes rrjs Keo/^ei^s and AP 67 81 r^s /cato/xevijs for 
 TTju KaLOfJLevrjv = .£#// (as Veles : rov Kai.op.evov). C/l 
 ^//. e+^YJuirfH e©xio£ Wxpuu** • 
 
 z&V. G?// ends itejui e-Hit and .y«^ grt oveHrt . 
 
 to) is elided before deico by XAPB and sixty cursives 
 with Latt. Syr S writes kcu for ev ra with copt next. 
 
 21. 4- olvtov post pofAfjiaia. So 9$ gig and copt sah. 
 
 tbid. Only 59 changes the order of the last clause to Kai ra 
 opvea exopTao-drjcrav iravTa .... while £<?zV says Kai ra 
 opvea iravTa tov ovpavov e^opTacrdrjcrav e/c et> t<uv aapKcov 
 avTCDv. + tov ovpavov by £0^/ stands alone, and un- 
 countenanced by sah [order of the rest k<u wavTa ra 
 opvea tx°P- eK roiV o-apKOiv avT(DV~\. 59 with 87 substitute 
 avTov for avTaw alone. As 59 alone changes the order 
 with copt (and has other coptic affiliations) this substitu- 
 tion with Egyptian 87 looks as if he probably saw the 
 
 COpt ffOYCApg. 
 
OF THE UOIIAIRIC VERSION. 75 
 
 xix. 21. 74 alone substitutes ipirtTa for opvea. Copt is g,<5^?\<v r t~. 
 xx. i. This place is interesting as regards N and N* with refer- 
 ence to bohairic or sahidic, for while X* has "angel" 
 (although he writes ayye for ayytXov by mistake) with boh, 
 N a adds aXkov with .ya/k and syr S against &?/z. ifo/z has 
 £OYArre?\OC but .azA eKe«JOrve?\OC = aXXov ayyeXov 
 with N a 32 syr S (16-39-102). 
 
 ^j'af. N* omits eK tov ovpavov, evidently in error. Neither 
 copt nor sah omit. 
 
 ibid. 106 alone omits ttjv before /cXetSa with latt. Copt has 
 the weak article. 
 
 tbtd. Copt and sah write peyaXrjv aXvanv for aXvcriv /xeyaXyjv 
 but no Greeks or Latins change the order. 
 
 ibid. For e-m ttjv x ei P a avT0V ^ an d 38 alone of Greeks 
 write ev tt\ x ei P L avT0V with Latins syr S and % and copt 
 and sah distinctly. A gr is absent from this combination 
 here. 
 
 2. hF however writes here (with syr S Lachmann Tisch 
 Treg Westcott Hort) o o<£i? o apyaios for tov o<j)iv tov 
 apxa-iov. Copt is nigoq niAp^eoc. 
 
 ibid. X 44 write o ecrri for os ecrrt. Copt is ETE. 
 
 z'^z'i^. + 6 {ante 8ta/3o\o?) X with 14 18 21-73-79-100-103 
 
 38 56 y/ 97 106, rather a notable group, = copt 
 
 niXl<5.J&.0?\OC . As this could not come from Latin, we 
 
 see the interweaving of the versions here, and above in 
 
 verse 1 (ev tt) x eL P L ) before N's time. 
 ibid. NAB etc. add 6 before o-aravos. Copt expresses the " kcci 
 
 2<xt<w as " by ne nc<VT<Mt AC , .ra/£ merely ncA.TA.rf ac . 
 
 We can quote them both — koli. No Greeks. 
 2/3. N omits x L ^ La eT V KaL e/SaXes' olvtov but no others nor 
 
 Greek. A pure error, it would seem. 
 
 3. Here we have confusion again of OaXacrcrav for a/3vo-crov 
 by 30-98. Confusion of sound in Coptic and syriac as 
 pointed out above (see under xvii. 8). 
 
 ibid. — avTov post a<\ei.o-ev many Greeks ; while copt writes 
 AqJUAtyeAJU. (sah Aqcyrvum) translated by Horner 
 "he shut its mouth." 
 
 For eiravo) avrov A alone has e/ijU.ei'ws avrov. Copt 
 OYOg, AqTuuH CAntyuui juuuioq (sah merely ayuj 
 AqTcuuuA epuuq). 
 
76 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xx. 3. — en copt sah. Cf. 1-12-46=88=101-59-67 14 ? 40 
 
 80 (81) 114 Tick Anonym, 
 ibid. Syr S adds iravra to ra *Birq, but not copt here. 
 ibid. — naipost eTrj {ante pera ravra) NAB etc. syrS gig sah is 
 
 not supported by copt which has the introductory ovog . 
 ibid. 4- en (ante /xiKpop xp ovov ) sa -h an d copt, but no others. 
 
 4. Copt says "having sat upon them judgment was given 
 to them," eliding /cat sec. et tert. (two mss. add ovog before 
 Kpijj.cn. ehodrj). No others thus. Sah omits /ecu zW/. (alone). 
 
 z^z'flf. For /cat quart, before ras t/wyas copt substitutes 6-&K6, 
 " because of," "Sta," while sah adds AJruvy with 56 95 
 only + eudov. 
 
 ibid. For /cat Sta top \oyov copt says rteJH niCA.2?t , but ivz^ 
 follows Greek ayuu et&e ncyAXe . No Greeks elide 
 Sta with copt. Only 59 omits /cat Sia rov Aoyoi' tou deov. 
 
 ibid. Copt has twv Xoyov with 63 alone. 
 
 z<$zaf. — /cat /<«/ 0eou X alone ; copt says new. , but sah has 
 
 ibid. 4- ai/rou /to.tf yapayiia 59 only. So #?zV .ra/l ; 32 56 
 
 and 95 add rov drjpiov. 
 ibid. - avTcuv prim. NAB and sixty cursives and gig Cypr 
 
 Aug Prim but not syr S nor copt nor jr«>^. 
 z<£z'^. — /cat a^/^ etflcjav copt [non sah~\. No Greeks. 
 z'<5z'<2f. 4- tov (ante ^ptcrrou) NAB and most cursives. Sah has 
 
 the article, and copt the weak article. 
 ibid. — ra (ante yCk.ia) NA and some cursives, Latin and #^ 
 
 .svzA syr S. 
 
 5. /cat ot Aourot «^>/ with some Gk cursives, but 01 Xoittol 
 Se sah. A gr and /## omit Se. 
 
 ibid. Some (graeco-lat) cursives, 7-1 6-39-104 add on before 
 avTrj r) dt-ao-racrts and syr S adds /cat, but neither copt 
 nor sah add anything. 
 
 z'^z'^f. For some reason 59-67 read avairavcrLs for avacrrao-is, 
 but both copt and Wz transliterate the Greek with 
 
 Alt ACTACIC ■ 
 
 6. " Blessed is he and a saint of God " for p.aKapio% /cat 
 aytos says copt, but no Greeks or Latins. 
 
 ibid. " Over these the second death shall not find authority 
 0Vl r him " (and see Horner's note). Some Gk mss. eiri 
 tovtov for e7rt tovtwv at the beginning (29^30 21-73-79- 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. J-j 
 
 103, 104 Hipp (ut edit.), and em tovtov 46-88-101, and 
 em tovtcu 14-92, and em tovto 102**, but sah closes 
 exit jt«m . 
 xx. 6. X alone adds kcu after iepet?. G?// says rtg,<MtOYHfr 
 (while sah only OYHH.fr). There is probably no con- 
 nection. 
 tbid. 4- Ta {ante yikia) NB and fourteen cursives. So «>// 
 distinctly this time. 
 
 7. C<?j£/ says OYOg, ecycjun for kcu orav while .svzA gOT<Mt 
 
 ibid. N* adds ere after Tekeadrj. 
 
 tbid. — avrov copt [_non salt] and no Greeks and Latins. 
 
 8. Copt adds "the servants with" before ra eOv-q. No 
 others. Only N 21-73-79-100-103 syr S add iravra. 
 In a common original of some kind there may have been 
 a connection, but the Coptic rmiefrt«&.lK has no great 
 similarity to THpoY or Jim or OYOit rufrerf . Middle 
 Coptic rtlfrt would come closest in looks to the word 
 used. 
 
 tbid. — ra sec. (post eOvrj) N and ten cursives and syr S with 
 copt. The cursives include 35-87, not 34. 
 
 ibid. — r>7s yrjs N* only. Copt however plainly rtre TTKA.gl , 
 but sah apparently rtTolKOYJUierfH . 
 
 ibid. — tov (ante ycoy) N* only of Greeks (with Latt of 
 course) and Coptic tuot plainly, while sah has rcrouv . 
 
 ibid. — tov (ante /j-ayay) N*A and seventeen cursives, Latin 
 (of course) syr S and copt and sah. Sah, as printed by 
 Goussen, has rtxi ju.a.v[(jot] (Balestri jurt ju^vfocf), 
 and copt next A/Ftor (xiA.rour only T'). N gr has 
 MArcor. 
 
 ibid. For crvvayaye.iv avrovs copt has eveeoYCJUTOY . X and 
 some cursives and syr S gig say kcu crwayayeiv aurous. 
 
 z&laf. 4- tov (ante noXefjuov) NAB etc. Copt 6nmo7\6JLtOC , 
 j«^ enno?\ejuioc . 
 
 ibid. + avTwv (post apid/jLos:) NAB etc. So copt. 
 
 9. [Goussen and Balestri number their sahidic with the 
 Vulgate verses, which vary from the Greek.] 
 
 ibid. For ttjv ^yairqixev^v copt substitutes jufrepi " new." No 
 others. Only Gr 100 substitutes jxeya\r)v. Sah = 
 JuumepiT. Horner's note indicates perhaps confusion 
 
78 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 between JutRepi and juertpiT . X sr does not fall into 
 the trap, 
 xx. 9. e/c (tov) ovpavov airo {tov) Oeov the order of B and 
 many cursives gig Aug {de civ) and Anonym is that of 
 copt, but not of sah. N gr is wanting here by omission of 
 9/10 TTVp . . . Xuixvrjv, while A gr omits airo tov dtov with 
 18 21-73-79-100-103 80 and Prim, 
 ibid. — /cat ult. (ante Kare^ayeu) copt [non sah']. No other 
 support. [N gr missing.] 
 
 10. For tov wpos /cat deiov copt says " of fire (no article) 
 which burnetii with sulphur." So only Gr 32 + tt)v 
 Kauo[ievr]v post irvpos. 
 
 (X and some cursives say tov Ottov). 
 
 ibid, ottov + /cat ABP and most cursives vg etc., but not X, 
 nor copt, which says nmA. ETe. 
 
 ibid. N supplies ottov again before o xjtevSo-Trpo^rjTrjs, main- 
 taining the usual order with copt. Copt does not add, 
 while sah almost reverses the order to 07701; o ijjevho- 
 Trpo(j>r)Tr)<s /cat to drjpiov of Gr 18 only, apparently conflating 
 thus: njuus. ertTA.'YTfOYxe UneeHpiorf epoq itXt 
 nenpoc|>HTHc rmoYX. 
 
 ibid. For i^v/cras instead of vvktos, by 87 alone, compare copt 
 megoov. Not by sah. Sah writes rtTe'yujH tdx 
 negoov ( = node ac die, reversing the order alone) 
 while copt: rmiEgoov rtEJU. ruexiopg, (with Jerome 
 in Ezec. : diebus et noctibus). 
 
 Copt continues " unto age of the age " (<=yA. EltEg, rcre 
 niertEg), while sah "unto age of age" (tyA. eitEg, 
 rtErteg,). No Greeks here vary tovs auovas tcdv amvav 
 except 29, omitting tcov, and 47 119 [non 123], omitting 
 
 TCOV aLO)VCt)V. 
 
 1 1 . [Goussen's verse now agrees]. 
 
 — /cat init. no Greeks, but sah and two Coptic mss. 
 {cf. Iren Novat). 
 ibid. Copt and sah write etSot- p.eyav Opovov Xevkov for eihov dp. 
 XevKov fjieyav, while NABP etc. have eiSov Op. p.eyav XevKov, 
 bringing XevKov last, but not interposing Bpovov as copt 
 and sah. No Greeks do this nor Latins. 
 Apoc 50 says dp. fieyav /cat XevKov, as Prim, 
 ibid. " With him who sat upon it" copt [non sah]. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 79 
 
 xx. II. eiravoi avTov for err avrov only X 38 syr. Cf. gixcjuq 
 copt and sah. [See ix. 17.] 
 ibid. + tov {ante Trpoaco-rrov) only XAP 95 syr S. Cf. copt. 
 ibid. + avrov {post tt poo-amov) 56 67 95 114 syr S Ephr 
 
 Cf. copt. 
 ibid. — o (ante ovpavos) 21 39 73 98. So copt sah. 
 ibid. For avTr)<; (pro aurots) of 16 44 72 f/! f^/. 
 
 1 2. Copt adds 7rcu>Tas after ve/cpous but no Greeks or Latins 
 nor sah. 
 
 ibid. Here X* gives us a sahidic touch : kcu peyaXovs «:at rou? 
 fiiKpous for piKpovs /ecu peyaXovs, for sah writes rfito6~rtJUi 
 HKOYE1 (peyaXovs pera piupcav) instead of rtlKOYXI ItEJUl 
 rflltityf" (tov; puKpovs pera tov peyaXwv) as copt. X a AP 
 and forty cursives also place peyaXovs first. 
 
 ibid. Opovov (pro deov) XABP and most cursives = also syr 
 latt and copt and sah. 
 
 ibid. Copt says " on the book " for ev tois /3i/3A(,ois. Cf. 
 syr S. 
 
 13. C^/ says " And (the) abyss with Amenti " OYOg cpitOYrf 
 ffCJUl AJUierf'f' for kcu o OavaTos /ecu o aSrjs. No others 
 change OavaTos. N* writes /ecu o rd davaros alone, as if 
 something might have been before him which was 
 unusual. Sah says nxiOY (Qavaioi) rtxi AJurtTe. 
 
 So that we now see triple interchange of jtjuioy 
 cprtOYlt and <p!OJtA (as earlier) for Bavaros, a/3vcrcro?, and 
 Oakacraa. 
 ibid. Copt practically elides e/caoro?, writing OYOg, A.Y't'gAn 
 epcooY (with Iren), while sah (Goussen) says ayou 
 A.YKpme JUlJUOOY JIOYA, HOY*. = singuli, unusquisque, 
 de singulis, (Balestri = A.YCO AYKpirte UnoYA. noYA.). 
 
 14. Again, ^/ says "and (the) abyss (c|>rfOYff) with 
 Amenti," that is all copt mss. but C = cpxtOY. 
 
 [We saw above, xix. 4, that C boh was the type of text N er 
 was following, which may account for there being no sign 
 of abyss in his text here.] Sah has imoY again. 
 
 ibid. — tov (ante nvpos) copt. No Greeks. Copt uses 
 it^CpcAJJUt and sah rtc<VT6. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits ovros ecniv o Seurepos davaTos with 1—46=88 
 =101-67 18 25-58-78-84-94 31 41-42-53 81* 97 114 
 and substitutes ttjv Kcuopevrjv Beiu> (eexnog g,l -e-Hrf). 
 
80 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 No Greeks. But NABP and sixty cursives add r) \ip.vr\ 
 tov 7rvpos including of those above only 53 81***. Sah 
 {Goussen) stops at rtCA.T~e eliding the last clause and 
 substituting nothing with the Gk cursives above and 
 Prim, but Balestri continues : n<*.l ne nJHOY AJuuieg- 
 crrA.v ET6 T?stJuirfH Te ttc<VTe. 
 xx. 15. Copt begins this verse "and he who," literally "with 
 he whom," connecting with verse 14 after his addition of 
 eejuog, gl ©Hft. No Greeks. Sah says <s.Y(ju ne Te. 
 
 ibid, ovx evpedrj Copt writes eTejuEnoYxeJuiq . N gr * alone 
 varies evpeOr) and writes evpeOrjcrercn. Sah gives 
 HnoYge epoq . 
 
 ibid. Copt says "on the book of (the) life" gl nxum rrre 
 ncorf^j. No Greeks vary ii> except 80 which has 515 tt\v 
 /3i.fi\oi> tt)<; £01775. Sah (Goussen) says enxcoouJLie, and 
 Balestri gjS nxcxjcxjjue. 
 
 zfoa?. For efiXyjdr) copt has the active " they cast them," and 
 ets is missing before rqv Xt/xi^v. Copt: AYglTOY 
 e+^sVJurtH rt^cpujju ; jo% A/vrfoxq 6T?siJutrtH it c<vre. 
 No sympathy found among Greeks or Latins, 
 xxi. 1, The Keuov and K&rqv of X appear to be itacisms, 
 for we have Kevqv again in verse 2 by X alone and 
 Keva again verse 5. Copt plainly jmRepi bis and sah 
 ERppe. 
 
 ibid. — TTpo)T7) {ante yyj) 13 29 65 = copt " For the first heaven 
 with the earth " with Iren and Prim [non Tert non gig 
 non sah~\. 
 
 ibid. aTTTj\6av NA, airrjXOov B etc. Cf. copt AYtye , sah 
 {Goussen) ^/retire, {Balestri) <woYeirte (P etc. airr)\6ev, 
 at. 7rapr)\0ep). 
 
 ibid. Although copt has a peculiar turn of phrase for ko.i 77 
 daXaacra ovk eanv en : OYOg, JUUUOrt lOJLt XC, and sah 
 is : A.tcuj &&.?\&cc& rtctyoon A.rr 6e, none agree with 
 change made by A gr : Kai rqv dakacrcrav ovk lSov en. 
 This Sov might have come from misplacing the tSoi' in 
 next verse, but while text. rec. places it early in verse 2, 
 all Greeks omitting eyw iwowtjs and including A place it 
 later after Ka.ivqv. It is possible A confused AVEIlte 
 with copt A.m<S.Y. 
 2. While all Greeks and Prim transfer eiSov to the place 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 8 1 
 
 after Kaivrfv, copt and sah have it at the beginning as in 
 textus receptus (omitting of course eyco icucw>?s with all), 
 xxi. 2. e/c tov ovpavov oltto tov deov NAB and most with copt 
 and sah. 
 
 3. N* drops TjKovcra and writes 4> covr ) peyaXrj, following it 
 with keyovcra. Neither sah nor copt do this, and the 
 editors do not follow N*. 
 
 ibid. But for ovpavov NA 18 substitute Opovov which the 
 editors Lachmann Tisch Westcott and Hort and 
 Revisers follow although there is only this greek support 
 XA 18 with Iren Ambr Aug vg, both sah and copt with 
 syr arm aeth gig Tich Prim and Anonym Cassiod 
 opposing. 
 
 ibid. Sah copt = + xe before ic (iSou). No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. Copt \non sah~\ supplies the verb "being" before "with 
 men." No Greeks nor Latins except Ambrose. 
 
 ibid. eo-K-qvoio-ev N alone. Not copt, but gig am : habitauit. 
 This certainly looks like a very old Latin mutation of u 
 for b in habitabit which N followed. 
 
 ibid. Xaos P etc., cf. copt and sah. 
 
 ibid. — K<xi ult. N 65, but present in copt and sah. 
 
 (65 is the interesting Moscow fragment often with X 
 alone and often with N and copt, see xxi. 21.) 
 
 3/4. — #eos avrav verse 3 KB etc. Agrees with copt. 
 — 6 deos verse 4 NP etc. Agrees with copt. 
 
 Copt writes : " And God himself shall be with them, 
 He shall wipe every tear from their eyes." 
 
 4. KA 32 56 substitute e« for <xiro. Copt = e&o?s*)erf 
 and sah e£.o?\ grt . Sah writes rt m for rt iKerr (irav). 
 
 ibid. — 6 {ante davaTos) X 18 22*** 23 38 47 and Latin. 
 
 (Copt ovog rtrre xtov , sah ayuj jurt juioy.) 
 ibid. — ovre tert. ante ttovos copt \110n sah\ N and 65 omit 
 
 /ecu ttovos but no others. 
 ibid. Quite a curious thing now occurs. 
 
 For OVT€ TTOVOS OVK eCTTai 6Tb OTl TO. TTpUtTa aTT7]X0OU 
 
 copt — Ttue *)ici tyajni xe eni2^H rt jg,0Y^+ <wcmi 
 sah = ov2.e jurt gice n^tyoune xm TeYitov xe «*. 
 
 rtcyopn OYeme. 
 X confuses coptic xe and em^.H for he substitutes otl 
 for en on, dropping en altogether. Showing that K* 
 
 G 
 
82 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 was wool-gathering here he continues ra irpofiara for ra 
 irpcjTa. His text runs 
 
 CLVToiv kgu c^ai^a 
 
 to? ovk ecrrat en ou 
 
 re Kpavyrj ovre itev 
 
 0o<; ovk ecrrat on 
 
 ra irpofiaTa anrjX 
 
 0ev /cat entev o 
 
 Ka.d7jp.ev0s ein 
 I do not wish to press an error oculi, but such it must 
 have been. Whence ? Well, leaving out Coptic 
 itigOYA.^, following eni^.H, (although please to note 
 the sound) what about the Latin priora for irpaTa, so 
 given (instead of prima of Iren etc., pristina of gig) 
 by Primasius and Auct de Prom} It would seem in 
 connection with — en apposed to cop tic 2ce * eni^H , and 
 irpofiaTa for npcoTa sounding with Latin priora, that 
 X might really have had under his eye both Coptic and 
 Latin. I do not press this nor have I sought this place. 
 It forces itself upon the attention. 
 
 Note also with regard to the polyglot which caused 
 
 the trouble (and it would really seem as if the point 
 
 were well taken) that syr S got into trouble here, 
 
 writing another variation: "ouSe wovos eorai cti eni tcl 
 
 Trpoo-artTa avnjs." Note, retaining en dropped by N, but 
 
 using em and the strange variation vpoo-wn-a. Gwynn 
 
 says : " The reading of S evidently represents a Greek 
 
 not Syriac variation (em for cm, irpoo-oiira. for irpoiTa)," 
 
 but what about the emXH of Coptic in this connection ? ! 
 
 xxi. 4. Copt (all mss., except H* which omits with the preceding 
 
 clause) adds " Lo (gHnne) all things will become new," 
 
 without Greek or other support. Sah (Gousseri) does 
 
 not add. Copt uses a different expression from that 
 
 which occurs in the next verse. 
 
 5. ewe + pov 56 syr S. So copt. 
 
 ibid. + /cat {ante iSov) A. Cf. + xe copt and sah. 
 
 tbtd. Copt — ttolw Kouva iravra differing from practically all 
 
 Greeks, for NAP write Kai^a iroica iravra with gig, while 
 
 B etc. have ttokh iravra Kai,va. 
 
 tbtd. Copt = on : ypaxjjov ovtoi 01 Xoyot putting the intro- 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 83 
 
 ductory xe before " write these words." Strangely 
 enough 46-88-101 have this. Sah employs xe twice, 
 more correctly giving the Greek, and says 2ce cg,<!U xe 
 rtei ty«50ce. 
 xxi. 5. Copt and sah seem to give textus receptus' order akrjdivoi 
 Kai ttlo-tol while NAB etc. vary the order to 7710-701 /cai 
 akt)6ivoi with gig " fidelia et vera." (The cursives 
 which write this order add tov Oeov.) The meaning of 
 the words is so similar we need not dwell on this. 
 Primasius emphasises with a superlative Haec verba 
 fidelissima sunt et vera. 
 
 6. — yeyovao-iv N\ So Coptic omits altogether [not sah] 
 with aeth ? and lux and Anonym and TichVn. 
 
 ibid. — T175 73-777*75 A. Not copt nor sah, but in copt 77777775 
 and uSaros are very similar ^JUOYJUll and JUAIIUOY 
 (sah = TnHTH juutjuooy). 
 
 ibid. fin. Swpeas for Swpeav N*. 6/! Z«^ gratis. [Q^ xiv. 3 
 ^pucrea?.] 
 
 7. TauTa for TravTa. of nearly all Greeks [non 1-62=63-72- 
 80 53] is agreed to by copt and sah. 
 
 8. tois Se SeiXois of AX £/<£. for SetX.ois Se = «?// and sah. 
 ibid. Sah writes nOffHpoc for noppoLs. 
 
 ibid, om ttcutl copt sah but no Greeks or Latins ( Tert omits 
 77-acri tois i/»ei>S£cr<,). 
 
 ibid. + eaTLv Hippol (ante ev ttj Xl^pt]), cf. copt. 
 
 ibid. Copt = " in the lake of the fire with the sulphur " 
 omitting kcuo/xei/t? (which it sometimes adds). No Greeks 
 omit, but Tert Auct Quaes t do so. Rarely copt gives 
 the article to ^puujui, but here it does so, as also to 
 sulphur. No Greeks. Cf. syr S. 
 
 9. — irpos /*e. Practically all Greeks. Also copt. 
 
 ibid, o npcoTos pro ets 35-87 38. Sah = rt6"IOVA., copt 
 
 rcxeovAi. [See xxi. 19.] 
 ibid. + eK (post eis) NABP and many cursives. Also copt. 
 ibid, [ras ye/xovcras] Copt = eYJUeg, sah eTXieg ; 35-87 
 
 have ras eyovcraq = /#// habentibus. Copt says " filled 
 
 we'/^" eYJUteg, e&o?s *>ext . 
 z'^. — Kai (a^^ eXaXrjcre) copt and raA. No Greeks or Latins. 
 ibid. + on (ante Sei£o)) copt and .ra/L No Greeks. " veni et 
 
 ostendam " vg. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xxi. 9. T7)v vvjji(f)r)v T7)v yvvaixa tov apviov, order of NAP and 
 only (17) 34-35-87 38 65 77 syr S, but with latt and 
 copt and sah. 
 
 10. Copt and sah add the article before -nvi.vp.aTi but no 
 Greeks. 
 
 ibid. For eir opos peya kcu v\jjrj\ov copt says entyuJl EXEft 
 
 ovrfityf" rrrujoY eqtfoci (but sah only exit oytooy 
 
 eqxoce). Observe e7ri for en by NA 35-87 56 59 only. 
 
 — kcu before vtyrjkov of copt sah — gr 12-46=88=101- 
 
 59-67-81-10065 114. 
 
 ibid. — kcu (ante eSafe) copt and sah. No Greeks. 
 
 [After eSet^e poi sah is wanting to verse 24.] 
 
 z'tW. — Tf]v peyaXrjv XABP and forty-eight cursives [not 65 
 114 or 1 19-123 although syr S omits] with copt syr S 
 and latt. 
 
 ibid. — tov (ante Oeov) copt. No Greeks. 
 
 11. For e^ovtrav tyjv ho^av tov 6eov (omitted by A 30 35 98 
 104) copt has : " she which is holy which is filled with 
 glory " (or [other mss.] " light "). Cf. gr 1 19-1 23 : ev rj r/ 
 yvvrj tov apviov r) ai>&> 1A.17/X. 11770 6eov KoafirjdrjaeTai kcu 
 Sofacr^creTcu. (et Sylburg ed. And.). Observe X sup- 
 plies 0,-no after 8o£av. So gig : a Deo pro Dei of the 
 rest. 
 
 ibid. Copt practically suppresses o/aoios as a separate word. 
 No Greeks. 
 
 ibid. For cos Xl0o) lao-TnSi copt says ws (fraHTTrjp tao"7riSos Tipiov. 
 No Greeks supply light or substitute it for XiQw sec, but 
 syr S omits XiOut, = cos tao-7n,Si which virtually agrees, 
 and some eighteen cursives omit ws XlQo>. 
 
 ibid. For KpvaTaXXit,ovTi copt says "being of crystal" eqoi 
 rtxp'CT"^^ 00 • No Greeks ; but Latins say sicut 
 cristallo," and Prim : " refulgentum in modum crystalli." 
 
 12. — re XABP and most. So copt, which expresses 
 eypvo~av prim (eypvo-a ABP etc. ; zypvTi X primo loco, 
 exovras sec. loco X* e^oucras X a ) by "being to her," 
 eoYorr itTA-C . Does e^ovTi of X bear any relation to 
 this? 
 
 ibid. — xai (ante vxjjr/Xov). 18. Cf. copt. 
 
 ibid. kcu (pro e^ovcra sec.) 1 19-123. Cf. copt "with the 
 twelve gates," omitting evoucra. 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 85 
 
 xxi. T2. Copt continues "And the twelve angels at (giperr 
 'prope') the gates." No Greeks give this order nor 
 Latins. 
 
 ibid. + avrcav [post ovofiaTa) N and syr S. Not copt which 
 says "with names written." N has (with syr gig etc. 
 'scripta') yeypap.[ieva for eTnyeypap,fieva of the rest. 
 The Latins vary, some scripta, some inscripta or super- 
 scripta. Copt : item gA.rtpA.it evc^HOYT . 
 
 ibid. Copt supplies name a second time, for a eari writing 
 ec|>pAit "being (the) name." So A 18 35-87 56 65 
 with syr S + ra ovo[x,aTa, and + ovo^ara B and many 
 other cursives. 
 
 13. Copt has the order East, South (cApHc), West, North. 
 
 Owing to the slightly varying meaning of the points of 
 the compass in some of the Greek words we need not 
 dwell on any of the variations of order here. 
 ibid. Copt says " on the E. (cAneie&T) three gates, on the 
 S. (CApHc) of her three gates, and the W. (nejuterrr) 
 of the city three gates, and on the N. (cAneJuglT) 
 three gates." I have italicised the additions. No 
 Greeks add " of her " or " of the city," nor Latins. 
 
 14. — eypv H*. EOYOlt as usual copt. 
 
 ibid. SwSeKa OefieXiow; 25-78. So copt order. 
 
 ibid. + yeypa^tvov COpt = OYOg, eYC<£>HOYT glUJTOY . 
 
 No Greeks. For giaJTOV cf en olvtov for ev clvtols 
 
 practically all Greeks. 
 
 15. Copt says eOYOlt for eiye. No Greeks eyav nor Latins 
 apparently anything but kabebat. 
 
 ibid. Copt does not add peipov as the Greek uncials, most 
 cursives and Latins, but adds rrroTq after XP V(J0VV < 
 part of periphrasis for ex<w, thus : OYKAcy FrtOYii 
 rCTOTCi . Cf. Prim " arundinem auream ad mensziram " 
 instead of " mensuram arundinem auream." 
 
 16. koli r] 770X15 Ttrpayavos (+ avTi]<;) Kenai So X. Cf. 
 COpt : OYOg, 'f'ftAKl fte OYTeTpAFUOItON T6 ( - Kenai). 
 Copt continues " And as is her length thus also is her 
 breadth " = Gk kcci to /utjkos aunjs [X omits the aur^s 
 here] oaov /ecu to 7rAaTos, omitting toctovtov ecniv of text, 
 recept. with nearly all Greeks. 
 
 NBP omit the kgu before to tt\o.tos, but copt has on . 
 
86 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xxi. 1 6. Copt omits ra Ka\ap.o) substituting "he found her being" 
 (Aqxemc ecoi), making ecoi stand for em. No Greeks 
 omit em. But copt adds " of length " (rttyiH) after juifi. 
 rtcyo rtCTA^lort ; and continues (instead of to ixtjkos 
 /ecu to irXaros Kai to v\fio<; avr^s icra eari) by ftEJUl 
 TecovHtyci rtejm nectfTci evoi itovgvcoc "with her 
 breadth with her height being equal." 18 39 syr S add 
 aurij? after wXaTos. 
 
 17. After to re^os aur^s £<?j?W supplies " it was found making." 
 No others. Cf. however Prim : murus autem dimensus 
 est. 
 
 ibid. Copt omits irr\x o)V - No others. 
 
 In other words copt makes fieTpov take the place of 
 tttjxov peTpov, for it retains the singular for p.erpov. 
 
 18. H* has a curious variation here, writing ko.i r)v ev Swjuao-i 
 tov t^oks for Kai r)v 77 evSoju/^crts tov Tei^ous. Please note 
 carefully that copt has a totally different way of putting 
 it from the usual Greek and the copt may easily have 
 engendered the expression of N*. Copt adds first "And 
 {the) circuit of the wall — " then proceeds: "the laying 
 foundation was being as an iaspis." Note also gig: 
 "In structura murus ejus" and Anonym: " Et supellex 
 muri et civitas" for the usual " Et erat structura rnuri 
 ejus," or the "et fuit aedificatio muri ejus" of Prim. 
 
 ibid. — avTr]<s by 20 32 59. No Greeks add <us with copt 
 
 but Latins say ex lapide iaspide. 
 ibid. Copt varies again by adding a verb in the next clause, 
 
 saying " And the city was being worked with gold pure 
 
 as glass pure." 
 ibid. For xP V(Tl0V KaOapov the cursives 2i-73-79-ioo-(io3), 
 
 114 write xpvo-Lo> KaOapco, as syr SS xP vo ~ lov xadapov, 
 
 and am " auro mundo " and Prim " ex auro mundo." 
 
 Anonym says "aurum mundum simile vitro mundo." 
 19 init. While N a ABP and over fifty cursives omit k<u, 
 
 N* and copt retain it. 
 ibid. For KeKoo-prjuevoL (omitted by P 92 gig Prim) copt 
 
 introduces earlier [after woXews] " (are) built out of" 
 
 evKHT e&o?\ £>ert . Cf. Tick, 
 ibid. The coptic order is \iQw iravn rijuiw. No Greeks thus. 
 ibid. For npwTos N writes eU [see xxi. 9]. Copt is rfgoYJ'i" • 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 87 
 
 j)co P t gj ves numerals for the stones instead of writing 
 in full. X gr begins this at the third stone, 
 xxi. 19. Kapxyhajv (pro ^aX/cr^Swv) 35-68 (Mat 87). So copt. 
 
 20. totto,8lov X gr *. So D copt N copt . Other coptic mss. give 
 XonA.Tiort, and ^.onA.2uorr, and one ^.A.no2^iorr . 
 Observe that it is D copt with N which goes exactly with 
 N gr , and D copt has been running with X gr in using numerals. 
 
 ibid. Some coptic mss. invert the order of the tenth and 
 eleventh stones. Not so N gr nor other Greeks. 
 
 ibid. KYConA.pA.coc A copt . Others ^cpiconpACOC , and 
 other variations. 
 
 ibid. X gr * writes ap.tQvo-nvo<i, perhaps conflating greek and 
 copt, for while Gr is ajxeOvcro^ (X a etc.) or ajote^ucrros, copt 
 says AAieeiToc AEF*G*N 2 or AJLtt&lCTOC the rest. 
 
 21. Again the conjunction of N 65 alone of Greeks witnesses 
 to coptic conditions by omitting SwSe/fa secund. exactly as 
 copt : " And the twelve gates of pearl." Copt adds 
 ftOYAI NOYAI (ava ets eKacrros) and closes the sentence, 
 omitting ratv ttvXcovuv yjv ef evos p-apyapirov. This K 
 does not agree to, nor do others. Only syr S says eis ava. 
 ets" Kan eKacrTos punctuating thus but continuing with the 
 Greeks. But Prim supports the coptic exactly. 
 
 Thus N 65 seem to witness independently to part of 
 the Coptic, while the Latin as represented by Prim 
 witnesses to the rest ! 
 ibid. For ws vaXos hia<f>avr)<; copt has HcJ>pH't" rtOVA.fi.A-XH IWI 
 eqepovcjuim. 
 
 22. ovk ecSov vaov is the copt order. No Greeks nor Latins. 
 ibid. X says on o ku/hos o Oeos for o yap /cuptos o #eo?. Not 
 
 copt — noc VAp cj>"i" but three coptic mss. BEF drop 
 the VAp . None introduce with xe , and salt is still 
 missing. 
 ibid. Copt, as often, says neJH nig!H& for /«h to apviov. 
 
 23. — tou a»/£ rjXtou et ante cre\rjvq<; gr 100 = Latt. Copt 
 has the strong article before moon but not before sun. 
 
 ibid. — ev (ante avrrj) most Greeks. Cf. copt. 
 
 ibid. + ea-Ti (ante to apvtov) 41 syr S gig et latt. Cf. copt ne. 
 
 24. "And the nations shall walk from (eRoTs £>ert) her 
 light." Cf. Greeks against the textus receptus. 
 
 ibid. Copt uses tcov eOvcov for avrcov with 34-35-68 (hat 87) 
 
88 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 [in fact some Coptic mss. add avrmv] and B and fifty 
 cursives, but does not with the B group add avnw after 
 fapovo-Lv, but in this respect goes with the other uncials. 
 Copt nejui +TIJU.H opposes NAP etc. which omit. 
 
 (&A commences early inverse 24 and omits the nations 
 and /ecu ttjv TijATjv.} 
 xxi. 25. For -rrvXwpes curr^s (— 01) of 46-88-101 Er Aid Col 57 
 cf. rtecnY?sum copt. The boh follows Gr. order here 
 but sah places re rfGcnY^curf after ov fir) KXeiadcocrLv. 
 ibid. For rifiepaq copt writes UniegoOY supplying the 
 article. No Greeks vary rjfjLepas except N* = rjfiepa 
 (and 100 = vvktos). This r^xepa appears to be the 
 equivalent of Latin die by Prim and Anonym. Others 
 say per diem as gig and vg. As regards wktos of 1 00, two 
 coptic mss. A mg F add rtGjmnjexcjupg after Uniegoov. 
 ibid. For w£ yap following, copt has OYOg Kite exxopg, , but 
 
 other mss. supply r<\p. 
 26. In a note Horner says omit this verse B copt " cf. gr. 1." 
 This almost implies that gr. 1 omits, and indeed Er 1 2 
 3 Aid Col and 57 do omit. Delitzsch explained that 
 this was due in the Erasmus edition (Del. Hand- 
 schriftliche Funde, Heft 1, p. 51) to confusion with the 
 commentary but that Apoc 1 has the verse. 
 ibid. Copt has a different order here from Greek both in boh 
 and sah which vary. 
 
 For kcu oiaovui (32 alone varies with rj^ovai) ttjv 
 Sofav Kai ttjv Tip.rjv Twv tOvoiv eus avTrjv, boh writes 
 evemi (ms. A and text Horner evei) rocertieeitoc 
 UnoYcuoY (ms. A and text rtEjui jtoycjuoy) rtejm 
 novrvuo e^cmt epoc , and sah : rtce xi egovrt epoc 
 ItneooY rtjut rrr<Meo rt rtgeertoc. 
 
 In both cases "the nations" occupies a different 
 position from that in the Greek. (Two Gr mss. 98 and 
 102 omit Tcov e6va)v.) 
 
 For the initial eve I of boh cf. + wa eicreXtfwo-i of B and 
 fifty cursives at the end of the verse. 
 27. While sah has /ecu init., copt goes without it. Copt says 
 " Anything defiled (eqcuuq) shall not enter her with 
 those who make defilements (rcgAftcaiq)," and continues, 
 eliding koll tert. and enlarging the clause " Falsehood 
 
OF THE B0HAIRIC VERSION. 89 
 
 shall not come into her." Sah is somewhat different. 
 The Greeks hardly vary. But cf. N*, who has alone 
 ko.1 o iTOiCJo-ei for koll ttoiovv, to gig's " quod facit " 
 (against faciens of the other Latins). This with coptic 
 construction and Latin sympathy in previous verse 25 
 rjfiepa by X* {die) seems definitely to connect X* with 
 copt and latin under his very eye. 
 xxi. 27. For ei fir) copt [non sah~\ has efi.H2s eftH ("except they 
 who"). 
 
 ibid. For yeypa.ji.iLe.voi 3 1 47 84 have eyyeypap.p.e.voi. Cf copt 
 " written on the book of life (gi mxuuJU.)." 
 
 ibid. Now occurs something not to be neglected in our con- 
 siderations. For tf writes ovvov for apviov fin. Surely 
 this is a commentary on our contention. We have 
 spoken of the sound of the words under the eye of the 
 scribe of X both in Latin and coptic as well as in Greek, 
 and have entered in spirit into the scribe's work fifteen 
 hundred years ago as we sat with him at his work. As 
 he copied so he repeated to himself mentally as any 
 copyist does. Here is the proof of the mental process 
 at work, writing ovpavov for apviov, although no authori- 
 ties vary at this place, and none of our other Greeks 
 have done this, easy as it is to do. 
 xxii. 1. — Ka.9a.pov KABP and forty cursives = copt and latin. 
 Latins, as coptic, say later : splendidum sicut cristallum, 
 but Prim and Vigil Taps here say candidum, and Fulg 
 once splendidum and once candidum. Anonym omits the 
 word altogether, while syr S doubles it at this place : 
 KaOapov /cat Xap-npov ws, as greek 18. 
 
 ibid. X alone omits tov before Qpovov = Latin, not coptic = 
 nieportoc . 
 2. Copt "on this side and on that " = CAJiirf <s.l rreju. 
 C<sjmrf <M . X omits evrevdev sec. but also gvXov £0775 
 following, without authority. 
 
 For the /line et inde of gig, other Latins substitute ex 
 tUraqiie parte. 
 
 ibid. For ttoiovv Kapwovs SmSeKa copt says " bringing the 
 twelve fruits forth " (ecjm 1 Hm lE H OYTAg, E&o?\). 
 
 ibid. For Kara jxrjva eva copt says " one for a month " (oYA.1 
 *)<5lP&. [some mss. k<vta] <S.£.ot), [cf. 56], omitting 
 
90 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 altogether the clause eKao-rov curoSiSow tov Kapvov avrov. 
 
 No Greeks. X has Kara prqva a7roSi8ous (— tva) reading 
 
 with Latins per singulos menses reddens. 
 xxii. 2. Copt [non salt] says " and the leaves of the tree for an 
 
 healing the eyes of the nations." No others. N omits 
 
 roiv before edvcov (alone) = latt. 
 3. For KaTaOeixa. (KaravaOefia receptus) copt uses cujq (as in 
 
 xxi. 27 for koivovv and gAftccuq /3Se\iry/ia). X* writes 
 
 kclt ay p.a. 
 ibid. — tov (ante 0eov) copt. No Greeks. 
 ibid, corai ev avrr) 18. So copt. 
 ibid. After Kai o 6povo<s tov 0eov /cai tov apviov carat ev avTT) 
 
 copt adds " And anger shall not be." No Greeks. 
 ibid. Copt \non sah~\ introduces the last clause with &.?\?\&. . 
 ibid, tov 6eov (pro avrov) 7-45-104 47 92 = copt [not sah 
 
 nor Latins]. 
 5. — e/cet B etc. ; en (pro e/cet) NAP 35-68 56 65 108** 
 
 (io8**=56) latt, with copt which expresses it mte 
 
 e^uupg cytuni xe. 
 ibid. Copt expresses /cat sec. and &r/. by ov2ve . No Greeks, 
 
 but Prim and some Latins. 
 «&#. + ev avrr) copt after \vyyov (rc*>HTc). No Greeks. 
 z<fo/. 4- (fiwTos (ante \vyyov) KA 18 47 56 80 108** syr S. \ 
 4- <£cus ante \vyyov 21-73-79-100-103 65, J 
 
 and " lumen lucernae " gig and Latins. 
 
 This becomes an exceedingly interesting coptic-latin 
 
 place because k^htc of the coptic mss. ACD mg EFG*N 
 
 is written by the change of one letter only rt*)Hfi.c by 
 
 copt mss. BD*G C HZ with T l ; the former representing ev 
 
 avTrj and the latter approximating the addition here of 
 
 the small but important graeco-latin group as above. 
 
 Perhaps someone can explain away this significant 
 
 graeco-coptic-latin affiliation. I cannot. It involves 
 
 doubling the Xv^vov. Reading as NA etc. <£wtos Xv)(vov, 
 
 lumine lucernae vg Anonym, luce lucernae Ambr 1/3, or 
 
 <f>a)<; Xv^yov 2 1 etc. gig Prim, 
 ibid, eir avTovs for clvtovs XA 18 35-68 (hiat 87) gig Prim 
 
 Ambr Anon. Cf. epcuov copt (epoov sah) which can 
 
 be confused for epo the preposition. 
 
 [To show how easily confusion can occur I caught 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 9 1 
 
 myself writing epovpo for epuuov above, reading two 
 words further on evE epovpo "they shall reign."] 
 xxii. 5. eis tov auova tov auwvos 12 40. Cf. copt ets aioiva. tov 
 aiavos (ujAerreg, rrreruerfeg,). 
 
 6. 4- otj before ovtol 56 and 108** = copt and sah + 2te . 
 ibid. Copt amplifies to three attributes, saying " These words 
 
 are faithful (ceitgOT) and they are holy (and) they are 
 true (gArmeejmHi)." 
 
 Note the gloss in 12 21-73-79-100-103, but none 
 add ayioi. 
 
 In 12 21-73-79-100-103 the order is akrqOivoi /cai 
 maroi. 
 
 ibid. + o {ante Kvpios) NA 35 58 72 92 syr S. Cfcoptnac. 
 
 ibid. TTvev/xaTcov tcov for ay toiv by XABP and most cursives is 
 agreed to by copt and sah, while the Egyptian group 
 34-35-68 (Jiiat 87) and syr S conflate with ra>v vveviiarajv 
 Twv ayitov against the other Greeks and Latins. 
 
 ibid. 4- ju.e {ante tov ayyekov) N* 26-41-42 53 107 only. 
 That is to say these codices wish to read: "And the 
 Lord God sent me his angel to show to his servants the 
 things which must shortly come to pass." Now this 
 occurs nowhere else nor in the Latins. But the coptic 
 shows an ax here = Hrfeq<s.rre?\oc , and Goussen's sah 
 actually writes iTjui6ineqA.rre?\OC . Could anything be 
 more interesting as to X* in such a connection, when we 
 see this had nothing to do with the Latins ? Whence 
 could this come except via the copt or sah ? It is not 
 present in syr S. Gwynn does not quote it for the mss. 
 of syr 2, but Tisch. quotes syr with N* from syr sA , which 
 has very definitely " misit me, me angelum suum." No 
 doubt this is late, following copt. [See Gwynn else- 
 where on Apoc. version among the Syrian churches, 
 " Remnants of the later Syriac versions."^ 
 
 7. " Lo I come lo I come quickly " some copt mss. (not 
 sah) and no Greeks or Latins. 
 
 ibid. TAj(;v sah, but ny^uSteix copt. 
 
 ibid. " the words of this prophecy of this book." So sah and 
 copt. Cf. gig " verba libri prophetie hujtis " against 
 other Latins "verba prophetiae libri hujus." No Greeks 
 add Taurus to tijs vpo(j>r)Tei.as. 
 
92 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xxii. 8. — /cat copt and sah with syr S and some Latins am fu 
 lips 6 . No Greeks. 
 ibid. For o fiXeircov ravTa «m olkovcov, K and twenty-seven 
 cursives with jryr S and Dionys write o ftkeircov /cat olkovcov 
 ravTa, while AB and nearly all others put olkovcov first: 
 " o olkovcov /cat fiXevcov ravTa " with Latin order. Copt 
 and sah go with X. G?// uses "He who saw and he 
 who heareth these things." Cf. latt " audivi et vidi " 
 (in the other order) but syr S " e/3A.ei|/a /cat rjKovaa." 
 Gr 1 8 is the only one to use the article twice with copt, 
 but that ms. gives the other order o olkovcov /cat o fiXeircov 
 
 TOLVTOL. 
 
 ibid. For the /cat ore rjKovcra /cat e/3\ei/»a following, copt [not 
 sah~\ says " Then (to"T6) having heard and having seen 
 these things!' 
 
 Note " Et postquam" of gig vg and some Latins. 
 Sah merely says A.Ytu AJft<W epoov . 
 + ore a second time B gr etc. may be compared to copt 
 exAiccuTEJU . . . eT<Mrr<vr . 
 
 tolvtcl here finds no agreement among Greeks. 
 «'&#. — Trpoo-KvvrjcraL copt, using the regular " I threw my- 
 self down " for eirecra. 
 ibid. For Sclkwovtos /jlol copt says " who showed to me." No 
 Greeks, but equals Latin " qui mihi ista ostendit," or 
 ostendebat. 
 9. Copt ItHl 2£E Jiic|>CXjp AltOK OYJiJ<J>Hp URuJK TrTAK 
 losing the yap with tf AB and most. 
 ibid. 4- eyco 4-20-48-74 31-106 32 34. So copt A.rtOK as 
 
 above. 
 
 ibid. " Worship God " in this order copt. No Greeks follow 
 
 nor Latins \_gig is wanting]. Sah omits the words, but 
 
 continues with verse 10 init. Gig skips the words and 
 
 the first part of verse 10 to /3t/3A.toi; tovtov with gr 98 102. 
 
 1 o. et7re pro Xeyei syr S and 2). Cf. copt sah nE2f A.q . 
 
 ibid. 4- rourous /^/ Xoyous N*. Not to/^, but £^ adds 
 
 Tavrrjs after Xoyous to apply to npocfrrjTeLas. 
 ib.d. o /catpo? yap (— ort) XAB etc. So «>/>/ and .ra/z and 
 some Latins. 
 11. 4- Kat of 34-35-68 (Mat 87) syr S /Vz'w is «#/ agreed to 
 by copt nor sah nor other Latins. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 93 
 
 xxii. ii. — €ti sec. copt [non salt] ; — en prim. Cypr Anonym 
 Prim sah [non copf\. No others omit. 
 ibid. — kcu {in primo loco) copt [non sah~\. 
 ibid. — /ecu sec. {ante o Si/ccuos) copt [non saJi\. 
 ibid. — en {tert. et quart. ) Cypr et copt [non sah~\ ( — en tert. 
 gr 41 non al.). 
 
 12. init. — kcu NAB etc. So copt and .?#/£. 
 tbtd. — kcu stff. cc^/ [non sah nee al.~\. 
 
 tbid. For airohowai eKacrra) cos to epyov avTOV earcu C<5^>/ 
 says "I will give to each one according to his works" 
 (kata rteqg&HOYi copt, kata neqgouR sah). This 
 " Kara ra epya avrov " is borne out by the group 21-73- 
 79-100-103 and syr S. 
 
 The Sacra) of copt = teat Bcoaco syr S, ut reddam gig 
 [al. reddere]. Notice that X* with airoSodiqvai (alone for 
 aTToSovvai) keeps in the Latin company (apart from gig) 
 and does not render Kara etc. as we might expect with 
 Copt sah 2 1 etc. 
 
 13. — ei/u NAB and most Greeks. Copt and sah have ne. 
 ibid. Copt says 3\itOK ne ni<*2\4>A. rtejn muu "i^pxH next 
 
 rwxcjuK e&o^\. 
 
 6#/2 says ^rtoK ne a.?\cJ>a a.you cju ntyopiT aycju ng^e 
 
 Thus tc^/ elides o TrpcaTos kcu o eo-yaTos altogether. 
 No others ; but NAB give the sahidic order with syr 
 and latt. A gr elides 6 before 77/301x05, writing rrpcoTos k<xl 
 ecr^aros 77 apXV Kal T0 TeXos. 
 
 14. NA both go to the sahidic here with 38, for they write 
 01 irXwovres ras aroXas olvtcov for oi 7roiowTes ras £*>ToX.as 
 avrov, while 56 108** conflate, giving both readings. 
 Cc^>/ is plain for " do (or keep) his commandments," 
 with all other Greeks, Tertullian, Cyprian, gigas, syriac. 
 The vulgate goes with NA 38 sah and Fulgentius, 
 replacing Primasius here. I do not therefore consider 
 this a pure sahidic reading of NA, for it was fairly wide- 
 spread and may have come from Latin, but it must be 
 taken into consideration in balancing the evidence. 
 Rather a pretty point in this connection is given by the 
 greek MS. 59 which has cfrvXaaaovTes (for Troiov^res) with 
 three coptic mss. ; 59 has been with us often. And 
 
94 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 observe 34-35-68 oppose NA 38. Copt adds iravres 
 without Greek support, 
 xxii. 14. /ecu (pro iva) 41-42. Cf. sah 2fe, while copt has glftA. . 
 ibid. As to order of 35-68 t] efoucrta avrcov carat £/. copt 
 
 and m£. 
 z'^. As to wo, (gmA. «//) or ws (x& Wz) see X* which 
 actually conflates both readings, here, writing : 
 01 tt\vvovt&; ras 
 CTToXas avTav iva 
 carat r\ etjovena avT<a 
 ws Se 17 efoucria e77t 
 
 TO £v\oV TTj<i tfiiTfi. 
 
 ibid. Greeks do not vary the order, but copt says " and they 
 shall go into the city by the gate " (ovog, eyej±je e^ovrt 
 E^-ftAKi e&o?\ *>Eit ninv^suoit) while sah = ayuj 
 itceKcoK egoYit giTrt UnY?\H egovrt et no?\ic. 
 
 6jyr S gives ra ttvKcdvi. Latt " per portas." 
 
 15. — Se KAB and eighty cursives, but not copt nor sah. 
 ibid, /cat 01 ttoiovvtcs to xpevSos (—0 (fuXcov Kai) 1 8 only with 
 
 £^/ (all mss.) ; while sah has itH ovoft rfljm ETEips 
 jvrou etjue i!ntfo7\ . 
 
 This order of ttohov Kai fyikwv is given by XB, o ttoiojv 
 Kai (piXav by 4-20-48-64-74 31-106 32 34, and o ttouov 
 koli o (f>ika)v by 35—68. 
 
 6V^, apparently alone of Latins, goes with them "qui 
 facit et amat." 
 
 Syr says fiXeiraiv Kai itolcou keeping the order of the 
 majority of Greeks and Latins but substituting fiXeircDv. 
 The seat- of the variations must therefore be very ancient. 
 
 16. Copt says "these words" for raura (rtitAICAXl) . No 
 Greeks. But sah — grt rtA.1 . 
 
 ibid, ev (pro «ri) A and 18 21-73-79-80-100-103 38 56- 
 108**, all interesting cursives ; so Latins, copt *)Ert and 
 sah git. Twenty cursives, headed by 1, omit eni 
 altogether. 
 
 ibid. — tov (ante Sao) XAB and most with copt. 
 
 ibid. + Kai (ante o ao-rrjp) over twenty cursives, including 
 34-35-68, syr and copt (riEJUi) sah (aycu), but not 
 Latins nor Greek uncials which here go with them and 
 oppose copt and syr. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 95 
 
 xxii. 1 6. For o \ap.Trpos o irpawos (t. r. kcu op9pivo<i is not legi- 
 timate) of most, copt says "which riseth in the morning." 
 Sah = Timt&Y HgToove 6TO HoYoem . As to copt 
 compare 35, which, alone apparently, writes o Trpauvos 
 leaving out o Xap-Trpos. 
 
 17. X omits the articles before Trvtvpa and vvp-^y). Consider 
 copt (all mss. apparently) which runs the beginning of 
 verse 17 on to the end of verse 16, thus : rtejm nit A. item 
 "t-JAJe^ET. Ovog, C6XUJ Jixtxoc .... Sah differently : 
 A.YOU ne nrta. rtjut Ttye^seeT ce2tcoIijuioc. X however 
 seems distinctly to savour of Latin here " Et spiritus et 
 sponsa." And no other Greeks omit. 
 
 ibid. Copt and sah emphasize " Come " by xe A.JLIOY on both 
 
 occasions. 
 ibid. — kcu (ante o OeXwv) KAB and most with copt, not sah. 
 ibid. — to {ante vBa>p) XAB and most. So copt and sah. 
 
 18. p-aprvpo) eyco (pro (7vp,p.apTvpovfjiaL yap) AB and most 
 = copt. (it writes 77 fxapTvpot eyco. Copt and sah words 
 for fxaprvpo) begin with "f~ . Cf. x. 1 77 6pi% pro ipis X* 
 [«?// "ftpic].) 
 
 «'&#. + tw (<z«/£ a/couoi'Ti) NAB and most. Cf. copt itOYOIt 
 itlReit GTCUJTeiU. very definitely and cf. Prim " omnes 
 qui audiunt " against usual Latin " omni audienti." 
 
 ibid. + tciuttjs (ante r^s irpo^Tireias) copt and sah as usual. 
 
 ibid. Copt (and sah + 2fe) " That he who will add to them, 
 God will add to them the plagues which are written on 
 this book." 
 
 The Gr mss. are rather confused here. 
 1 9 init. 4>H ^.e copt. All Greeks /ecu and sah with Latins Et. 
 
 ibid. + tovtcov (post Xoycov) H (as before) while copt adds 
 tovtov to /3t/3\tou and raurris to ttis irpo(j>7)Teia.<;. Some 
 cursives (21-73-79-80-100-103 25-58-78-84-94 62- 
 63-72 75**) write : ttis TrpotyrjTeias tov /3(,/3Ai.ou toutou 
 agreeing partially with copt. 
 
 ibid, tov £v\ov pro /3i/3\ov sec. NAB and most (with sah) but 
 copt holds to " book " (nscuujm) with textus receptus and 
 exceedingly few Greeks but some Latins. 
 
 Here Latin and Coptic come very strong against Sah 
 and Greek. But ^«^ (Goussen) really writes cyHff not 
 eye = horttts ? or silva arbortcm, rather than ^vkov. 
 
96 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 ibid. — e/f A 10 38 must be taken into account against 
 Latins (de civitate) and the rest, and sah e&o?\ g,rt 
 Tno^stc but can be accounted for in copt, which says 
 rfexi -^Raki eeoY<sJl . 
 xxii. 19. — ko.1 ult. NAB and nearly all = also copt "which are 
 written." 
 
 ibid. For yeypap-iievcov read eyyeypafievcov with 35-68 (hiat 87 
 [noti 34]) for the equivalent of coptic " written upon this 
 book." " 
 
 20. Copt for : vat ep^o/tai To-yy afjarjv says " They will happen 
 and they come quickly." Note, X* has e«>ax before vai, 
 reading eivai vai c.pypp,o.i Tayv, also omitting ap-qv with 
 copt and 18 62-63-72 65 syr S gig. The euvcu might be 
 a mistake, but as 18 65 join in omitting ap.r)v it might 
 well be that X had a corrupt text before him, for, as 
 Horner says in a note as to this Coptic sentence, " the 
 text is probably corrupt." 
 
 ibid. — vai sec. NAB and some cursives. So syrS gig and 
 
 copt. 
 ibid. For Kvpie t,r)crov copt has " our Lord Jesus Christ" 
 
 (nertoc ihc n^c). Add xp lcrT€ ^ a an d nearly forty 
 
 cursives. 
 
 Sah rather different : nxoeic Ic. 
 
 2 1 . Although sah is close to the usual text with : TE^A-pic 
 juneitxoeic 7c itH rfeTOY<s^R THpov g<JUUHit, 
 omitting yjpia-rov with NA 10 26-41-42-53-107 47 56- 
 108** (but not omitting ttclvtcov as do N gig) Coptic 
 is quite free and novel, continuing as from verse 20 fin. 
 thus : 
 
 " upon all the saints unto age of the ages." 
 True, Toiv aymv = XB and most cursives, but 17 x a P ts 
 tov Kvpiov irjcrov is completely omitted and eis aion/a tcdv 
 auovoiv added, and this seems to be the reading of all 
 Horner's coptic codices except one. Note that gig says 
 " supra sanctos " for p,era ttolvtojv vp.uv or p,era ttclvtcov 
 roiv ayuav. A curious ending by copt in view of the 
 wording of the last few verses ! 
 
 Copt omits ajju7)v with only A 21-73-79-80-81 58* 
 59—67 gig, but sah has it. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 97 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON LATIN, AND SHORT 
 EXCURSUS ON SYRIAC. 
 
 As to the Latin being underlying— -by that I mean the product 
 of a trilingual executed originally outside of Egypt and Africa — 
 we have the silent witness of St. Jerome, who in his Vulgate of the 
 Apoc. gives us readings agreeing with Gwynn's Syriac, Coptic, and 
 certain Greek mss. in combination, yet not present in other Latin 
 mss. which have reached us. In fact, the self-same phenomena 
 are to be observed here as those to which I have alluded in the 
 Gospel quotations of St. Jerome [see Apoc. xv. 3, xix. 20, etc.']. 
 
 And the Syriac appears basic. We have devoted considerable 
 attention to Dean Gwynn's expose of his Syriac ms. formerly in 
 the library of Lord Crawford, and although we cannot speak at 
 great length on the subject here, yet we will say a few words, for 
 it appears to go behind X, Gigas' latin, and behind both Coptics, 
 and if it does not represent an Aramaic base, it looks at least to 
 be a very old graeco-syriac recension. 
 
 Besides lying behind X, gigas, and coptic, it has impressed 
 itself in a most remarkable manner on certain very important 
 greek cursives which have not been examined hitherto, such as 
 18 40 46 56 59 119, and which will be published by me very 
 shortly, I hope ; besides 36 38, already partially known, which are 
 in the same case. And we can show precisely the same 
 phenomena of renderings and readings in these cursives, which 
 must result only from overflow of Syriac and Latin in its earliest 
 stages on the parents of these mss. just as on the elder uncials 
 XA. In fact, some of the matters involved border on translation 
 or retranslation into Greek. Thus, at that very polyglot place 
 where there was some basic error, 59 actually says ra apxcua 
 for to. 7fpwra (xxi. 4). It may be remembered that syr S says 
 to. irpocroma for ra Trpwra and X* to. npo^ara ! the Latins varying 
 between prima (Iren vg etc), pristina (gig),priora {Prim and Auct 
 de prom). But the whole place is very involved, X substituting on 
 for en sec, AP 59 65 67 81 114 omitting cm, and syr S saying 
 ouSe ttovos eorcu ert eirc ra irpocrcjira avnjs, while copt adds at end 
 " lo all things will become new." 
 
 In writing my Introduction to ApojQ. 18, years ago, I find that 
 I said " The original text of 18 may have preceded all our uncials." 
 
 H 
 
98 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 This was long before Dean Gwynn had uncovered the readings of 
 syr S. One's impressions thus are worth recording at the time, 
 for in 1908 when I began to compare the results of my Greek 
 collations up to Apoc. 106, I found that 18 had the strongest 
 syr S sympathy and was alone with that ms. many times. 
 
 Dean Gwynn says of syr S, " It has strength and freedom such 
 as few translations attain ; such in fact that (with the help of such 
 examples as I have brought together in Appendix F) it would not 
 be difficult to make out a plausible case for accepting it as the 
 Aramaic original or a close reproduction of an Aramaic original 
 of the Book ..." 
 
 We are now face to face with what was pre-syrian. We know 
 there was a pre-alexandrian and a pre-coptic. But was there a 
 pre-syrian and a pre-western ? Or have we not now narrowed 
 the matter down to syriac and western (i.e. latin) being the same 
 as the original Greek, from which sprang the other variations ? 
 
 Dean Gwynn in his admirable " depouillement " of the Craw- 
 ford Syriac of the Apoc. has carefully brought the matter to a head 
 in his notice in Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy (vol. 
 xxx., Part x., 1893, pp. 415/18), reaching much the same con- 
 clusions as I am doing as to the Latin. 
 
 If we have traces of apparent syriac and latin originals, or 
 such authoritative contemporary versions which can be classed as 
 such, many difficulties disappear, and the practical agreement of 
 Coptic Syriac and Latin in the Apoc. and elsewhere goes a long 
 way towards solving the problem. 
 
 The Western and Eastern, i.e. Latin and Syriac, transfer 
 themselves at the outset of the text history to African soil. They 
 imbed themselves there, but return — mutilated and disfigured — to 
 Syria, the Greek Archipelago, Magna Graecia, Italy, Gaul, and 
 England, where Africanisms and degenerations are incorporated 
 and sometimes wrongly identified with these countries instead of 
 with Africa and early African translators and writers. 
 
 Dean Gwynn is impressed by the fine character of the version 
 of the Crawford Syriac, as the rest of us are (or should be) by the 
 similar fine flavour of the Old Latin gigas version (of Acts and 
 Apoc.) = Ltuifer = a text current considerably earlier than 
 Lucifer himself. Wiseman considered Sardinia, the home of 
 Lucifer, to equal Africa, but this gigas version = Lucifer = 
 Sardinia shows rather that it was western, and probably the 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 99 
 
 purest survival of the original Latin rendering. Gigas' latin is 
 inferior in the Apoc. to that of the Acts, but gloria et imperium 
 for 7] So^a ko.1 to Kparo's (Apoc. i. 6) certainly has an imperial ring 
 (we cannot properly say western), while Fleury has claritas et 
 potestas, which is colourless. 
 
 Now what can we learn further from Crawford Syriac, Gigas, 
 and Graeco-latin and Greek mss. ? 
 
 The reaction of syr on gig is so marked that we need not 
 dwell on it. 
 
 Sometimes the indeterminate plural is followed, as at xviii. 23, 
 the unusual ev rats ^ap/xa/ceiais = gig : in veneficiis. Often it is 
 not followed. No Greeks thus. 
 
 Even the dropping of eV in the Latin can be traced to this 
 source (xviii. 23 again) by C gr and syr S alone. So gig: lucebit 
 libi, where there is no place for lv. 
 
 Reaction of Latin is perhaps well shown at xix. 5 aii/ewe rou 
 Oeov by most Greeks, but aiveire to) 0eco by NCABP and some 
 cursives (9 14 27 36 41-42 43 53 6j 73 79 82 92 103 108), or 
 laudem dicite Deo by gig vg and most Latins for laudate Deum of 
 Prim. Everywhere else in the N.T. where aivea or iirauveca is 
 used the accusative follows without variation among Greeks as 
 also in the Latin. 
 
 Even at xix. 15 the syriac seems sure for avrm instead of avrrj. 
 Gwynn hesitates, but our codices 16 and 38 witness for avTa, 
 falsely of course, from ipso or eo of the Latin to agree with gladius 
 acutus, whereas in the Greek it has to agree with po/jL<f>at.a o£eia. 
 
 Irenaeus translator got over this by graecising "gladius 
 acutus " and writes : " Et de ore ejus procedit romphaea acuta ut 
 in ea percutiat gentes." 
 
 So at xxi. 4 a curious little case appears. Text. rec. gives the 
 slightly redundant negative clause ovt€ ttovos ovk ecrrai en. The 
 Syriac removes the ovk. The style of the Latin necessitates this 
 and so gigas writes "neque dolor erit amplius" (other Latins all 
 vary slightly). The omission of ovk is not observed in the Greeks. 
 
 We might also attribute to reflex action the tov aiajva of X 
 syr S and % from the Latin plural saecula, as we can see actually 
 occurs in some of our graeco-latin cursives. This may be via 
 Coptic for X however. 
 
 Latin and syriac draw together at : 
 ii. 25. Greek is : T\\r\v ex 6Te «paTrjaaTe 
 
 H 2 
 
where mare intrudes 
 
 in gig and h 
 although retaining 
 
 IOO CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 but Syr = o ovv ex €Te KpaTrjcrare 
 
 Prim = Sed quod habetis tenete 
 gig. vg = Tamen id quod habetis tenete 
 harl = Tamen quod habetis tenete 
 xv. I. syr S aXActs pro ra<; cabarets ) 
 cf. h ; " illas novissimas " J 
 
 xvi. 3. Gr. K.0.1 eyevero aipa <us veKpov 
 
 syr. S koli eyevero 77 0a\aacra <us veKpos\ 
 gig et factum est mare sanguis sicut 
 mortui 
 h et factum est mare velut mortuis 
 sanguis 
 xix. 9. Gr. KeKkrjfitvoi. 
 
 syr latt. vocati sunt. 
 Until reaching Apoc. 106 we left Gwynn's Syriac and the Latin 
 representatives severely alone, so as not to imbibe any bias in 
 dealing with our Greek mss. Our families were then, however, 
 sufficiently grouped for us to proceed further and to begin to 
 handle an intensely interesting development of the problem. 
 
 There are a great many "new" readings which stand out in 
 an examination of the Crawford ms. But this does not complicate 
 the problem to-day, for we can prove most of them to be mere 
 errors. Without a thorough examination of the cursives, as well 
 as of the uncials and Versions, we might lend undue weight to 
 some of these readings. But now that we can identify, as we do, 
 the groups 21-28-73-79-103 with 25-58-70-78-84-94 as pure 
 family mss. tracing to syr S or its ancestor, and observe such close 
 connection with X 18 and 36 and 38 and 40, 114 and 1 19-123, 
 and the group 34-35-68—87 in different places, we feel quite sure 
 that these novelties of syr S merit but scant attention. 
 
 Gwynn has helped us mightily, for he is one of the most careful, 
 painstaking, and thorough men in this department. True, some 
 of his references to the cursives are imperfect, but he was only 
 copying what others gave as to these, and could not follow up all 
 the clues which a more thorough examination of them reveals. 
 To him 35 and 87 were mere mss. of single and slight independent 
 force I ; the same with 14-92 or any others. "One other ms. 
 
 ■f So closely are the Syriac and Egyptian related that it used to be considered 
 that 28 and 87 were almost one ms., whereas 87 really belongs to the Egyptian 
 group 34-35-68-87, and 28 belongs to the syriac group 21-28-73-79-103. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 10 1 
 
 reads thus " conveys nothing. But when, after examining scores 
 and scores of mss., we narrow down such mss. to certain defined 
 groups, their testimony begins to assume a corelative force which 
 is of immense importance in these problems. 
 
 Thus the i group, now grown quite large, shows from com- 
 parison with syr S that we are right in assuming the whole group 
 to be syriac, and very old at that. It develops, however, that the 
 ms. 46=88=101 is the purest representative of the group, followed 
 by 59 and 62/3 which reproduce things which 46 had abandoned. 
 And so it goes. 
 
 12, for instance, a member of the 1 group, but a trifle outside 
 the regular ranks, comes in often in such a way that with its 
 graeco-latin immediate derivation we are really face to face with 
 a very old trilingual version, syriac, latin, greek running 
 side by side, if indeed we might not go further and speak of a 
 fourfold version embracing coptic as well. For the 34 group 
 draws syriac, latin, and coptic very close, as do the 21 group and 
 the 25-58-70-78-84-94 group. 
 
 34-35-68-87 savours often strongly of Latin, and then runs to 
 K.a.pyyy!>o>v at xxi. 19 with copt.\ 
 
 As to syr Gwynn notes at ix. 17 v<xkwQov 6et.<i>&r), but says 
 
 f Besides the numerous Greek words throughout the coptic language, we must 
 not forget that there are quite numerous Latin words used, and used in such a way 
 (comparatively rare as they are) as to be exceedingly suggestive of Latin intercourse 
 and Latin influence in Egypt. 
 
 For besides graeco-latin words, as 
 
 2\A.KKOC (lacus, XcJkkos) 
 CYTTIA. (uncia, ovyyla) 
 J1E?\A.V0C (pelagus, iri\ayo%) 
 we have the extremely suggestive 
 
 CKptftouit 
 
 a messenger 
 
 (scribo) 
 
 
 CTp^TA. 
 
 a street 
 
 (stratus) 
 
 
 CpOCCA. 
 
 a fosse 
 
 (fossa) 
 
 
 2s.ovg 
 
 a general 
 
 (dux) 
 
 
 npeTA. 
 
 a prison 
 
 (praeda, ' 
 
 ' a prey ") 
 
 (for all of which the Copts did not lack Egyptian synonyms) 
 as also RlKTOUp Victor, a proper name 
 
 fi.EpETA.piOC veredarius, a state-courier. 
 Note also nA.FA.rtOC a heathen (fr : paien, lat : paganus, incola pagi). 
 We need hardly refer to KOYCTOlXlA (Matt, xxvii. 65), which, although a 
 latinism, is imported merely via the Greek Testament. 
 
102 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 literally Kap^qhova deiov. Here the coptic reads vo.kivBwov, but 
 at xxi. 19 Kap)(y)?>a)v. 
 
 Gwynn's careful translation of the Crawford Syriac develops 
 certain very interesting things. 
 
 When we follow 18 or 40 over the ground, we find it 
 established beyond peradventure that they were translating from 
 syriac just as Gwynn was, or using a graeco-syriac very freely. 
 He has been even more careful than they, but the case is given 
 away in toto. 
 
 In the same way, the relation to the 1-46 group, which is 
 essentially a graeco-latin family, convinces us that simultaneously 
 there rested under the eyes of their progenitors both the Syriac 
 and the Latin versions. 
 
 Now there cannot have been a host of single retranslations 
 from Syriac into Greek, nor from Latin into Greek. Thus, 
 perforce, we must return X 18 40 and such mss. to a place deriving 
 from a triglot MS. 
 
 At any rate, we establish beyond doubt that, so far from an 
 examination of the cursives having caused us to wander about 
 among the church recensions of x-xvi th centuries, we have 
 brought the subject round, back of X, back of the IV th century, 
 into the light of the II nd and III rd centuries, and we can debate 
 the matter with far greater clearness than before on that ground. 
 
 The process of proof will be submitted later in all its detail. 
 It has been a grievous matter so to have neglected the cursives, 
 for through their innocent but weighty grouped testimony we can 
 really develop the history of the text throughout all the books of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 We can properly weigh X A and C in the balances, because 
 we have found some weights as early as they themselves with 
 which to weigh them. 
 
 There are several other mss. which intrude sometimes, such as 
 32, 14-92, 8-24, 56, 61-95, 65, 67, 72, 97, 102, 106, besides 1 14 and 
 1 19-123. We can nearly always pick up some information from 
 these codices. Thus at xvi. 8/9 syr S omits a> irvpi at the end of 
 verse 8, and /ecu eKavp,aTLa6r)crav ol avOpomoi from the beginning 
 of verse 9. Gwynn is satisfied that this is due to homoioteleuton 
 in the syriac, and restores the words in his text. What do we 
 find among the Greek mss. which are friendly to this syriac ? 
 Why, 18 omits eu irvpt, only, but 67 omits the rest. So that, 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 103 
 
 between the two mss, we go back to this error. And so on 
 ad infinitum, as will be shown in detail. 
 
 X^ draws from this syriac recension very early, even to the 
 order of words. It is as much syriac as Coptic or Alexandrian. 
 
 C^ is shown to be clearly syriac, and also that hitherto rather 
 indeterminate P^. 
 
 C& with such syriacizers as 1 19-123 now almost reveal an 
 unknown syriac lying further back even than syr S. 
 
 A gr reveals most clearly both syriac and coptic influences. In 
 adding kcu between numerals it shows its graeco-syriac origin 
 before it was copied in Egypt. 
 
 This is not an old story, however it may have been sketched 
 before. For we require the evidence — to be produced in extenso 
 shortly — to appreciate its bearings properly. 
 
 59 favours the purer syriac version (this is confirmed by 
 1 19-123). It also has decided coptic leanings. 
 
 62/3 favours an Egypto-syriac version. 
 
 46-88-101 writes uScm for ev atfiaTt with syriac alone at viii. 7. 
 
 These members of the 1 family are very interesting to follow. 
 The divisions among themselves of the 1 family are most 
 significant of basic and exceedingly early syriac influence. 
 
 106 even shows us a survival of punctuation (iv. 8). Also 36. 
 
 Again, 34-35-68-87 give us e/3\r)dr)<rav with syriac (viii. 7), a 
 record of trouble being left by 62* with " e/SXij." 
 
 Lat-syr-copt meet at i. 11 a [pro 6) and such places. 
 
 The syriac helps us materially at xii. 10, confirming e^\n)6-q of 
 NCABP and many cursives, although no less than 1 10 12 14 17 
 23 3 2 36 37 46-88-101 49 55 59 62/3 67 72 77 91 96 101 oppose 
 with Kare^\y]6y) of textus receptus, and these are all sympathetic 
 codices. They got it probably from their Latin affiliations 
 projechis est or praecipitatus est instead of the usual missus est 
 used elsewhere. 
 
 My examination of the Crawford Syriac and of Gwynn's 
 translation seems to point to an original bilingual graeco-syriac. 
 Otherwise Gwynn's careful translation would not yield so many 
 divergencies unattested by the other witnesses whom we have 
 dragged in, viz. 18 21 28 40 36 38 46 59 62/3 73 79 etc. 
 
 In other words the Crawford syr. does not seem to represent 
 simply- a syriac, but also a greek recension of equal antiquity. 
 Otherwise these sympathetic codices would have reproduced more 
 
104 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 of these syriacisms, which were avoided in the original accompanying 
 Greek version. 
 
 Note then, that outside the errors there are forms not repro- 
 duced by any of our friends. 
 
 Those to which they approach (and there are a good many 
 cases to be observed of this tendency) are due to the very use of 
 the said bilingual by themselves. 
 
 In other words, the MS. of the syriac which has reached us is 
 rather corrupt, as indeed can be seen from such interpolations as 
 " a voice from the ' seventh ' Heaven " (x. 4). 
 
 I believe this graeco-syriac recension perished only since the 
 time of 36. This ms. yields as much as or more than any of the 
 related mss. 
 
 As regards the ancient latin base, anyone who goes deep 
 enough into the subject will see that it is not a question of 
 graecizing Latin at a late date which confronts us, but pure mixture 
 from bilingual and trilingual mss. at the outset. Otherwise many 
 pure Latin forms would have passed over into some Greek mss., 
 whereas in many cases they have not passed into a single Greek ms. 
 xviii. 4. de plaga gig. So, in the singular 1-175 TrXrjyrjs syr S, 
 while all Greeks and Graeco- Latins have ck or airo ray 
 ■n-Xrjycov in the plural, and Latins deplagis. 
 12. preciosum gig. So syr S, equivalent of ti/juov for 
 Tb/xiwraTov of all Greeks and Graeco-Latins. Not only is 
 the superlative absent from gig and syriac, but the case 
 is different, agreeing with vas. 
 1 7. in mari operantur latt for ttjv daKacrcrav epyat,ovrau So 
 syr ev rrj dakacrcFTj epy. 
 
 The above is negative. Consult the positive side : 
 xvi. 9. The Latin aestu magno found its way into the Greek 
 Kav/xaTi fieyaXco of 18 21— 28— 73— 79— 100— 103 for /cawjtia 
 fieya of all the rest. In this connection note that these 
 being syriacizing mss. it follows that the version was 
 trilingual and not only bilingual. See note on the 
 coptic at this place. 
 
 But at xvii. 6 the same Latin construction miracione 
 
 magna did not overflow, 6av(xa [x-eya remaining unchanged 
 
 (except for one graeco-latin 104, which gives the accusative 
 
 Oaviiav /J.eya.p). 
 
 59, on the other hand, is a ms. where, in addition to the old 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 105 
 
 version, the scribe has allowed himself to follow Latin forms 
 sometimes, and we cannot tell exactly whether he is translating 
 as at xvi. 17 eis aepa. (— tov) [alone among mss.] = in aera of gig 
 (against ets tov aepa of some and eiri tov aepa of most) or rendering 
 from a bicolumnar. 
 
 The text of syr S is proved beyond peradventure to be very 
 old. So is gigas. Both go to 250 or earlier. Thus it becomes 
 interesting when we want to establish the existence of a trilingual 
 then, and to date a MS. like 56 (of high importance and very 
 ancient lineage) to find 56 at the same time alone in this chapter 
 (xvi. 14) using a7rao~rjs for oXijs = universi of gigas [others all totius~\. 
 
 Pure retranslation in later times goes overboard also if you 
 consult a place like xviii. 10, 15, where neither the 16 nor 21 groups 
 render tov fiao-aviafxcav for tormentorum, nor do they seek to 
 graecize desertae factae sunt tantae deliciae into anything else but 
 the received TjprjfjLcody] o too-ovtos 7t\.outos, nor render in deliciis 
 vixerunt but by o~Tpr\viao-avTe%. Nor at xvii. 9 is the verb in 
 " Hie est sensus " reproduced in any Greek mss. 
 
 Having established the intimate relations between the Crawford 
 Syriac and certain Greek cursives, certain cursive families, and 
 certain individual members of these families, we return to the 
 Latin, and we find the same thing. 
 
 Meanwhile, for rather a pretty composite picture, see 
 
 i. 9. ev Cv (pr.) NCP 38 syr S gig copt. 
 
 ii. 5. — Tayei KCAP 56 syr S gig vg copt. 
 
 9. — Ta epya Kai CAP 47 syr S gig vg copt. 
 
 13. — Ta epya crov kcu NCAP 38 syr S gig vg copt. 
 
 Thus the four versions run together here against all other 
 Greek cursives. 
 
 Yet the last two omissions are not proven absolutely correct, 
 for what of our other witnesses just as ancient, 18 40 and the rest ? 
 The matter is a hard one, for we can perfectly well do without 
 these two clauses. Yet that very fact militates against their 
 insertion unless they formed part of the original text, and it seems 
 hardly credible that the twenty odd cursive mss. which are derived 
 from the same source as those which omit should all have added 
 these clauses. 
 
 Note Latin agreement of N, A as follows : — ■ 
 
 i. 16. <f>at,vei cos o 17X105 by N only copt — order of h and Cypr 
 yul Firm. 
 
XV. 
 
 3- 
 
 xvi. 
 
 14. 
 
 
 19. 
 
 xvii. 
 
 16. 
 
 xviii. 
 
 12. 
 
 xix. 
 
 18. 
 
 
 20. 
 
 XX. 
 
 1. 
 
 xxi. 
 
 
 
 .V 
 
 I06 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 ix. 7. o/xoioi for ofiota by X 59. Cf similes h gig vg. 
 
 21. en T(uv <f)(ova)v for €K tov <f>ovo)v by X* 27 35 36 56 59 
 78* 98 103 108. = de vocibus suis gig. 
 x. 3. rats eavTwv (fxovaus for Tas eavTav (jxovas by X y— 45. 
 = vocibus suis _£"z^ jryr S. 
 4. ocra (/r<? ore) by X t>7 73~79 _ 8o-l03 gig P run. 
 xiv. 3. + ei/w77-tov before twv Trpeo-fSvTepwv by X only = syr S 
 _g"Zf, besides ^pucreas for xpucras by X (^/! /## aur<?as). 
 [C/ xxi. 6.] 
 twv aiwvwv (pro twv ayiwv) X*C 18 56 95 = syr vg. 
 
 — e/ceii'ijs by X 38 14-92 gig vg copt Tick. 
 
 — avrov fin. by X only gig copt. 
 
 — ev {ante -nvpC) by X 34-35-87 and PB 40 56 61 and 
 Latt [non copt sah~\. 
 
 p.apyapnwv by X 35 59 87 95 syr and gig Prim, 
 en olvtols by X 56. Latt in ipsis \iton Prim Anonym\. 
 T7)v eiKova by X* 38 61. Cf. ymaginem latt. 
 
 1. ev tt) x ei P l by X 38 Latt syr copt. 
 
 eo-K-qvwaev for o-Krjvacrei by X only. = habitaz/it am gig. 
 6. Bwpeaq(proBwpeav) by X* only. Cf. lat gratis. [Cfixiv. 3.] 
 
 1 1 . ano tov Qeov (pro tov Oeov) X only. = a deo gig (the 
 rest " Dei "). 
 
 12. e7ri tovs 7nAcjvas X 18. = super portas Anonym, in 
 portas gig, the rest in portis and e-m tols ttv\wo-iv. 
 
 25. y]p.epa by X* only, "dfo" or "per diem" latt for T]p.epa<;. 
 v. 12. aftos (/r<? agtov) A only, dignus est agnus Latt. 
 vi. 9. — Sia $«•. A only with copt \non sah\ and Cj^r Prim 
 
 tot gig. 
 xii. 3. e7rt ras Kecf>. clvtwv A 87 for auTou with gig in capitibus 
 
 suis. 
 xiv. 18. — e£r)\0ev A 81* 100 114 with gig (Prim). 
 xvi. 6. SeSco/ras (pro ehwKa.%) CA only. C/! latt dedisti. 
 xvii. 8. vtrayei (pro vuayeiv) A 55 59 1 04 119 only. Cf. Iren 
 Prim al. vadit, vg gig ibit. 
 xx. 5. — Se A only. Cf. latt "ceteri." 
 xxii. 5. ovk e^ovo-iv xP Lav A only. Cf. latt non egebunt. 
 
 16. ev Tats £kk\. (pro em,) A 18 21 38 56 73 79 80 100 103 
 108**. = vg gig " in ecclesiis." 
 xviii. 23. — ev (post <fxxvrj) C only. Cf. lucebit tibi gig Prim. 
 xvii. 3. eyovTa. XP only. Cf. habentem latt. 
 
Xll. 
 
 2. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 5- 
 
 
 IO. 
 
 xiv. 
 
 13- 
 
 cviii. 
 
 13- 
 
 OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 107 
 
 Further consider : — 
 iii. 19. — eav 40 59 vg gig Prim syr. 
 ix. 3. — egovo-iav 40 syr and h. 
 
 8. — rjcrav 21 40 73 ^- 
 xi. 10. \ap-qaovTai 38 119-123; al. omn. y^aipovcnv contra text, 
 recept. ^apovcriv Cf. latt. 
 4- kcu (/tos/ e^ouo-a) NC 95 syr h gig Prim, 
 e^ovcriav 12 63 84 109. potestatem gig. 
 
 [xiii. 7 gig = potestas, but X* 12 etjovcnav.'] 
 awoKT€Lvei X 21 28 73 79 103 syr gig interficit. 
 yap {pro Se) NCAP 18 26 38 95 107. Latt enim, 
 Prim nam. 
 
 6vp.ia[ia 1 56 62-3 72 80 95 119 Hipp. Cf. incensum 
 gig Prim. 
 \ xix. 10. 4- TroLTja-rj^ {post opa fir/) 32 95 (36)") = Latt "vide ne 
 (xxii. 9. 4- ,, ,, „ „ 32 56 ) feceris." 
 
 xx. 8. — top ante ya>y et p,aycoy N and some = Latt. 
 xxi. 16. icra eicri {pro tcra eari) 18 104. = v g gig aequalia sunt. 
 
 23. to apviov 4- ecrrt 41. Z.a// agnus est. 
 xxii. 16. /ecu 77/00)1^05 46-88-101 56. = et matutina Za/^. 
 Many more could be cited. 
 Gig retains a number of unique " readings," many due solely 
 to Latin construction. We cannot print them here, but they will 
 be adduced in our work on the Apoc. to show where the Latin 
 influenced the Greek and where it did not. The point is that the 
 Latin influence is not late but very early. 
 
 We do not find retranslation where we might expect it. And 
 such a thing as "Xoyos 9eov" for o Xoyos tov deov for the Latin 
 verbum Dei is of the rarest occurrence [occurs only in Apoc 100 
 at xix. 13]. 
 
 Thus, in the same chapter, 
 xix. 2. De meretrice magna for rqv nopvrjv tt\v p.€ya\y]v 
 
 11. Cum jiistina ,, ev StKatoavvr) 
 
 10. Deum (governed by adora) ,, t&> Oeco {-rrpoa-Kwrjaov) 
 are not found transmitted to a single Greek ms. If the retrans- 
 lation had been late and as it were deliberate we should find a 
 trace of it in such places, but we do not. 
 
 More than that, what retranslation there was, was not 
 deliberate from the Latin alone, but due to the diglot or triglot 
 already referred to, and the trilingual was what seems to have 
 
108 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 influenced the earliest Greek copyists, where they sometimes 
 found material to elucidate matters or to help them if their Greek 
 column was faint, or if the construction or a word bothered them, or 
 if they were acquainted with some varieties of order or of readings. 
 
 To continue : 
 
 The Latin did not overflow in the following places : — 
 xix. 2. judicia ejus sunt. 
 
 ibid. quoniam_/or i^tis. 
 
 6. — o iravTOKpoLTup gigas. Not one Greek copy so far 
 
 omits. 
 
 7. venerunt nuptiae for rj\8ev o ya/ios. Surely here some of 
 
 our careless Graeco- Latins might have gone astray. Not 
 at all. So they hardly ever retranslated wittingly. 
 
 8. operiret se for the simple irepifiaXeiTaL. 
 12. qui accepit {for avTosfin.). 
 
 14. purpureum {for Ko.6a.pov). 
 
 16. in vestimento et in femore suo (as against ein to ip-ar iov 
 
 KCLL C7TI TOV /JLTJpOV CLVTOv). 
 
 ibid. fin. dominantium {for Kvpiav). 
 
 16. -roovop.a ) No Greeks _ 
 
 17. — tov (JLeyaXov) 
 
 19. ad faciendum (all have iroi^o-ai, and none tov 7701170-0.1). 
 ibid, cum illo qui sedet (all have fxera tov Kadrj/xevov). 
 A curious case occurs at xix. 20 where gig says " in stagnum 
 ignis ardentem et in sulphur." The Latin follows the Greek tt\v 
 Kaiop.evr)v agreeing with stagnum. Yet XAP 67 81 read rrys 
 Kaiop.a>y]% not following the Latin of gig, but following what 
 appears in vg and Prim as " ignis ardentis." 
 
 Where the Latin did overflow (as at xix. 13 in 100 as shown 
 previously), see — 
 
 xix. 2. suorum^rtf avrov sec. = avTcav 103 
 10. eum pro olvtcj = avrov B 
 12. in capite {pro ewt ttjv K€<f>a\y\v) = ev ttj Kejxxkrj 14-92 
 
 19. in equo {pro em tou lttttov) = ev to mira) 24 
 
 20. — oi Suo 75 only, 
 
 it was due to special causes, or infirmity, or wilfulness of a few 
 scribes, where it is confined as above to single mss. 
 
 The other points which appear are clearly, as I think, due to 
 bilinguals, trilinguals, or even quadrilinguals in the earliest stages 
 of copying. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. IO9 
 
 Thus : xix. 3 iterum of gigas and the Latins found its way into 
 34-35-87 (the syriac-latin-Egyptian MS.) with e/c Sevrepov for 
 Bevrtpov. This is a most natural retranslation (Sevrepov becoming 
 iterum instead of secundo, and then reappearing not as SevTepov 
 but as e«- hevrepov), yet it is confined to this small group, representing 
 one ms. Very well. Let it go, if you will, as a clear retranslation 
 from Latin. But why does it not appear in other Greek mss. 
 then ? It forces this retranslation back to the earliest stages, and 
 whether derived from Latin or Coptic f shows the versions to have 
 been closely concurrent. 
 
 However, to show when scribes took little liberties, see 
 above at xix. 10, where the Latin is Vide ne feceris, as also 
 at xxii. 19. Now 32 36 95 are guilty of appropriating this feceris 
 at xix. 10, but only 32 of these adds the 71-01770-715 at xxii. 9. 
 And 56 does it at xxii. 9, but not at xix. 10. Moreover 108** 
 (— 5 6 ) joi ns 56 at xxii. 9. This second hand of 108 represents 
 the same original as 56 (for which there is ample proof positive 
 elsewhere). 
 
 Note the character of every one of these mss. 32 36 56 95 
 are representatives among our cursives of an exceedingly ancient 
 text. They were either using a graeco-latin bilingual or preferred 
 to emphasize 7701170-17? (thinking it had dropped out), or the Latin 
 feceris was so familiar that they incorporated it almost involun- 
 tarily. Both hypotheses work in the same direction. In the 
 latter case it shows the Latin to have been as old or older than 
 their Greek text, and in the former it shows that as the reading 
 was not adopted by all these mss. in both places, they were not 
 using the Latin, but the bicolumnar, and took a liberty in one 
 place but not in another. 
 
 Again, within the self-same limits of the one chapter xix. : 
 xix. 8. splendidum mundum gig (Male Belsh. splendens) = 
 \ap,7rpov Ka.Qa.pov ( — /cat). This order, minus ko.l, occurs 
 only in NAP 7-39-45-102, 91 and 95. Here then we 
 see XAP (syriac-greek mss.) and 91 95 accompanied only 
 by the members of the graeco-latin group 7-39-45-102, 
 and we can almost see these scribes involuntarily 
 harmonizing a trilingual. 
 
 | Coptic mss. use three different expressions, one : c[>AJlA.g,COn £l = " the 
 second time." 
 
T 1 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 On the other hand : 
 xix. 9. — tov yafiov, with which the Latin of gigas agrees and 
 which seems an error, is only witnessed to by the Greek 
 mss. N*P 1-46=88=101 16-39-102 21-73-79-103 36 
 59-67-80-81 100 106 114 copt \non sah] Er 123 
 Aid Col 57, but it shows that in a manuscript, and that 
 a very early polyglot, the word was missing, for, if you 
 will digest the above group, you will find that, while 
 imperfect, it has the elements of the Greek, Syriac, and 
 Latin families, though witnessed to only by portions of 
 these families, and is omitted also by copt but not by 
 sah. As a matter of fact the words are not wholly 
 missing in the old syriac, but are replaced by an expres- 
 sion equivalent to tyjs Sia;covias conveying very imperfect 
 sense. This being the case, some ancient scribe omitted 
 it altogether. This would perhaps make for the syriac 
 antedating all the Greeks. 
 At xix. 15 omnes gentes is found only in 38 and 97 (+ Travra) 
 and sah \non copt]. 
 
 xix. 18. £77 aurots {for en olvtcov) is found in X 56. Cf. Latin in 
 ipsis. 
 Summing up then (although we have only presented some of 
 the data available, and we fear not at sufficient length), we would 
 say that it is perfectly evident that both the old Syriac and the old 
 Latin versions were familiar to the scribes of the Greek mss. 
 which we have (to some extent) reviewed. Nay, more. They 
 were not singly but both part and parcel of the groundwork of 
 their original Greek texts ; and the sympathy exists in such 
 minute matters that it would seem evident that it occurred from 
 the use of a trilingual. 
 
 Having gone thus far, we go farther, and note from the 
 character of the witness of the group 34-35-68-87, where we again 
 find perfect familiarity with the old Syriac and considerable 
 acquaintance with the old Latin, that the text flowed to Egypt in 
 the same form of Greek-Syriac-Latin, and hence we reach the 
 conclusion, now taking into consideration the coptic influence 
 visible in N, that a great quadrilingual polyglot existed before 
 K was written, which last-named MS. was probably penned 
 circa 350-400. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. Ill 
 
 N itself is very strongly syriac, f so strongly that it is 
 impossible for the text to be such as it is without the influence of 
 a double syriac-greek version lying before the scribe or before his 
 forerunner. And other minutiae confirm the treble origin. Take 
 Apoc. i. 9 ev lv alone by NCP 38 gig {syr). Now N* writes uv sic, 
 what but a transcription of ihu ? Again : 
 
 i. 6. fiaaCkeLav koi tepeis alone with gig is actually read by H 3 , so 
 that this first corrector knew and saw the polyglot 
 version. 
 
 The case of A is equally interesting. The groundwork of 
 whatever is good in A comes from an old syriac-greek copy 
 before it reached Egypt, also tinged with some old Latin influence 
 (for a trifle see xiii. 5 with gig 16-39-69 95). Whatever is poor 
 in the codex, due chiefly to carelessness, can be traced to the 
 vicissitudes through which the text passed after reaching Egypt. 
 
 I came to these conclusions some years ago. 
 
 In a few months there will be unveiled the most important 
 Greek MS. ever discovered as to the text of St. Mark. I refer to 
 the Freer ms. It witnesses to readings so far only known in the 
 cursive 28. And the self-same phenomena will be observed in 
 full play in Freer as we have sketched here. 
 
 \ Note where the N text was also current. See two very particular places 
 agreed to alone by X and Eustatkius, Bishop of Antioch, viz. Matt. viii. 29 airoXeaai 
 for fSao-avurai, and Luke xvi. 24 vSan for uSai-os, alone of all Greeks. 
 
I I 2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 SPECIMEN PAGES OF THE COLLATIONS OF THE 
 GREEK MSS. OF THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 We print the following (Apoc. xviii. 22/24) as a specimen 
 of the manner in which the full evidence of our collations in the 
 Apoc. is to appear. In the large number of variations naturally 
 occurring from homoioteleuta in xviii. 22/23 the door was opened 
 for the omission of Traa-q<; re^v-q^ in verse 22 ; yet absolutely no 
 mss. but NA omit, and this they do alone with the bohairic against 
 every Greek cursive and against all Latins. 
 
 We shall be repaid for printing this if we can bring the lesson 
 home that this makes NA and coptic hang together absolutely. 
 
 xviii. 22. — /ecu (jxovrj Kidapcahcav usque ad ev croi en sec. 65. 
 
 — /ecu init, K 1. (Cf. copt.) 
 
 (fxovrj 114. <f>covr)v (pro cfxtivy] fir.) 16 39 69. 
 
 KidapaBcov 12. Ki&apoScov 59 104. 
 
 Kidapas syr S. 
 
 avknoiv B 7 16 32 36 39* (avkia-TOiv ex emend.*) 45 72 
 
 81 102 1 14. 
 avkiaroiv 69 104. av\r)(TTO)v 26 \110n 1 07] \noti 108 ut 
 
 vid.~\. 
 aySXijTwv 51 \n01i 90]. 
 
 — /ecu quart. 19. 
 
 aakinyyoiv N 35 \tion 51] 87 90. araKinyKTOiv Hipp. 
 iteju OYC«s.?\niFg copt. 
 
 uaKTTvrov 32. 
 
 craA7r</yyos syr S (/cai craA7riyyos kcu av\r)Ta>v /ecu 
 
 [xovaiKcov pro kcu p.ovcr. /ecu av\. /ecu crakTnaTojv). 
 aKovar) vel a/coucmj (pro aKovcrdrj pr.) 14 [.SVr.]. 
 
 aKOVCTTT) 98. 
 
 eio-oLKOvcrdei 1 2. 
 
 ucraKovcrdr) 46 (^.^.) Aid \110n Er.~\. 
 
 aKovadei Sis 45. 
 
 aKovadr) crei eTt ev aoi sic pr. loco 69. 
 
 eri a* cjoi en sic pr. loco 78. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 1 3 
 
 xviii. 22. en ev crot pr. 61. 
 
 — ev prim. 98. 
 
 — ev vol prim. 43 67. 
 
 — ev trot en pr. usque ad ev crot en sec. 14. [Non 92, Habet 
 
 /cat 7TO.S TV)(l>. TH]<S K.T.\. Rel. CU1H t. r.J 
 
 + /cat (a«^ uao-Tjs re)(vy)<s) 36 [«o« 5 1 90]. 
 
 — /cat 7ras re^vLTr)^ usque ad fin. vers. 43 63 \_non 62, z>zafe 
 
 tte/ra] 102* (suppl.** ut infra) syr. S [non gig]. 
 Trans/, ad fin. vers, /cat 7ras Te^^tr^s usque ad ev crot en 
 
 *<?<:. 7 16 39 45 104. 
 rex^Trjs 39 41 [w/8 51] 53 90 114. 
 Ita 102** : /cat iras Te^tr-^s 7racnjs Te^vTjs ey trot /^ 
 
 evpedrj (— en) /cat </»wv^ pvXmv (sic) ov p.r/ a/coucrcfy 
 
 (— ef croi en). 
 
 — iraai}Q Tej(vr)£ £$A boh (Mat sah). [ZTon yig, non 
 
 Hipp, non al.] 
 + emvoia (post re^vrjs) 36. 
 repots 39. 
 
 o ffr) (pro ov prj sec. ) 12. 
 cvpedei 7 [non 45J 12. 
 
 — ev sec. 98*. 
 
 — ov pr) evpeOr) ev crot en 46 (^.Z*.). 
 
 — /cat 4>(Dvr) pvXov ad fin. vers. K 18 19 21 [non 26] 29 
 
 3° 35 38 41 [»zfl/£ Birch~\ [non 42] 51 53* 61 62 
 (63 z>/dfe supra) 69 72 [«t>« 73 ^'.z'.] 87 90 93 98 
 108 1 14. 
 22/23. — /cat 7ras TexviTTjs usque ad ev crot en prim. ver. 23 
 eVz 80* ; suppl. ima pag. 80** : /cat 170s re^iT^s iracnjs 
 reyyr)% ov pr) evpeOr) ev crot en, jW 80* e/ 80** om. 
 (ver. 22) Kat (fxovrj p.v\ov ov pr) aKovaOt) ev crot en 
 (wr. 23) /cat cWs Xv^vov ov pr) <f>avr) ev crot en. 
 22. Post <f)(DV7j sec. et ante pvXov + KcdapcoSav in rasura 12. 
 pvdov (pro p.vXov) C. 
 evpedr) (pro au<ovo-6r) sec.) B. 
 
 <f>avr) (pro aKovadr) sec.) 4 6 20 3 1 34 48 64 74 106. 
 oLKovadei (pro aKovadr) sec.) 7. 
 em (pro ev ult.) 100. 
 22/23. + ot e/A7ropot crou ot peyicnaves. add. inter versus 78 
 
 errore [non 25-58-70-84-94]. 
 22. erot (pro en &//.) 104. 
 
 I 
 
114 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 xviii. 22/23 sit •' P° $ t ev °~ 0L eTi primo loco ver. 22 habet^ hoc 
 orchne, ita : kgu cf>wvr) vvfi<f>iov Kai vvfufrr) 1 ? ov /xr/ 
 aKovaOr) ev croi en, Kai 770.5 Te^yiT7]<; Tracrr)<; Te^vrj^ ov 
 jxrj evpedrj ev croi ert, Kat c/>6js \v)(viov (sic) ov fxrq <f>avrj 
 ev croi en ol ep.iropoi crov k.t.X. {i.e. — Kat <f)(DV7) jjlvXov 
 ov /xtj o.kovo-07) ev croi en cum X 18 19 2 1 29 35 38 
 etc.) 40. 
 22/23 -^ • Kat fywrj fxvXov ov \x.t] aKovadr] ev croi en" /cat 
 ^xxivrjv [cum N* 87* 90 [at (f)covr) 101]) vvjjl^iov Kai 
 vvjx<$>r)<s ov fir) aKovcrQrj ev croi, en. Kat (fxovrj Kidapa- 
 h(ov Kai fiovcriKOiv Kai avXrjTcov Kai crah.Tr ten u>v, ov firj 
 eicraKovadrj ev croi en. Kat 7ras re^vtTTj? iracrrjs Te^vrj? 
 (— ou )UT7 evpedrj ev croi en), Kat c/iojs Xu^i/ou ov ^77 
 </>av>j ev aoi (— en)' on 01 e/nropoi k.t.X. 46—88— 
 
 101. 
 
 22/23 ^^ •' Kat ,ras Te)(yiTr)s Tracrrjs Te^vrj 1 ; ou /177 evpedrj ev croi 
 en' Kat (fxovrj KidapoSeov (sic) Kai fiovcriKOV Kai avXrjTav 
 Kai craXTTio~TU)V ov firj aKovcrOrj ev croi en" Kat <£ojs 
 Xvvvov ov fir) <f)avT) ev croi en. Kat (fravrj fivXov ov fir) 
 aKovcrdrj ev croi en. Kat (fravr) vvfjufuov Kai vvfi<$>r)<; ov 
 firj aKOvaffrj ev croi en* oti 01 efirropoi k.t.X. 59. 
 [Cum t. r. 1 1 9-1 23.] 
 23 init. — Kai B. 
 
 (jiuvri (pro c6ojs) 44 \110n 52] 67. 
 
 — Kat c/>oj? Xvyyov ov fir) fyavr) ev croi en A 26 35 41 
 
 [male Birc/i\ 42 [male Birch~\ 53 57 69 77 87* 107 
 Er 123 y^/# C0/. 
 
 — Kat c/>cos Ai/^ov on jurj §avr] ev croi en Kat (fxovrj vvfi(f>iov 
 
 Kai vvfi(f>r)<; ov firj aKovadrj ev croi en 12 2 1 36 73 79 
 (neglexit Tisch.) [non 100] 103. 
 
 — Kat (fxovrj vvfi(f>iov Kai WfKpr)'; ov firj aKovadr) ev croi en 
 
 61. 
 Xt^i'ou (pro Xvyyov) 16. Xv)(yiov 40. 
 <f>avei 7-45 56* ? 
 
 aKovo-Or) (pro <f>avrj) 16-39 (102 ? (f>avrj ex emend.), 
 evpedrj (pro <f>avrj) 62—63 J2. 
 
 — ev (post (pavrj) C syr S. e7n (pro ev prim.) 100. 
 lucebit tibi adhuc gig. 
 
 — eTiprim. 46 (q.v. supra). 
 
 r) (pro Kai sec.) 38. Cf. copt. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I I 5 
 
 xviii. 23. (j>o)vr}u vvp.j>iov K* \Jxtivq N a ] 46 {q.V.) \_non 51] 87* 90. 
 Ta[j.(j)iov {pro vvfKpiov) 56** ut vid. viliose {Tapov 56* ?). 
 + (jxdvr) (ante vvp^r)^) C 19 syr S \non copt\. 
 vvp<j>L<; 95. vrjpcfyrjs 104. 
 aKovadei 56. 
 evpedr) {pro aKova-Qy]) 62—63 7 2 - 
 
 — ev crcu iW. 97. 
 
 — en 5W. 80. 
 
 — oTLprim. 2 9 18 19 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 38 40 41 
 
 42.43 44 50 51 52 53 55 {turn 56] 58 61 65 75 78 
 82 84 89 90 93 94 97 98 107 108. 
 kcu {pro oTLpr.) 22 47. 
 
 — ex, prim. A 13 yo(errore) 95. 
 eviropoi B. ■ 
 
 — crow prim. 921 27 36 73 79 100 103. 
 
 — tjo-gw 25 58 70 78 84 94. 
 
 — oi {ante /AeyicrTcwes) 58. 
 
 ol peyakr) {sic) ttjs y>j5 /xeyiorcu'cu {pro oi peyicrTaves ttjs 
 
 y-179) 104. 
 peyicn avcus 7- joieyicrTcweis 81* ? peyqcrTaves J2. 
 p.eyiaravoi 35 41 [;z<?/2 42 53] 87. 
 
 — yr^s 80 (errore). 
 
 Kai {pro otl sec.) 56 119— 123. 
 ti (/>r<? Tfj) 39. 
 
 — ttj {ante tpappaKua) 58. 
 
 <f>appa.Kia KCAP 7 12 19 24 36 45 48 [fZ07Z 50] 56 
 62txt{non com.) 6^txt et com. 72 82* 87 103 104 114 
 119. 
 
 c/>ap/ceia 1 07*. 
 
 tv reus <j>app,aKeicu<i syr S ^/. In venenciis tuis gig 
 et latt. 
 
 eir\avr)(ra<s 34-35-87 syr S. 
 
 ewXapvdrjaav J 2. 
 
 enXavrjdav 81*. 
 
 effvoc J2. 
 24 «W/. — koll ev cum? 46-88- IO I. 
 
 + Ti] {ante avTrj) Hipp (id edit. Galiand.). 
 
 aipara. B 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 [«<w 18] 19 20 
 [non 21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 34 35 
 [non 36] 37 \non 38] 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 
 
 1 2 
 
Il6 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 Wtxt et com. 50 5 1 52 53 55 [non 56] 58 59 61 
 62-63 64 65 67 70 72 [«<?» 73] 74 75 77 78 [#<?# 79] 
 [w/z 80 £r/] 81 82 84 87 88 89 90 91 92 93? 94 95 
 96 97 98 [non 100] 101 102 104 106 107 108 i09 gr 
 1 10 1 14. 
 xviii. 24. + tcov {ante Trpo<j)r)T(ov) Hipp copt. 
 
 + toov {ante ayicov) 19 copt. 
 
 evpe0r)crav 7 14 [non 92] 16 39 45 102 104. 
 
 rjvpedr) 12. 
 
 — twv {ante ecr^ay/xevcov) 46 50 88 101. 
 
 ea^ayp-evov 24. 
 
 eo-<f)payi<Tp.ev(i)v 38 62-63 67. eo-<f>payip,€va>v 41. 
 
 ecr<f>pa.ypei>a)i> 42 53. 
 
 + ay low {post ecr^aypevcov) 23 55. 
 
 evi {pro em) C. 
 
( "7 ) 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Study of the Quotations extant in some of the principal 
 Monastic Writers resident in Egypt in the IVth Century. 
 
 The date of the Sahidic can be left to take care of itself, and 
 we are glad to see that in the short Postscript to the third volume 
 of the recent edition of the Sahidic Gospels the Editor inclines 
 still towards a.d. 188 or earlier. 
 
 But an early date for the Bokairic has been seriously questioned 
 by Guidi, who, followed by the writer of the able article Texts and 
 Versions in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1903), would have the 
 Bokairic descend to the vi th or vn th century ! 
 
 The examples we offer of Bokairic influence evident in K can, 
 however, not be explained away except upon the hypothesis that 
 K influenced the bohairic version. I do not believe, however, that 
 an unbiassed observer will be able to deduce any such thing from 
 an examination of the matter as presented here. Had X been 
 wilfully conforming to sak or boh much more consent would be 
 seen in K. Similarly, had boh been copying or accommodating 
 to or really using X or A, much more of the text of these mss. 
 would be reproduced in the Bohairic. 
 
 The writer of the said article says, " Coptic is generally 
 supposed to have become a literary language somewhat earlier 
 [than 518 a.d.] ; but that is not supported by historical evidence, 
 nor can it be proved from the documents we possess!' 
 
 [On p. no, however, of Dom Butler's elaborate Introduction 
 to The Lausiac History of Palladius (vol. i.) he says : 
 
 " These fragments [of the Coptic version of the Lausiac 
 history] are all in the Bohairic or northern dialect." 
 
 On p. 154 he enters into the question of the date of this 
 bohairic version (for he makes out a strong case for the Greek 
 being the original and the Coptic a translation), and places the date 
 in any event prior to a.d. 450. 
 
 It would be a very curious thing, I must say, if the Lausiac 
 
I 1 8 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 history of Palladius were translated into Coptic from Greek before 
 the Scriptures themselves.] 
 
 We offer this study of boh in the Apoc. of N as proof to the 
 contrary ; and are prepared to submit similar proof from the other 
 books of the N .T. in bohairic. 
 
 The only precise argument offered against our contention is 
 that while sahidic suppresses many connecting particles, the 
 bohairic follows the Greek more closely and reproduces the Greek 
 connecting particles. This is only true to a certain extent. For 
 the same coptic practice of eliding /cat can be seen in many places 
 in boh just as in sah. 
 
 Further, the writer of the article omits to notice a most 
 important point. Coptic is very fond of a superfluous :xe to 
 introduce any kind of clause, short or long, prefixing 2C6 in 
 numberless places without Greek support of any kind.f Now boh 
 does this just as much as sah, and if boh had been strictly following 
 Greek at a later period, he should have eliminated most of these 
 cases of 2te to accord with the theory advanced of late Alexandrian 
 graecizing. 
 
 Further, the writer says that "the Antiochian Greek text 
 seems never to have influenced Egypt — at least not before the 
 X th century. Freedom from specifically ' Antiochian ' readings 
 is a characteristic of all forms of the Egyptian N.T." 
 
 In this connection the question is, what is " Antiochian" as to 
 this standardized Textus Receptus of the IV th century ? 
 
 For we find Antioch itself and Egypt (as represented by N) 
 very close in 325 a.d. 
 
 In Eustathius' scanty remains we find he agrees alone with X 
 in two very curious readings, viz. Matt. viii. 29 airoXecrai for 
 /3acravLcraL (with boh, against sah), and Luke xvi. 24 vSari for 
 uSaros. Eustathius was born in Pamphylia, looking east over 
 Cyprus to the Holy Land and Antioch, north and west toward 
 Constantinople and Magna Graecia, and south towards Egypt and 
 Africa : in the very heart of the textual problem as it were. Later 
 he became Bishop of Antioch. He was also a bit of a textual critic 
 himself, and gave us the number of cm^oi between John viii. 59 
 and x. 31 in order to refute a various reading of Origen. 
 
 t Coptic 5CE always represents Greek on, but is often found where on is 
 absent. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 1 9 
 
 In Luke xxiii. 43 Eustathius gives us the exceptional order 
 a-qfiepov eo-y) per epov with C* sah boh aeth only, against the 
 arj/xepov per epov ear) of all others including Latt {except E = eris 
 mecum [= probably r 2 which is wanting]). While in Acts (xvi. 
 16/19) Eustathius agrees with AEHLP against NBD, which 
 brings the issue up squarely and puts AEHLP on an equal 
 footing with NBD in the first quarter of the iv lh century. 
 
 (In verse 19 a most curious deviation occurs from all known 
 authorities, for Eustathius writes Oeaaapevot ow 01 Kvpioi rrjs 
 tfepcurcuvtoos &)S €kttoSoji> tu^ero T7 ? s epyaaias avrcov r) eA.7n?, while 
 Dd agree in a way with this, but in other language, thus : 
 
 D cos oe eiScw ( = syr) 01 Kvpioi TT79 TreStcr/ojs on aneaTeprfadai. 
 T'Jjs epyacrias avTatv 77s et^av St auTiy?. 
 
 d Cum vidissent domini ejus puelles quoniam ispes et reditus 
 eorum quern habebant per ipsam. 
 
 Gigas is blissfully ignorant of this recension, but with Lucifer 
 uses reditus for oziaeslus of all others except e " operationis.") 
 
 Tertullian, although an African of Carthage, sometimes 
 witnesses (alone) to boh against sah, as at Apoc. ii. 22 with oabo, 
 which is certainly interesting. 
 
 Many other hints can be picked up in Tertullian. Thus 
 Matt. xii. 48 - eicriv omitted in c k only of Latins and 440 Evst 
 259 only of Greeks (4- the Freer ms.) is omitted twice by 
 Tertullian. So some bohairic mss. The place is a curious one. 
 
 Again, Matt. ix. 6, the order : a<j>ievcu ctti, ttjs y/js by boh (and 
 the Freer ms.), against sah, is how Tertullian expresses it, against 
 the other Latins. 
 
 Cyprian even bears some witness to boh against sah in Apoc. 
 v. 2, where once out of twice he quotes aperire signa for solvere 
 signa with boh only (against sah). 
 
 [The full quotation of Cypr is " Et vidi angelum fortem 
 praedicantem voce magna Quis dignus est accipere librum et 
 aperire signa ejus." Therefore Cypr is deliberately quoting v. 2 
 and not v. 9 where the "accipere librum et aperire signa" 
 regularly occurs in Greek in the presbyters' song.] 
 
 An interesting place about Greek Egypt and Latin Africa is 
 1 Cor. xiii. 7, where Mark the hermit gives us Travra a-repyeL for 
 navra are-yei. This reading is not found in Greek or Coptic, but 
 is witnessed to by Cyprian with diligit (for suffert) thrice. Its 
 origin seems complicated, for sah is clearly suffert and boh 
 
120 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 UJ&.CUOOV rtgHT *>erc gouR mRerf, yet being confined to Marc, 
 mon., Cypr, and Zeno,\ its source must be narrowed down to some- 
 thing which gave rise to it. I can only conjecture that the rtgHT 
 of boh (absent in sail) was confused by someone (Cypr?) with 
 JLteupiT for diligit, and again later by Marc. mon. 
 
 We must not anticipate the edition of Freer, but we are 
 authorized to state that boh was distinctly; effective in the time of 
 Freer, which shows many traces of boh as well as of sah. Consult 
 Mark xi. 12 ei? ftyfiaviav (for airo ySry^avta?) which Freer reads, 
 alone among Greeks, with only r 2 of the Latins, but with six mss. 
 of the bohairic and one of syr pesh. This completely changes the 
 sense, although boh retains eRo?\. Thus : " they having come out " 
 (efio^s) eRHe<50ti«5., for efto?\ £>Ert j&He<5Uti*. 
 
 PACHOMIUS, MACARIUS, MARCUS MONAC, SERA- 
 
 PION; PALLADIUS, EVAGRIUS, ORSJESIUS, 
 
 AND ISAIAH ABB. 
 
 Let us now examine the quotations occurring in the writings 
 of the above, and see how much of interest develops. 
 
 I would hesitate to invite scholars at this late date to follow 
 me over this ground, but that I find there is such a tendency to 
 accept Tisch. viii. and Westcott and Hort as final arbiters, while 
 in the former much of this evidence is overlooked, and in the 
 latter notes are far too scarce. 
 
 In other words, we find that although Tischendorf does Use 
 Macarius and Mark the monk, yet he fails often to record their 
 testimony at some of the most interesting points. Not only so, 
 but others who have developed other coptic work are content to 
 use the patristic quotations in Tisch. and not to look farther. 
 Hence there is something to be gained to-day by a more detailed 
 re-examination. 
 
 I could have shortened it by referring merely to apparent boh 
 influence, and these passages grouped alone might have made 
 more impression on the casual reader ; but for the real student a 
 fuller presentment is fairer and more essential to a well-balanced 
 judgment of how far boh winds in and out of the testimony. 
 
 f Tisch. quotes Cypr and Zeno for diligit and adds " (orepya ?)," omitting to 
 notice Marc. mon. in this connection. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 121 
 
 Without further preface we will proceed to a consideration of 
 the subject. 
 
 We have used Gallandius' edition throughout, which was the 
 most convenient for the writer, and which he hopes will be equally- 
 convenient for reference to the reader. 
 
 There is one very curious place to be observed in Pachomius, 
 to which I refer because the writer of the article in question says : 
 "... with this" (the late date of boh) "accords the fact that the 
 most ancient writings connected with Egyptian Christianity — the 
 original of the Bruce papyrus, the life of S. Macarius, the Rules of 
 S. Pachomius, etc. — were all in Greek." 
 
 Now it is to be observed that in quoting i Tim. v. 8 Pacho- 
 mius omits vx)v ttmttlv r)pvr)Tai «cat. The verse runs in Greek : 
 
 el Se ti? Tav ihliov kclL jLtaXiara tcov oiKeioiv ov irpovoel, ttjv ttkjtip 
 rjpvrjTai, Kal ecTTtv aTTicrTov yzipaiv. 
 
 Bohairic: icxe 2^.e ovon oy<m rtqicjjpojovty <mt juu*.2\1ct<s. 
 ff^neqm juuutm Hjmoq *qxe?\ cprfAg,^", ovog 
 qguuov eoY^ert Agi" . 
 
 Now it so happens that one boh MS. omits the last clause from 
 homoioteleuton, rfA.g'i" occurring twice. It looks to me very- 
 much as if Pachomius had omitted the last but one from the very 
 same cause. He is reported to write : 
 
 " Si quis autem suorum et maxime domesticorum curam non 
 habet, deterior infideli est" (— fidem negavit et). 
 
 No one else omits, nor could it occur from similarity in Greek ; 
 yet here we see from the omission of the boh MS. O* how it could 
 occur. 
 
 This very place is mutilated in Balestri's edition of sah, but 
 looks as if the end of the verse were shortened. I do not know 
 if Mr. Horner has a more complete text. 
 
 In this connection, turning to Macarius, it is curious to find in 
 the " Rules " of " Serapion Macarius Paphnutius and the other 
 Macarius" (a.d. 371) that 1 Tim. v. 12, 8 are combined, thus: 
 " Quia qui primam- fidem irritant fecit est infideh deterior!' 
 
 As regards these Rules, consult further 2 Tim. iv. 2, thus 
 rendered : 
 
 "Argue, obsecra, increpa, cum omni patientia et doctrinal 
 
 Others (Latins and Greeks) have " in." 
 
 The bohairic does not say " with all patience and teaching," 
 but it does say " in all patience with teaching," employing the 
 
122 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 usual Coptic copula rfEJU. instead of ovog, . This may merit a 
 glance in this connection, and have given rise to the reading in 
 these Rules. 
 
 That we have to do with a graeco-copt seems to be shown at 
 Mark x. 21 where the Rules say " Vende omnia bona tua et da 
 pauperibus et iolle crucem tuam et sequere me," for the bohairic 
 mss. are divided here, some omitting "and take up thy cross," 
 and some adding, with arabic marginal notes of "a gloss" or 
 " from the Greek " (with greek ANXrn and others, against 
 KBCDA and latt). Sak has the addition. 
 
 I am not willing to draw more than general conclusions from 
 Macarius' own writings, except where he repeats quotations more 
 than once, for he is as free at times apparently as Justin or 
 Clement of Rome, e.g. he inverts completely 1 Thess. v. 5, and 
 after quoting Matt. vi. 22, Luke xi. 34, he goes on to say, as if 
 it were a quotation : 
 
 ekeyev ovv aureus Trapayyekkwv 6 KvpLOs' 
 
 " iav v/xeis CTTrjre Kal /it) TrapaTpaTrrJTe (£a>s 
 6Wes tov Kocrfiov ISov okou to cra>/ia 
 TreficoTLCTTCu tov Koo-p-ov. el Se vp.el<; ol oWes 
 
 (f>0)<i 0~KOTLO~6rJTe TO CTKOTOS Tt6o~0V 6 €(JTLV 
 
 6 Koapo'i ; " 
 On the other hand he quotes John xiv. 21, Eph. iv. 31, vi. 12, 
 Romans ii. 4/5, and 1 Cor. ix. 27, xv. 26, 2 Cor. v. 1 in full, 
 word for word, with the ordinary text (which does not vary),f and 
 then again at 2 Cor. iii. 18 with 
 
 eis ttjv avTrjv eiKoua. p,eTap.op(f>ovpi€voi, 
 (for : ttjv avTrjv eLKova p,€Tap.op(f>ovp.eOa) 
 he goes distinctly with bohairic : — 
 
 erfujiK-i - Jiixoti rtgpHi £>err TAigiKuirr (T^igiKCjurr). 
 
 [See beyond when quoting this again.] 
 And again, at 1 Cor. i. 23/24 Macarius (Horn, xi.) seems to 
 go exactly with boh against sah and the Greek text of all. 
 
 t Equally loose are such quotations as 1 Cor. iv. 20 + «■ vyw, 1 Tim. ii. 8 
 + Trovrjpiuv, Gal. vi. 1 — tv ttvi wpaoTTjro?, Phil. ii. 12 — kcu t/do/aou, Hebr. vi. 4 TTJS 
 Xapiros tod deuv for rr\% Scupeas t??s eirovpaviov, Luke xiv. 1 8 KaAw tows foAoiTas. 
 He combines synoptic passages also as Luke vi. 29, Matt. v. 40, or runs 1 Cor. 
 xv. 49, Rom. viii. 29, vi. 22, Jo. iv. 24 together, and Col. ii. 17 with Hebr. x. i, 
 and writes ayaOm kui xPV aTut f° r oucnp ft-oves (Luke vi. 36). 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 23 
 
 The Greek is : 
 
 23 77/j.eis Se KrjpvcrcrofjLev Xpicrrbv ecrrav pap-cvov , 
 'louScuoi? jxev (TKavZakov, v Ek\rjcri Se putpiav' 
 
 24 aureus ok rots KXrjToi?, 'louSaxois re Kal 
 EWrjcri, Xpicrrbv &cov $vvol}ilv Kal ©eoi) 
 
 <TO(f>LaV. 
 
 Macarius : 
 
 fjp.ei<; Se Krjpvcnjojxev 'irjaovv Xpicrrbv, ko1 tovtov 
 io~ravpa)p.ivov, 'louScuois jjlcv crKavhakov, "EWrjcn 
 oe p<x>piav^ i^/xif oe Tots cr&>£o/zeVois Xpicrrbv 
 &eov hvvap.iv, Kal Geov cro(j)iav. 
 Bohairic : 
 
 23 <Mtorf ^.e Teffgiuuicy juin^cc e<WAtyq rniov^.A.1 Jutert 
 OYCK^rf^.A?sorf rruuoY ne meerroc 2^e ovJiteTCox ne 
 24 rr«MT Xe Anort *>a. rtH eeffAffog,6Jut mioYX<sj rreju. 
 movemm n^c oyxojui Ste cj^ ne iteju. oycoc[>ia 
 rrre c[>"t" 
 That is to say: "But we proclaim Christ crucified : the fetus 
 indeed it is a scandal to them, hit (to) the Gentiles it is a 
 foolishness ; but to us namely those who will be saved, t u e 
 yews and the Greeks, CItrist is a power of God and a 
 wisdom of God." 
 The use of rtogeju (for -ecjugeju) against kXijtois is here 
 definitely marked as tying Macarius to boliairir. 
 
 Sah is extant here and can be consulted. It differs, using 
 T^gjm. (= euugeJH in bohairic) instead of rfovgii to correspond 
 with rtogeJU.. 
 
 It will be observed that the boh and sah words for saved and 
 called are very similar. 
 
 I do not know of anyone else who agrees with Macarius and 
 boh in substituting o-(jitppcvoi% for kXtjtoi? here. [See beyond again 
 in Macar, " de caritate."] 
 
 The question of Upper and Lower Egypt is thus brought to the 
 fore. The high state of civilization at Oxyrynchus shows con- 
 clusively how free was the intercourse between the whole of the 
 Nile district covered by the three coptic dialects. The questions 
 at issue here are not particularly complicated by the various 
 hermits of the name of Macarius. But they were all doubtless 
 schoolmen of Alexandria in their youth. What Bibles they used 
 we can only gather in a roundabout way from their literary 
 
124 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 remains (which may be confused, and to this day ill-associated 
 with one or other of the same name) ; but the fact remains that 
 the bohairic intrudes in a way which seems to smooth over 
 differences between the Thebaid and Alexandria, although as to 
 Macarius magnus we must suppose that his dialect was bohairic, 
 geographically speaking. 
 
 [But our comparisons must be wide-reaching. Overmuch has 
 been made historically of geographical divisions and boundaries. 
 The circulation of the scriptures overleaped all boundaries ! It 
 has been pointed out to me by a friendly critic that Greek Egypt 
 and Latin'Africa were as wide apart as the poles, in customs, in 
 government, in thought. All I can say is, that in my humble 
 position as a student of the letter of the Greek and of the Versions 
 and of Patristic citations, evidence accumulates as to the inter- 
 relation of the Versions which goes far to show that commercial 
 intercourse carried with it the scriptures, and exchanged them in 
 various tongues as regards the foreign element residing in different 
 ports. And how free intercourse was in the old days anyone can 
 judge from the mass of testimony which has reached us. For 
 Greek Egypt and Latin Africa were in close touch, and as a 
 matter of fact it has been pointed out to me that the course of art 
 followed this route : Egypt,-Africa,-Spain, -Ireland !] 
 
 After a long time, with free and careful quotations alternating, 
 we seem to get a genuine recollection of coptic order [Horn, xxvii.) 
 in i Tim. i. 5, where (the rest of the quotation being quite regular) 
 we get the order e« /capSias Kadapas by Macarius with both boh 
 and sah, against all Greeks : e« Kadapas KapStas. I call attention 
 to it, because it seems as if we could hear him thinking;- aloud. 
 
 Just as (same Horn.) where Macarius writes (Eph. vi. 11) ttjv 
 iravonXiau tov Trpevp.aTO'5 for Tt\v tiov. tov Oenv, a rapid glance at 
 sah f shows 
 
 CJUTTHYTK ItTnArt 
 
 gon?\i<s. HnrfOYTe 
 where UnrfOYTE might be confused for tov Trve.vp.aTos, a very 
 slight difference accounting for it to the eye in the sahidic column. 
 The reading has no other authority. 
 
 I He is quoting most freely all the time from Ephesians, and may have had it 
 open before him. Ephesians has reached us in its entirety both in sah and boh. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 25 
 
 Similarly Macarius quotes from Heb. vi. 4 immediately below, 
 reading tt;s Swpeas tov 0eov for 717s Scop, rr;? errovpaviov, which might 
 also be confused. 
 
 But now comes a quotation from John x. 1 in a form which 
 seems pretty conclusive for Coptic influence. Instead of saying : 
 6 jar) elaep^op-evo? Sia tt]s 6vpa<; ets ttjv avXrjv, Macarius says : 
 
 6 /u.r) Stct tt}s elcrooov etcrep^o^e^os 
 rendered by his Latin translator : 
 
 " qui per ingressum non intrat " 
 exactly as Horner for boh: "that he who cometh not in through 
 the entrance!' 
 
 The boh (and sah) is mpo, not using any transliteration of the 
 Greek but a pure Coptic expression po "entrance." In vv. 7 and 9 
 Greek repeats dvpa, while boh differentiates from po with the word 
 cjBlE. {Sah substitutes "shepherd" for "door" in verse 7, and 
 repeats po in verse 9.) 
 
 I submit that this is interesting when we find Macarius using 
 Sia 777s etuoSou and boh mpo in verse 1, and nicfie in verses 7 
 and 9. 
 
 Compare also a small place in the important verse 1 Cor. ii. 9, 
 where Macarius uses ocra for d (oaa rjTOLpaaeu 6 @e6s rots ayawcoo-Lv 
 avrov) with only ABC of Greeks but with Clem™ Hipp Cyr Epiph 
 Cyr (both) and as it would seem the Coptic. 
 
 Again a small place 2 Cor. iii. 1 7. For " ov Se to irvevpct. 
 KvpCov iXevBepia" Macarius uses ottov. No Greeks do this except 
 FG, and Tischendorf calls attention to it in Rom. iv. 15, v. 20, as 
 well, where no Greeks vary ov except FG again. But boh is very 
 definite : niJUA. eT6 (sah not extant in Balestri). 
 
 Rather an interesting place occurs in Horn. xlii. 
 
 As Macarius has been quoting rather loosely in the neighbour- 
 hood, I would not call attention to it, but that it seems to have a 
 special significance. Referring to Luke vi. 36, Matt. xv. 11, 
 Macarius says : " yweo-de -^p-qo-rol [always this play on ^picrro? 
 wherever he uses these passages instead of olKrippoves] ws 6 narrjp 
 vp,S>v 6 ovpavios' to yap /SXcLtttov /cat fjuauvov tov avdptoTrov, evSodev 
 io~Tiv' eK yap rr/9 KapStas iKuopevovTai StaAoytcr^ot Trovrjpol." 
 
 Now the Greek merely says kolvoi tov dvOpcoirov twice over. 
 Latt: "communicat" or " coinquinat." But the coptic (boh and 
 sah) is explicit with defile (neTCuuq) in both places. Therefore 
 Macarius supplies fikaitTov and /uaow. The word j3\aTTTco only 
 
126 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 occurs in Luke iv. 35 and Mark xvi. 18 in other connections, and 
 fjuaivu in the Gospels only in John xviii. 28 in another connection. 
 Surely coptic cuuq may be responsible here for fikairTov ko.l 
 piaivov. 
 
 Again, right after it, Macarius quotes Matt. vi. 21, Luke xiL 
 34, as " ottov 6 vov<; crov, e«:et kclI 6 Brjcravpbs crov." In all Latins 
 cor is used, as Kap&ia among all Greeks and gHT in both Coptics ; 
 indeed gHT is used for vovs by copt in all the 2 1 places where vow; 
 occurs in Greek : 
 
 Rom. i. 28. God delivered them unto a reprobate heart. 
 vii. 23. against the law of my heart. 
 
 25. So then I in my heart indeed am servant to the 
 law. 
 xi. 34. For who knew the heart of the Lord. 
 xiv. 5. Let each one be persuaded in his own heart. 
 1 Cor. i. 10. but that ye may be made perfect in one heart. 
 ii. 16. For who knew the heart of the Lord ? 
 xiv. 14, 15. my heart is unfruitful .... I shall pray in 
 the heart also. 
 Eph. iv. 17. as the Gentiles walk in vanity of their heart. 
 
 23. that ye may become new in the spirit of your 
 heart. 
 Col. ii. 18. being proud without cause by heart of his flesh. 
 Tit. i. 1 5 . but their heart was defiled and their conscience. 
 Apoc. xiii. 18. He who hath heart let him reckon the number, 
 xvii. 9. He who hath heart and wisdom. 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 5. Men having their heart corrupt. 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 8. men whose heart is corrupt. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 45. Then he opened their heart to make them under- 
 stand. 
 
 In Rom. xii. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 2, 1 Cor. xiv. 19, a different word 
 is used in boh (niK«vi~), but sah holds g,HT. 
 
 (In Phil. iv. 7 the conjunction of ra? KapSias vfiov /cat ra 
 vorj/xara v[mov is expressed by boh and sah with erfeTertgHT" rteui 
 neT-ertJuieYi.) 
 
 I submit that Macarius variation of vow; for /capSia shows the 
 retranslation of one familiar with coptic and greek. 
 
 [It may be noted that Justin also uses vous.] 
 
 At Matt. vi. 31/32, although Macarius turns the phrase, using 
 <j>ayT]Te in^re and nepifiaWrjcrde for (f)ayo)p.ev inco^tu and irepi- 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 27 
 
 fia\u)p.e9a, it is noteworthy that he continues with verse 32 ravra 
 yap rravra against all Greeks rravra yap ravra (but A) and distinctly 
 with copt and sah "rtAJ r<5.p THpOY," which is also the way 
 most Latins turn it (a b k Cypr omit iravra). 
 
 Note that, going back to verse 25 immediately after, Macarius 
 substitutes ri/juairepov for irXeiov. Cf. boh OVOT and sah oyotS , 
 which in retranslation might be rendered in a variety of ways. 
 
 The following is a small matter. 1 Tim. v. 6. Contrary to 
 custom Macarius introduces this verse with on. Greek, boh, and 
 sah have Se, but possibly, if consulting, the book (and he quotes 
 much from Timothy), his eye may have thought ^.e was xe , for 
 elsewhere many others have fallen into this mistake, xe is absent 
 here from coptic, but it is present so often that as a Coptic form 
 Macarius may well be excused for using it, and accused of a 
 mental attitude involving it. 
 
 The quotations in the Homilies close with Matt. vii. 11, where 
 wevfia ayLov replaces ayada against coptic, merging the quotation 
 with Luke xi. 13. 
 
 Macarius is one of those men who are the despair of textual 
 critics. Just as you think you are going to tie him down to give 
 valuable evidence, he continues to quote freely from memory. I 
 must admit that his testimony is difficult to balance. He is one 
 who was deeply versed in the Scriptures, and therefore quotes 
 most often without a reference. He must have known Timothy 
 and Ephesians practically by heart, t and I can hardly ever tell if 
 he is copying. Some quotations are word for word as in the mss., 
 others very free or combined. Still, the very fact of memorial 
 quotations lends force to a(ot,op.evoi,s in 1 Cor. i. 24, e«roSou in 
 John x. 1, ftXairrov xai p,iaivov in Luke vi. 36, Matt. xv. 11, and 
 vovs Matt. vi. 21, Luke xii. 34, ravra yap iravra in Matt. vi. 32. 
 
 What should have been the work of two or three hours, 
 however, has extended to three or four days on this testimony of 
 Macarius. 
 
 Passing to Macar. Magn. De custodia cordis we find in Eph. iv. 3 1 
 two clauses elided out of five. He omits Kai Qv\lo% and kcu 
 /3Xacr^ju.ta. Only one boh MS. apparently omits /cat /JXacr^/xia 
 but with it goes kgu Kpavy-q too ex homoiotel. Sah has the clauses 
 in full. 
 
 \ As Mark the Monk, we are informed from his companions' testimony. 
 
128 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Next in "De perfectione in spiritu" we notice in John v. 44 
 Macar has ttlcttiv e^ew for wio-revo-aa [boh — erf AgT , but sah 
 GTETrr ^cyniCTEVE], and ^rowres (with K* some cursives, e I Ephr 
 Bas Chr Aug Marc mon Evagr). He quotes this passage twice, 
 the second time retaining fyrovvTec fin., but substituting in.cm.vuv 
 for ttlcttiv ex eiV - This gives one a very good idea what to expect. 
 
 So far no clue. But now we come to a decisive one. 
 Macarius with boh, against sah and all Greeks, introduces an aXXo 
 into 1 Cor. x. 31 [Galland., p. 171, wrongly indexed at foot 
 1 Cor. v. 31], writing: 
 
 etre yap <j>r)<TLv ecr^iere etre mveTe etre ti aWo iroieiTe ei? ho^av 
 ©eov woieiTe. 
 
 This is the exact equivalent of the bohairic rtKEgcuR. It is 
 true that the Vulgate with the ms. lux, and Aug 1/2 Hil add aliud, 
 and it is possible that Macarius' Greek text is corrupt, but I have 
 not so far found a case where the Latin translator added anything 
 to the Greek, although he sometimes mistranslates to conform to 
 the usual Latin reading. Unless therefore scholars can show 
 Macarius' Gk text to have been tampered with here, we have a 
 distinct record of bohairic influence against sahidic and Greek. 
 
 While there is hardly any excuse for Macarius' largely amplified 
 quotation of Matt. xx. 27 : 
 
 6 6t\u>v ev vpiv TTpwTos etvai /cat //.eyas ecrrw TravTO>v Sia/coi'os, 
 Kai ecr\aTo<; kou oovXos, 
 yet the boh expression eeovuuty and sah neTffA.ovcocy might 
 very well be expressed here TrpojTos kcu peyas as well as either trprnToq 
 or peyas ; but the addition of rravTav seems only to occur in Greek 
 M {ex Mark ix. 35). In fact we see from Macarius addition of 
 k<u ecryaTos Kat SotAos that he had St. Mark's version in mind. 
 In St. Mark the same Coptic word occurs for Trpwros. Hence 
 while Macarius thus admits combining St. Matthew and St. Mark, 
 we see perhaps a glimmer of Coptic behind rrpcoTos eivcu kou /xeyas. 
 
 That our point is well taken is illustrated by Horner, who 
 translates his boh in both Matt, and Mark " first," but his sahidic in 
 Matt, "first" and in Mark "great" \ 
 
 We pass now to De oratione : 
 
 In Luke xviii. 7 for the second time Macarius elides tcov 
 €K\eKTcov, yet we find no authority for this. 
 
 Rather a curious change of order occurs next at Matt. x. 42 
 where Macarius says 6s a.v Troricrr) iroTTjpiov xjjvxpov povov eis ovopa 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 29 
 
 fia9r]Tov ajxrjv Xeyw vp.iv ov prj cnro\eo-ei top piaBov clvtov. It is no 
 fragmentary quotation, and yet he transfers "a cup of cold water" 
 to a place early in the verse, against all Greeks and Latins and 
 Coptic, but with syr S (and Aug once) ! 
 
 Macarius supplements this quotation with one from Matt, 
 xxv. 40, writing e(f> oaov evi tovto eiroirja-aTe ep.01 -rroiTjcraTe. 
 
 It will be noticed that he shortens it by omitting tovtojv t<dv 
 a§e\(f>a>v /xov, but adds tovto. Now sah's verb involves this tovto, 
 and boh involves tcivtol, as translated respectively by Horner. 
 
 An illustration of how free Macarius is at the same time 
 (making deductions precarious unless the matter appear very 
 clear) is found next at 2 Thess. iii. 10 (again wrongly indexed 
 in Galland. ; his index at foot is not always reliable) where 
 Macarius simply says 6 Se dpyos p-rjSe e<r#ie'rco for otl et tls ov 
 6ekeL ipyd^eadai of Greek, Latin, and Copt. 
 
 We may notice that Macarius substitutes elrj for eorai after 
 [jirjiTOTe in Heb. iii. 12, as the Latins "sit." 
 
 Follows immediately a long quotation embracing Heb. iii. 16- 
 iv. 3, iv. 11, in which the only differences are : 
 iii. 16. 4- avTov post aKovaravTes. 
 
 19. ju.17 pro ovk. 
 iv. 1. 80/cei pro Soktj, 
 11. TrepLireo-r) pro wear]. 
 
 This 7repi.ireo~r) is noticeable (Latins cadat or incidat) because 
 
 boh is very deliberate with g,ei e*>pHl (fall down), while other boh 
 
 mss. say n*>pm (fall down), one egpm (fall over or fall on), and 
 
 one ftgpHl (fall up ?). So that really there is an excuse for irepi ! 
 
 \_Sah not extant in Balestri. Sah Horner " fall in."] 
 
 Follows a quotation from Heb. x. 22 without variation, and 
 then one from Heb. ix. 14 where os Sta irvevpLaTos aloviov eavrbv 
 vpoo-r)veyi<ei' ap.(op.ov t&J ©ew is entirely left out (no doubt by 
 design) but which ends 4- teal ahqdivco after Qe-2 tpvTi (as edited 
 by Lachmann in his N.T.) with boh and only Greek AP 21* 31 
 66 mg Chrys Thphyl {"Ex Thess. i. 9" as Tischendorf says). 
 \_Sah not extant in Balestri.] 
 
 I do not think that it will do to say that boh got this from 
 Macarius, because Macarius is quoting at length (he quotes twelve 
 verses in Hebrews on one page of Gallandius), and although he 
 chose to elide a whole clause in ix. 14, I should think from his 
 lengthy running quotation of Heb. iii. 16-iv. 3 covering seven 
 
 K 
 
130 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 whole verses that he had the book open before him and saw 
 eepenep&uoK jukU'I" etoit*) ovog, nextm . 
 
 The last quotation in this work of Macarius is from Luke 
 x. 4.1 Jin./ 4.2, which agrees verbatim with the printed Greek textus 
 receptus. 
 
 In the following De patientia et discretions we may notice : 
 Rom. viii. 28. Macarius supplies to before ayaOov as Greek L 
 some curs. Clem Orig\/6 Ephr Cyr 1 / '2 Thdrt Antioch 
 Thphyl against the rest of the Greek uncials. 
 
 Boh turns it, saying " in all good things " <J>eit goufi. 
 rtifteit eerf^nev, and sah grt guufi. mm en«x.r<s.eorr 
 " in everything for the good," both emphasizing however 
 every good thing. [Quotation repeated again in the 
 same form in De libertate mentis ^\ 
 1 Cor. x. 13. Long quotation. Only difference yap pro Se 
 after wio-tos, which some boh omit ; and omits vfias 
 before vveveyKeiv with the large majority of Greeks ; but 
 copt has a longer turn of phrase. 
 Matt. xxi. 22 is thus given : 
 
 oti Trav o eav airrjar/Te fie tv Trpocrev^q 7TicrTeuovres \rj\peo-0e. 
 The ordinary Gk text is 
 
 Kai rravra ocra av atTT/crrjre ev ttj npocrev^y] TTMTTevovTes \rj\pecrde. 
 Now this passage is rather interesting, for boh and sah divide 
 squarely and boh is with Macar against sah. 
 
 At first Trav o for iravTa ocra might be passed over, but both 
 Coptics give almost the equivalent, boh g,coK rrtKerf and sah gujfl 
 nix* , but while boh says "in a prayer" ^>ert OYnpoceY^H, 
 with Macarius, sah says " in the prayer " qax necy^H?\, or (other 
 mss.) " in your prayer " g,U neTrtty^sH^s . These little things are 
 worth notice. 
 
 1 Cor. xiii. 8. This short quotation " eire yXcocrcrai, Karapyjj- 
 0r]aovTai. eire Trpo(j)7}T€La" can be passed ; it is a merger. 
 Boh and sah agree with the Greek. 
 
 1 Cor. xiii. II. ore yap yeyova avrjp KaT7)pyr)<ja ra tov vrjrnov. 
 
 Here again there is nothing to notice particularly. 
 Gallandius prints Karrjpyrjaa for KaTrjpyyjKa of text. 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 7 agrees with usual Greek text as does Palladius, 
 
 not supplying ev before ttj crapKu as does copt. 
 2 Cor. xi. 14. (et yap /ecu Kara rov a-rrocrToXov) " aSev o craravas 
 ets ayytkov c/>wto? /iexacr^jU,aTi{ecr^at." This is only a 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I3I 
 
 free rendering of /cat ov 6avp,ao~Tov auros yap o aarava<; 
 H€Taa)(7)fJ.0LTi[ l eTaL eis ayyeXov (f>u>To<;. 
 I Cor. xv. 50. on crapi; /cat at;u.a /SacrtXeiav ©eou ou Khqpovo- 
 fX7)<rov<Ti. This is more important. It does not follow 
 the Coptic order [boh only extant) of ov /cX^po^o/x^croucrt 
 ttjv /3ao-tXet.av tov &eov, but it conveys the Coptic exactly, 
 substituting Kkr]povop.r]aova(. for K\iqpovop,y]crai ov Swai'Taa. 
 as do Greek FG (against the rest) with Irert nt 2/5 Orig™* 
 Tert bis and some Latins f g Hier Aug Sedul, and also 
 Isai Abb i/i. 
 Again, following very soon (with free quotations from i Cor. 
 i. 23, 2 Cor. vi. 16 in between) we reach another conclusive 
 place : 
 
 Heb. v. 7. Although inverting the order freely Macarius uses 
 pvcraa9ai for crw^eiv, a notable change. Ambrose for 
 salvumfacere says liberare, but one old latin ms. eliberare, 
 and boh : ErtAgJuieq e&o?\ *>eir c^juoy [sah wanting] 
 exactly eliberare or pvcraoQai. 
 Follows 2 Cor. x. 5 without variation. 
 
 And next John viii. 44 where Macar elides e/c naTpos tov 
 StaySoXow ecrre /cat, writing vyuets (eX.eye) ras e7Tt#u/uas rou Trarpos 
 vfjccuv Oekere Troieuv and then supplies rou avdpconoKTovov, apparently 
 without authority. Continuing : e/cewos yap avdparrroKTovos zcttiv 
 ap-yyidev' for t]v airapy^f]^, and closing : /cat ei> ttj a\r)0eia ov^ eo-Trjxev. 
 This ecrriv is only supported by some three greek cursives syr pesh 
 Iren mt and Didymus, but boh and sah have r/y, although three 
 boh mss. omit ne altogether. 
 
 As regards unique ap^qdev for air apx 7 ? 5 note &?/z has it also 
 practically in one word : icxerfgH (against sah) as at John i. 2. 
 
 Matt. xvi. 24 follows next, word for word with the ordinary 
 Gk text ; and, separated only by /cat ttoXlv : 
 
 Luke xiv. 26. eav prjTis picrrjo-rj warepa /cat fjLrjTepa /cat aSeX^ous 
 /cat ywat/ca /cat T€kvol en Se /cat tiji/ eavrov rjiv^rjv ov 
 Siwarai jitou ewai p.aOr)TY]s, 
 from which it will be seen how one quotation will differ from 
 another in accuracy, for this is undoubtedly a quotation from Luke. 
 It does not range with coptic or Greek properly. Both sah and 
 boh prefix possessive pronouns to all the relations, and the Greek 
 has the articles. 
 
 The next, Acts xiv. 22, is regular except that Macar varies the 
 
 k 2 
 
132 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 order to eis rt\v /3ao\ tov ©eov eicreXOew against Greek and boh (sah 
 not extant). 
 
 Next follows the tract De elevatione mentis in which we find in 
 the opening quotation 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 18 an interesting matter to discuss, for this is the 
 second time Macarius quotes this verse ; previously in 
 the v th homily where we called attention to his ei? rr)v 
 avTiqv eiKova (so boh) which he repeats here. But this is 
 not all, for he repeats his quotation precisely in the same 
 way, not only agreeing with boh, but actually explaining 
 as he did before avaKeKakvixfievco. He quotes thus : 
 " 77/u.eis yap (<l>r)(Tiv) avaKeKaXvix/jLevw TTpocrconco (tovtzq-tiv ev Tm 
 ecrw av6p<i)TT(ii) ttjv $o£av Kvptov kotottt pitpfxeOa (as boh for 
 KaToirTpiE,o[X£voi with Orig mt ) eis (with boh alone) tt)v avrrjv 
 eiKova fieT<xfxop<f)ovp.evoL (as boh for fieTap-optfyov/Jieda with 
 Orig mt ) airo Sof/js ets 8o£av." 
 The only difference then between boh and Macar is in the 
 omission by Macar of -n-avres at the beginning of the verse. 
 
 [Isaiah Abb. also has " in eamdem imaginem " with some Latt.~\ 
 Next in Luke xi. 8 we have avaa-ra.% for eyep#eis, but this is 
 hardly retranslation but a reflection of avaaras earlier in the verse 
 (yet boh and sah use the same word twice). Macar also writes 
 oaov for ocrcuv apparently alone, but compare vg c etc. quotquot ; 
 quantum of d r, ocrov X c DEFGHLSUVXrAA sah ? 
 
 In Luke xviii. 7 Macar again omits t<dv eKXeKTuv avrav from 
 his quotation. 
 
 2 Cor. vi. 14. It is noticeable that Macar quotes 
 
 rts yap tj Koivoivia. (jxjjTi irpos cr kotos. 
 In this way he halves his sympathy between Gk and Coptic ; 
 for boh says le ov te ^fjmeTtyc^Hp juniOYcjum 1 rtejut ni^^Ki , 
 or: "what is the fellowship \Gr. noivcavia. absque vf\ of the light 
 with the darkness." No Greeks add the article to Kowmvia. 
 
 I wish Macarius had quoted the whole verse, for there is a key 
 here, as boh uses the same word "t"JUieTcycl>Hp twice for p.eTovr) 
 and Koivwvia. (All the Latins differentiate.) 
 
 In De caritate. 
 After a brief reference to 1 Cor. i. 21 tov KypvyfAaTos juwpia, 
 Macar passes to a composite quotation of 1 Cor. i. 18/23/24, 
 thus : 
 
 "o yap crTavpos" ((frrjcnv o JJavkos) "tov Xpiarov rois uev 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 33 
 
 louocuois (TKavBaXov EWrjcn Se pupua Tjpiv Se rot? crcoi^opevoLs ©eov 
 Swa/xi? /cat @eou croc^ta." 
 
 The language of verse 1 8 is o Xoyos yap tov o-ravpov and of 
 verse 23 rjixeis Se Kr^pvacropev Xpicrrov eo-Tavpapevov lovSatots ju.ei> 
 cr/cat-SaXo^ k.t.A., so that Macar is combining both verses with his 
 o yap aravpos tov XpLcnov. 
 
 The important part to be observed is this, that while in the 
 Greek text of verse 18 o-(i)l,opevoi<z is used (o Xoyo? yap tov 
 o~Tavpov rots pev aTroWvpevois Utopia eo-Ti rots Se o-otppevois r\piv 
 Swajjus ©eov ecrrt), in verse 24 the Greek uses kA^tois, and it is 
 from verse 23/24 that Macar is quoting, for he ends with <9eot> 
 Swa/xts kcu ©eou ao(j>i,a instead of as verse 18 only Swa/xts Qeov 
 ecrrt. 
 
 Now <Wj, as pointed out before, uses e©fT<MTOg,eJii = 
 <ra)t l opevoi% both in verse 24 and verse 18. That Macar quotes 
 twice, using o-oitppevois each time in verse 24, is significant. [See 
 above on Horn, xi.] 
 
 It may also be pointed out that while in Horn. xi. Macar uses 
 the Greek terminology Qeov Swapiv /cat ©eov cro<j)iav, here he says 
 (and his editors seem to represent him faithfully) Qeov Svvapis /cat 
 ©eov cro(f>i.a. 
 
 Now if you will consult the Coptic you will see that this <ro$ia 
 shows plainly to the eye : oyxoju ttTe c^ ne item oycocJ>ia. 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 8 follows without variation, and also part of Phil, 
 ii. 7 exactly, and part of 2 Cor. iv. 7 more freely, and 1 Cor. i. 30 
 
 exactly. 
 
 John xiv. 21. Macarius elides pe without authority, saying /cat 
 yap o ayairav (<f>r)o-bv) aya-nt)dr)0-eTai k.t.X. 
 
 He passes to verse 23, saying (/cat ev aXXots) eya> /cat o naT7]p 
 eXevaopeda /cat povqv Trap avrco noirjcropev. 
 
 This is almost permissibly free. Note that it ends with 
 TTOirjaopev against 7rotTycr&) in the quotation in Horn, xxxviii., which 
 was also free, and merely said : 
 
 on epfyavicrui avTco epavTov /cat povqv Trap avrco 77007 era). 
 
 This TroLfjao) is found in D gr d e syr cu. Macar uses it because 
 he here makes a saltus from ver. 21 to ver. 23. [See renewed 
 quotation of this beyond.] 
 
 Eph. hi. 19. Twice before Macar has quoted this. Once in 
 full and properly on Horn, xlvi., and once as here (on 
 Horn, xviii.) : iva irXrjpwdrjTe ets irav to TrXrjpajpa tov Xptorou 
 
134 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 without authority, apparently confusing Xpiarov for 6eov 
 with Xpicrrov in the preceding clause. 
 
 He follows it with kcu ttoKiv and a quotation of: 
 Eph. iv. 30, where he passes from //.eypi KaTavTr)o-a>p.ev (eliding 
 01 7tcwt€s . . . tov Geov) to his favourite quotation " eis 
 /itTpov rj\iKt.a<; tov Tr\r}pio par os tov XpiaTov.' 
 He now goes back to John xiv. 26 which he quotes from o Se 
 TrapaK\rjTo<; to iravTa, but prefixes : " virayw," eXeyev, (from xvi. 5, 
 for his mind is running on ch. xvi. as he follows at once with a 
 quotation from xvi. 12). 
 
 The only difference in xiv. 26 here is that he gives iraTrjp for 
 6 TTarrjp. While in Coptic the article is present, yet the article 
 itself spells c^iuut or neiujT , without it the word being iuut or 
 eiouT, so that to the ear of a graeco-copt niajT would sound like 
 -rraTrjp. I do not think this is far-fetched. We can only be 
 gleaners in this betrampled field. 
 
 John xvi. 12/13 now follows word for word with the text. 
 Then Rom. viii. 26 : ko.6 o Set ovk oLo'ap,ei>' aXX avTo iruevpa 
 (— to) evTvy^avei (pro vTrepevTvyyavei) vwep r/p-oiv aTevay- 
 jUCHS aXaAijrois. 
 
 — to before nvevp-a appears gratuitous (copt run HA.). 
 vnep T)p.a>v omitted by Greek N*ABDFG d* g Orig Epiph 
 Dam Aug is present here with copt. 
 
 tvTvyyavu is read by Gk 54 238 Ephr Chr. 
 Copt supplies ev before arei/ay/Aois but no Greeks nor 
 Macar. 
 1 Cor. ii. 1 1 follows practically without variation. 
 Next follows : 
 
 " ov yap vpeiav evovcri (<f>r)o-t.v} ol vyiawovTes taTpov aXX' 
 oi Kaxw? e^ovTes- 
 This is from Luke v. 31 (= Matt. ix. 12, Mark ii. 17, with 
 lo-Yuoyre?) and is interesting because Palladius also uses vyiaivovTts. 
 [See beyond on Pallad. as to coptic.~\ 
 
 Macar next refers to Phil. iii. 20, as often previously, and then 
 quotes 1 Cor. ii. 9 verbatim, passing to verse 10 thus : emx iirayei 
 '' rj/jLLv Se aireKa\v\fj£ Sia tov irvt.vp.aTOs avrov," eliding o ©eos, but 
 this is quite natural. 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 9. In this quotation : " BeaTpov" (yap <f>Y]cnv) " eyevr)- 
 0rjp.ei> Kai ayyeXots /ecu av8poitroi<; " he elides t<m Koap.co 
 after eyevy]9r)p.€i>. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 35 
 
 This is merely free. The Coptic has it (sah not extant). 
 1 Cor. ii. 6/7 follows in full to ev iJ.vaTi]pt.co. 
 
 Note that Macar uses the order aocfaav Qaov with copt (and 
 the common Greek text with L gr and syr) against @eov croc/uav of 
 NABCDEFGP d e J ~g r vg Clem ter Orig septies Eus Bas Cyr 
 Chr Hil Ambrst etc. and the editors. I think this merits attention. 
 1 Cor. ii. 15 also seems interesting. For "o Se TTvz.vjj.cn i/cos 
 ava.Kpive.1 p,ev iravra (or ra Travra) " Macarius says /cat 
 "na.vTO.% fxev av6 pcaTrov; avaxpivei Kara to yeypap.p.evov. 
 Now boh says neu^ai rtiKerf , but sah here noYort iusjl 
 which would almost correspond with TravTas avOpcoirovs. 
 I Cor. ii. 13/15. Beginning in verse 13 irveviJ.aTi.Koi.s Trvev/j.a- 
 TtKa Macar runs to end of 15, merely eliding in 14/15 
 " /cat ov Swarau yvcovai ort Trvevp,a.TLKO<; avaKpiverau." 
 The only variation is in verse 14 ecrrt tovtco for aurcu 
 eo-rt. Both copts use rr Aq . 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 17. Macar repeats here the form : o KoWcop.evo's tco 
 
 Kvpio) ecrrai eis iu Trvtvixa. for o 8e koW. tco Kvpico ev nvevfia 
 
 €0"Tt. 
 
 Boh is OYnrtA. rtOYurr (ne), not agreeing (sah not 
 extant). 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 13. The form of salutation is thus given : rj x a P L, > 
 
 tov Kvpiov riv-cov Irjcrov Xpunov /cat rj ayanr) tov Oeov 
 /cat 7rarpo5 /cat 17 Koivcovia tov ayiov Trvevp.a.TO's. 
 
 The Greek uncials do not add T)p.cov, but both Coptics do (with 
 some Gk cursives vg syr xh arm aeth goth Bas Did Chr Thdrt 
 Ambrst). 
 
 The addition of tov vaTpo<;, however, is not Coptic. Probably 
 a recollection of Eph. vi. 23 (with which Epistle Macarius is so 
 familiar). 
 
 We pass now to De libertate mentis : 
 
 The first quotation is from 2 Cor. vii. 1 introduced by /cat 
 tovto eo-rt to Kadaipeiv (for Ka6apicrcDp.av), otherwise no change. 
 
 Follows 1 Cor. iii. 1 7 (a reference, very free) and 2 Cor. xi. 2 
 (exact) and 1 Cor. ix. 22 (inexact, employing Kepcj-qao) for ctcoctco 
 from context ; in the last Macar says wa tov<; ttxvtcis KepSrjcrr] for 
 iva TTavTCtis tlvcv; o-cocrco. The Coptic is plainly gllt<S. n&.ttT(X>C 
 rrr<s.rfog,eJii rtgArcoYorf). 
 
 So Palladms (Dial, de vita S. Joann. Chrysostomi) mixes 
 up 1 Cor. ix. 20 and 22, thus : 
 
I36 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 on eyevofir/v toi? ttcmji ra navra tois Iovooliois ws IovoaLO? iva 
 louScuous Kep&riaci), rots aadevecriv ws ao-devrjs Lva ao~6evei<; 
 KepSrjaco tois avopois a>s avopos Lva avopovs KepS^cra). 
 
 He thus also applies Keph-qaoi to tois 7racrt ra navTa as 
 it were. 
 2 Cor. xi. 14 (verbally exact but out of order). 
 2 Cor. x. 5 (exact, but printed text = /caraipowTes). 
 2 Cor. xiii. 3, Gal. ii. 20, iii. 27 (all pretty exact). 
 Then follows another reference to John xiv. 23 in slightly 
 different words from the last : 
 
 c\evo~ope6a ey<w re kgu o iraTrjp pov /cai povrjv Trap avrco TTOLr)<ropei>. 
 Rom. viii. 3 (exact, as far as it goes). 
 1 Cor. vi. 17 again in the same form. 
 John xvii. 21. " aa-irep eyou kgu <tv kv ecrpev Lva kcu ovtol ev i]piv 
 
 e }} 
 
 €V OiUlV. 
 
 Ordinary text has kclOcos etc. (copt KA.TA. 4 > P HT t") > ovtoi 
 
 for avToi seems to favour Coptic. 
 Rom. vii. 19/20. " ou yap o 6e\a> tovto itoico" is composite 
 
 from 19 : on yap o dekoi ttolo) ayadov . . . 
 
 and 20 : ei Se o ov 0e\co (ey«) tovto ttomo. 
 Rom. viii. 35. Exact as far as quoted. 
 1 Cor. x. 13. The third time this is quoted. Previously v^ias 
 
 Tret,paa6r)vaL twice now becomes ypas neip. (probably a 
 
 misprint) and t>p,as is again elided before vneveyKeiv with 
 
 most Greeks. 
 Heb. xii 8. Exact. 
 Rom. viii. 18. Exact. 
 Matt. xi. 12. Exact, but for the order (which in the context is 
 
 legitimate) /3ia£eTai (yap <j>y]criv o ai/zeuSi?? Kupios) 17 
 
 /Sao"iXeia ra)v ovpavwu K0.1 /Staa"Tai aptra^ovcriv avTqv. 
 Eph. iv. 31. Macar again elides km dvpos from his quotation, 
 
 and here the printed text says a</> -qpoyv (although the 
 
 Latin opposite, often incorrect however, has a vobis) and 
 
 previously a<p vpcav is printed (in de custodia cordis and 
 
 Horn. xix.). 
 Rom. viii. 28. Again the quotation is to ayaffov. See ante on 
 
 this. 
 Now comes the longest consecutive quotation (except perhaps 
 supra Heb. iii. 16-iv. 3), and it is very useful, for parts of it 
 have appeared before and the variations in those parts are con- 
 
OF THE' BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 37 
 
 firmed here. So that, even if Macarius were not copying from 
 his exemplar in those passages, we know that he reproduced it 
 rather faithfully, for he must have been copying here. Yet for the 
 third or fourth time we have the eis ttjv avrrjv eixova in verse 18 
 with bohairic alone (sah not extant) and in general agreement 
 there with boh construction. I copy passage and context : 
 2 Cor. iii. 7/1 1, 12, 18 : 
 
 " (7) ei Se 77 SiaKOfia tov Oolvcltov ev ypappacriv evTeTvnwpevr) 
 ev Xi0ots eyevr\6i] ev 80^77 wore pr) hvvaadai. tov<; viovs 
 IcrparjX areficrai (pro a-Teviaai tov? utous laparfX, cf. boh : 
 iterrcyHpi jutmc2\ cyxejuxoju TTxoYtyT) eis irpoo-omov 
 (— to, cf. boh : e*)OYfi ^ert ngo , only three mss. nigo) 
 Mwcrews Sta ttjv 8o£av tov irpoo-coirov avrov ttjv Karap- 
 yovpevrjv. (8) ttoo-o) paXXov {pro ttcds ov^i paXXov, cf. boh 
 verbatim naJCCU JUA.?\^\Orf) 77 StaKoiaa tov nvevpaTos 
 eo-TCU ev Sofq ; fo) et yap 17 ScaKovia \_cum boh T^lAXOrt IA. , 
 contra T77 Sta/covta NACD*FG d e amfu** syr aeth Orig 
 Cyr Ambrst Lachm. Tisch. Treg. W-Hmg. J?ev. mg.~\ tt)<; 
 KaTa/cpicrews So^a" ttoXXco paXXov 7reptcrcrevcrei (pro 
 trepiaaevei, cum boh CffAEpgOYO , ^/^r DE 38 72 93 
 221 260 d e g syr Orig mt Ambrst) 77 Sta/co^ta 777? 
 Sikuioo-wtj? ev Sogr) (cum boh *>err oycuoy , contra 80^17 
 - ev N*ABC 17 39 67** 80 Cyr Euthal). (,o) /cat yap 
 on (^r<? ouSe f«/« boh et gr plur.) SeSo^acrTai to SeSofao - - 
 pevov ev tovtch pepei (absque ra, c/i "in this respect " 
 boh — *>6tt nAJJUiepoc contra gr omn. ev tovtcj to* 
 pepei) evenev 7775 VTrepfiaXXovo-rjs So^s- (ll) ei yap to 
 Ka.Tapyovp.evov Sta 80^77? noXXco paXXov to pevov ev 80^77 ; 
 [[Ka.Tapyovp.evov eipyjKe Sta to 6vt]tq} o~oyparn. Mcovo-eax; 
 irepLKeio-dai ttjv tov ({kotos Sofav. enayefj] (l2) e^ovres 
 ow eX.7rtSa ( — TOiavTrjv; cf. ord. copt MOYg,e?\niC 
 JUUTAipH'i") ttoXXt) Trapp7)0-La XP a) P' e ^ a - [L KaL ^po^as 
 ptKpov eSetfe 7-77V a6a.va.T0v eKeivrjv tov irvevpaTOs ev 
 aTTOKaXvxfjeL 8o£av vvv ev tu> a6avaTco tov eao) av6pwn<a 
 tois aftois adavaTcos tc Kai aKaTapyrjTcjs eXXapneo-dai, 
 (£770-1 yow]] (l8) Tjpets Se TravTes [[tovt'co-tii' 01 Kara TeXeiav 
 tticttlv eK tov nvevpaTOS yevydevTesJ] avaKeKaXvppevo) 
 vpoao)TTO) ttjv 8o£av Kvpiov evo-mpitppeQa ets tt/v avTTjv 
 eixova peTapop^ovptvoi (pro KaTo?TTpi£opet'Ot T77V au777v 
 eiKOva peTapop<j}ovpeda ; cf. boh : £>ert OVgO eqtfcbpn 
 
I3 b CONCERNING THE DATE ' 
 
 eRo^\ Terr^ovtyT enujov Junoc £>ert oyiaSv ertcyiB.+ 
 JU.JU.ort rtgpm £>erf \ut supra, jam bis Macar] 
 
 Galland.~\ Kadanep ano Kvpi,ov Trvevp-aTO*;." 
 I submit that this is a pretty and a decisive passage. I have 
 not reserved it to the last. It comes in naturally here in our 
 investigation just before the close of this last tract of Macarius. 
 Now, in the light of this, what are we to think of that which the 
 writer says in the article on Texts and Versions " nor can it be 
 proved from the documents we possess " that bohairic was a literary 
 language before 518 a.d. ? We have already seen that Dom 
 Butler puts the bohairic version of the Lausiac History before 450 
 a.d., and this exhibition of Macarius takes us back to circa 370 a.d., 
 while, as I show for Greek N, by itself or by its parent, we get 
 back to 300 a.d. or thereabouts in any case. 
 
 1 forbear to give more space to an analysis of the readings 
 here. Anyone who will take the trouble to pass carefully over the 
 section above will find marvellous agreement with boh throughout, 
 even to Macarius sudden change to evoirTpL^o^eda here, for 
 twice previously it had been KaToinp Looped a in his quotations of 
 this last verse. 
 
 Balestri has not been able to give us anything sahidic in 
 2 Corinthians before x. 7. At this writing I do not know whether 
 Mr. Horner has been able to find other sahidic material. % But I 
 am not afraid that the agreement of Macarius should be as much 
 with sah or more so than with boh. The boh agreement is so deep 
 it looks very basic to me. 
 
 [P.S. — Mr. Horner tells me that we still lack nearly all the 
 first eight chapters of 2 Cor. He will print a few fragments here, 
 but so far they are nothing more.] 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 6 following, is rather free. 
 
 Heb. v. 14. Macar brings hiaxpio-iv last in the verse: " 777)0? 
 
 tt)v tov KaXov /ecu kolkov 8i.aKpLcn,v," which appears 
 
 to be opposed to coptic as well as Greek and Latin 
 
 order. 
 2 Pet. i. 19 is regular except for the introduction : kch vp,ei<3 
 
 enures tov Trpo(f>r)TLKov \oyov instead of " /cox e^o/jiev 
 
 /3e/3aiOTepov tov Trpo<f>r]TLKov \oyov.' 
 
 Boh expresses it : " and is firm for us the word of the 
 
 prophets.". 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 39 
 
 Rom. xii. 6. Macar inserts tov @eov after x a P bV > reading Kara 
 rrjv yapw tov @eov ttjv Sodeurav. Boh (but not all MSS.) 
 has a variation here, reading ncyi JunigJUOT " according 
 to [the) measure of the grace." This ntyi JUL may have 
 been confused. 
 
 Boh continues " whether prophecy according to the 
 likeness of faith." It may be recalled that Jerome and 
 Eucherius say "secundum mensuram fidei " here instead 
 of "secundum rationem fidei " for Kara tt\v avakoyuxv t^s 
 
 7TtO"Te(MS. 
 
 ( + tov &eov might also have been engendered from 
 misreading sah rtTA.YT<5^C.) 
 
 Matt. xvi. 26 might appear too loose for any comparison, but 
 we will give it because it is noticeable that Macarius 
 introduces the verse not with w^eXetrat or w^eA.Tj^crerou, 
 but with /cepSo?. Now in boh the same word is used 
 twice over for "gain." Boh does not say "For what 
 shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world ?" but 
 " For what will the man gain (oy T<s.p eT6 nipoujuu 
 rfAXeJUgHOY JLtiUoq) if he should gain (<5.qty,jat- 
 xeJutgHOv) the world whole ? " 
 
 Now Macarius (instead of " tl yap w^eXetrat avOpuiros eav tov 
 koo-[aov o\ov Kep$7)o-y) ") says : 
 
 tl yap Kepoos (<J>7)0-l) tu> avdpcouo), et tov koo-jjlov o\ov KepSrjoas . . . 
 
 Notice ti yap KepSo? tco avdpcoTrco Macarius 
 
 OY Y&p ETE mpoJJUU rt^XEJUgHOY juuuioq boh. 
 
 This KepSos tco avBpcoTTCi) looks very much like the turn of the 
 Coptic phrase 6T6 mpoujuu it AXEJUgHOY Jujutoq . No Greeks 
 give an article to avOpconos. 
 
 Note that Clem 2 °° T - says tl yap to o</>eXos eav . . . 
 
 Matt. vii. 7 is loose, eliding IflTtiTz. kcu evpyjcreTe. Macar writes : 
 at/reue (yap (prjai) Kai Sodrjaerai v/xlv' xpoveTe, avoiyqueTai, 
 thus doing away with /cat between KpoveTe and avoLyrjo-eraL. 
 This is coptic fashion. Boh does not do it here, but sah 
 does : " Ask that it may be given to you ; seek that ye 
 may find ; knock that it may be opened to you." 
 
 Surely we see the coptic mind of Macarius thinking here "more 
 copt." 
 
 This ends the quotations from Macarius the Great. 
 
 In the Apophthegmata occurs 1 Tim. vi. 7 without variation. 
 
140 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 In S. Macar. Alex. Abb. Nitr. Regula ad Monachos occurs : 
 
 James iv. 6 ) where, although the order of the two clauses is 
 
 1 Pet. v. 5 J reversed (without authority except by Ambrosi- 
 
 aster ; al. ?), the quotation is introduced by Quia (absent 
 
 in Greek and Latin in St. James) = copt xe where it duly 
 
 appears in bohairic (sah not extant in St. James). 
 
 (The quotation is repeated in similar order with the 
 prefix quia in "Alia patrum regula ad monachos" 
 (Galland. vii. 247). 
 
 Mark the Monk. 
 
 Turning now to Mark the monk and hermit, whose writings 
 are full of Scripture, and who is said in the Lausiac History to have 
 known The Scriptures by heart, we find, besides the passages 
 already adduced which agree with Macarius, others of some value. 
 Mark indeed can mix scripture also, as : et rts ovk aTroTacraeTcu 
 wacTL T019 vTrap^ovcriv avrco ovk ecrri p,ov aftos, where he combines 
 Luke xiv. 33 and Matt. x. 38. 
 
 But notice Matt. xxv. 21 (23): eu SoiAe ayade koll mo-re em 
 oXiya eyevov (pro 77s) ttuttos em iro\\(i)i> ere KaraaTrjo-co eicreXOe ets 
 tx]v -yapav rov Kvpuov. 
 
 Boh says «Mc.rtg,OT, but sah AKtyume EKrTgOT and so M boh . 
 I have before referred to M copt (Morgan Gospels and elsewhere) 
 and spoken of boh and sah having been once closer than they are 
 now. Here boh and sah draw together through M boh and Mark 
 the monk with eyevov. \ Note that Mark omits crov at end of the 
 quotation. So only, I think, Latin Moling (ver. 23). 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 20. <f>vyr) ev yeL^covi, r\ ev cra/3/3<XT(y. So boh 
 definitely (rather than sah) *>eff TcJ>paj for xet/xwos of 
 all Greeks. 
 Matt. xiii. 33 in full (Opusc. 3) is regular except eKpvipev eis for 
 
 eveKpvxpev ets (as in Luke). 
 John xv. 22 is regular. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 32/35 is longer. In verse 33 Mark supplies 
 afiueycu avrco to o$eCkop,evov before w? kcu eyco. 
 
 In 34 he gets free, for /cat opyLo-deis o Kvpios avrov 
 TrapehcoKev, saying : kou opyicr#eis (^crt) vapaSore ; then 
 continues. 
 
 f M bijh came from the monastery of SS. Antony and Paul in (he desert East 
 of the Nile. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 141 
 
 At 34 fin. — avToj with many. 
 
 35 runs : ovtw<; 7ronjcret vpiv o vaTr)p p.ov o ev rots ovpavois 
 order with sah against boh (pro ovtco /cat o iraTyp pov o 
 eirovpavio<;) eav prj ac^jre e/cacrros tcj aSeX<£a> avrov ra Trapa- 
 TTTcopara a7ro rail' Kap§ia>v vpcov \_pro eav pr) a<f>. e/c. to. ao. 
 avrov airo tojv KapSuov vpu>v (ra 7ra.pa.7rrw/Aa.Ta avrwvjj. 
 The latter differs from copt, both Coptics eliding ra napa- 
 TTTCD/jiaTa avrcov with Greek NBDL and all it. except /"/£. 
 Luke xiii. 2/5 (1) is also longer. He begins by mixing verses 
 I and 2 So/cetre yap <f>r)crt,v otl u>v to aupa epi^e JltXaros 
 pera t&w raXiXataw and continues : apcaTcoXorepot, f [pro 
 apaprcoXoc) rjcrav irapa 7ravras avOpcairovs rous e7n y/jv | 
 (— on rotavra irevovOao-iv cum gr Ji c). (3) ov (pro ouy>) 
 Xeytu vp.Lv aXXa eav pi) peravorjo-yjTe (pro peravoyre, cum 
 ADMXr) oicravTco? (— Travres cum ff^ /) a-rroXeio-Qe. 
 (4) /cat 01 Se/ca /cat o/ctw § (pro 77 e/cewot 01 Se/ca /cat o/ctw) 
 ec/> ous enecrev o nvpyos tov (pro ev tqj cum D gr [tzotz d~^) 
 Sikwap. /cat aireKTeivev avrov; So/cetre on ( — oirrot cum D 
 240 241 d e et syr) apaprcoXorepoi rjcrav (pro ofyeCXerai 
 eyevovTo) [| irapa navra^ avupunrovi rous /caTOt/cowTas 
 IepovaaX-qp (— ev aim gr BDLX e [non copt']). <s) ov 
 (pro ov^l) \eya> vpvv aXX' eav pr) peravorjo-rjTe (pro pera- 
 vorjTe) wcrauroi? (pro opocco 1 ;, — 7ravres cum ff^ 1 I syr cu 
 boh MSS. duobus) a-noXeio-Be. 
 A careful study of the above will show the Egyptian mind at 
 ap.apT(o\oTepoL (bis) and several other cognate things. 
 
 How insistently the base of the Latins c deff^a.nd /intrude 
 into this text of 390 a.d. ! And they do not agree among them- 
 selves. Yet Mark the monk seems to harmonize them here behind 
 the Coptic. 
 
 Mark viii. 35 thus : o a7roXecra§ tyjv xjjv^rjv avrov evenev epov /cat 
 (Luke xiv. 26) 7QV eva yy € \ L0V e( , s {fi)7)v aiatviov c/>uXafei avTTjv [/cat 
 7raXtv apvqaao-Qai iravra fiovXevcov Trpoo~TidrjO'Lv\ en Se /cat 
 riqv eavTOv xpv^rjv. 
 
 t Compare boh rtpeqeprroRj e&o?\ oyte ; sah mwvprfolle 
 
 JTApA. 
 
 J New apparently. 
 
 § One sah MS. says Then for Or (inii.) and boh omits e/c€ivot. 
 
 || Cf. boh. 
 
142 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Quotations from St. Mark are rare enough, but here Mark the 
 hermit disappoints us and is too free for comparison, while 
 adding (without authority) eis t.onqv aicoviov to cf>vXa£ai {pro o-cocrat). 
 Sah has qrfA.TOY2toc (against boJis Eqerr<s.g,juec) and might 
 have engendered this §vXaf;ai, " conservare." 
 
 John v. 44 he quotes thus (so AL i 22 33 249 473 Cyr) : 7rws 
 
 yap Svvacrde (<£i?cri) Tncrreveuv So£av irapa avdpconcov {pro 
 
 aXXrjXcov) XafifiavovTes koll ttjv &o£av ttjv napa tov fiovov 
 
 ©eov ov tflTovvres (pro ^ijreiTe). 
 
 This avOpcoirtov is not Coptic but was used by Orig 1/2 Eus 
 
 Hit Ephr and bF and some cursives. 
 
 ^Towxes agrees with N* greek some cursives e I Ephr Bas 
 Chr Atig and Macar. 
 
 John iv. 34 is as loose, for he says ep.ov fSpcofia ecmv iva ttolco 
 to 6eX*qp,a tov iraTpos p.ov (for tov Tre/i^avro? fie), substi- 
 tuting for " /cai TeXeicocrco clvtov to epyov" : TravTas 
 avdpcoirovs o-codr/vaL koll eis ertvyv<x>o~iv aXrjOeias eXdeuv /caret 
 tov \oyov UavXov (1 Tim. ii. 4). 
 But "of my Father" is Egyptian, for one sah ms. (114) reads 
 " of the Father he who sent me " and (aeth). 
 
 John vii. 38, 39 follows however word for word with the usual 
 text, except for the use of eXeyev for et-rre in verse 39. 
 This eXeyev however belongs to X Did Cyr and cff^lq 
 (ETAC2COC boh). 
 Matt. xiii. 44 thus : o/xoia yap ecrriv 77 /3ao-(.\eta tov ovpavtov 
 Orjcravpco KeKpvjXjxevco ev aypco ( — tco) ov evpcov av9pcoiros 
 eKpvxfie' (then freely : /cat aireXOcov e-rrcoXrjcre Travra /ecu 
 yyopacre [pro ayopa.£ei] tov aypov eKewov). 
 ev aypco, "in a field," = distinctly boh (^erf OYIOgl) with D gr 
 \_prob. from d " agro " but against sah (gtt TCtocye)]. 
 
 The elision of /ecu airo 1-775 x a P as o-vtov vn-ayec is evidently 
 intentional, but the continuation involving yyopacre for ayopa^ei 
 = boh alone (against sah and the Greeks) with most Latins. 
 
 [Sah here = Hilary " Ideo absconsus est thesaurus quia et 
 agrum emi oportebat." Sah " and out of his joy he is wont to 
 go and sell all things which he hath and buy that field."] 
 
 John xv. 5, 16 ; i. 3, xiv. 6 all agree with the ordinary 
 
 text. 
 Luke vi. 46. tl fie koXeite KvpiE KvpiE Kai ov ttoieite a Xeyco 
 is regular. 
 
OF" THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 143 
 
 But Matt. vii. 12 ocra OeXere iva. ttouoctlv vpiv ol avdpunroi, /cat 
 ( u « vi. 31) V p €i<s 7j- oiei7 - € clvtois ofjLOLCo^ (pro ovtq) /cat vpeis 
 7rotetre avTots) is exactly the manner of both boh and .ra/2 
 (against Greek) not only bringing ovtcos last, but making 
 it opoicos = JUn<MpH T t" boh, HTeige sah. Most Latins 
 who have ovtco (for some omit with L gr , asc/, / z'^ with 
 syr en) write "z/# et vos facite illis " ; Jerome alone pre- 
 serves the order of copt Marc mon by saying (ep. ad Gal.) 
 " et vos eis facite similiter" but this is from Luke (vi. 31) 
 doubtless, whence boh sah and Marc mon no doubt also 
 got their o/xotws. 
 Matt. xvi. 28. /cat etcrt rive; toxv coSe eo~Tt]KOTu>v otrive? ov prj 
 yevaoivrai davaTOV, e&>s av tSojcrt ttjv fiacn\eia.v tov 0eov 
 e\r)\v6vuxv ev SvvapeL (pro ews av tS. tov vlov tov avOpamov 
 ep^opevov ev tt) /3a<xtA.£ta avTov). 
 This is distinctly an innovation. No support from coptic. 
 The copts have tov vlov tov avOpomov and only boh varies Sof»y for 
 /3<xcriA.ei<x with N c and a few. 
 
 John xiv. 2. Instead of ev Tt) ot/cia tov iraTpos pov povaL 
 TroXkai eccTLv Marc mon writes 
 
 p.ova.1 ttoWou irapa tu> naTpi. 
 Short as it is it brings " many mansions " to the front, as do both 
 cophcs, beginning the verse thus, with ev ot/cia tov naTpos pov later. 
 The Greeks do not do this, but Iren bis Tert ter with e, coptic, 
 and syriac do it. 
 
 And the irapa. to) iraTpu reminds one of Tertullian " Licet 
 multae mansiones penes patrem eundem " (Monog.). 
 
 " Dominus multas mansiones quasi domus apud patrem repro- 
 mittit " (Resurr.). 
 
 " Quomodo multae mansiones apud patrem " (Scorp.). 
 We should never think of saying in English " Many mansions 
 are in the house of my Father," because we are accustomed to 
 " In the house of my Father are many mansions." But Marc mon 
 was accustomed to the reverse. 
 
 Matt. vi. 25} (25 ' py] pepipv~f]o~(]Te (pro peptpvaTe) tl (payrjTe 
 vi. 33 J (— ttj 4> V XV V P WV ) V (pro /ecu, cum B gr et lati) tu 
 TnrjTe, 7) (p7'0 prjSe tco crcopaTL vpcov) tl evhvo"Tjo-6e, 
 (33) (aXka. povov) ^retre (— Se vpcoTov) tt)v fia&Ckeiav tov 
 Qeov /cat ttjv hiKaioavvrjv avTov /cat raura iravTa Trpoa- 
 TeOrjaerai vpiv. 
 
2 9\ 
 
 } occur in full without variation. 
 13) 
 
 144 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 This is very free. The Coptics do not elide the "soul" or the 
 " body " clauses. " Or what ye shall drink " for " and what . . ." is 
 agreed to by boh and B sr Latt, but sah (some mss.) omits the 
 clause ; those sah mss. which have it say also " Or what ye shall 
 drink." 
 
 In verse 33 vpcoTov is omitted by gr 61 b Justin Opt Chr, 
 not by the Coptics, but no Greeks substitute p.ovov. Gr 27 only 
 says Tj-porepov. 
 
 (Luke xvi. 10.) o ev oXiyw amo-ros /cai ev ttoWo) a7Ttcrros ecmv. 
 Here the Greek calls for aSi/cos in both places. Sah is also 
 quite clear, transliterating the Greek to ita.^.ikoc and OYA.2^IKOC , 
 but boh goes out of its way to substitute Si rtxoitc " take by 
 violence " in both places. 
 
 The eye can be misled from 77-10-Tos above in coptic, for they 
 write ovniCTOC : "The faithful in little is 'a faithful (one)' also 
 in great (things)." This seems the only clue. 
 Matt. xi. 2( 
 
 Jo. xv. 13 J 
 
 Luke i. 35. Marc mon adds e/c crov post yevvcufjuevov with Greek 
 C* 1 22 33 and some cursives 130^ a c e m vg gat (syr) 
 sax aeth etc. (see Tisch.). Only partly implied in boh 
 and sah. 
 This is followed by : 
 Matt. i. 20, where the only difference is at the end, Mark 
 the monk reading ex TrvevpaTos ayiov ecmv (for e/c 
 TrvevjACLTos euTLv ayiov) with greek D L Evst 259 Orig, 
 but this is distinctly implied in boh : *>erf OYnrtX 
 eqoYAR ne , and in sah : grt ovnitX eqOYA«V&. ne , and 
 is supported by it vg and Iren mt . 
 This reading is a clear survival I should think, and is in- 
 teresting. We cannot however differentiate between sah and boh 
 as both agree. It is quite interesting to see how in the Gospels 
 Mark the monk's quotations agree with both Coptics and rarely 
 go alone with one. 
 
 (Matt. xxvi. 26.) XaySere <f>ayere ef avrov navres is free. Seems 
 
 to be a recollection of S. Paul's : 
 I Cor. x. 17 : otu ets apros kv (xoip^a. 01 ttqWol ecrp.ev' 01 yap 
 
 TTCLVTeS €K TOV kv OS apTOV fJ.6T€)(Ofl€V. 
 
 This ends the Gospel quotations. 
 
 The Gospels then yield nothing very specific for boh against 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 1 45 
 
 sah except Matt. vi. 25, xiii. 44, xxiv. 20, although double 
 agreement of boh sah is seen elsewhere. Nor are the longer 
 quotations of great help. 
 
 But let us now examine the long passages outside the Gospels. 
 And first : 
 
 Acts xix. 2/6 : 
 
 (2) " €6 rrvevpa ayiov eXafiere irio-TevcravTes 01 he rrpos avrov 
 
 enrov {pro enrov 777309 olvtov cum gr 180) aXX ouSe et 
 
 rrvevpa ayiov ecrriv rjKovcrapev. (3) etrrev ovv (pro re vel £e, 
 
 cum gr 5 11 ) Ttpos avrov? eis ri ovv eft aimer Byre ; 01 Se 
 
 ei7rov eis to Icoavvov f3<nrTLo-[Jia. (4 ' et7re Se ITaiAos Iwavvr]? 
 
 p.ev efiarrricre p,eravoia<; Xeytui/ ra Xaa> (^r<? ra Xa<w Xeyaw 
 
 contra boh et al.) ets rov ep^opevov per avrov (vid.) iva 
 
 iriarevcrojo'i rovr eariv et? rov Iyjaovv ( — Xpicrrov, cum boh 
 
 Vg NABE et al.). (s) aKovcravres Se efHarrricrdyjcrav ets ro 
 
 ovopa rov Kvpiov Irjaov. (6 ' /cat emdevro% avrots rov 
 
 Uai/Xou Tas yeipa? r\XQe ro rrvevpa ro ayiov err' avrov?." 
 
 Sah Balestri is missing and there is nothing particular to 
 
 connect this with boh, the exceptional order in verse 4, Xeyaiv rco 
 
 Xa&>, being apparently unsupported and against Greek, Latin and 
 
 Bohairic. [Mr. Horner has shown me, however, that Xeycov ru> Xa<u 
 
 is the order of sah as also eiwov irpos avrov in verse 2.] 
 
 Next {Galland. 62 opusc. v.) : 
 
 Phil. ii. 5/10. " rovro (— yap) (ppoveicrdco ev vpiv o /cat ev 
 
 Xpicrro) Irjaov. (6 ' 09 ev pop<f)r] Qeov vrrapy^xfv ov)( apnaypov 
 
 rjyrjo-aro ro etvat tcra @eco. (7) aXX eavrov exevacre pop<f>r)v 
 
 8ovXov Xaficov ev opoimpari avBpoirroiv yevopevos. ' 8) /cat 
 
 cr^pari evpedeis ws avdpawos' erarreivcoaev eavrov yevo- 
 
 pevos vrrrjKoos p^XP 6 avarov , Oavarov Se crravpov. <9 ' Sto 
 
 /cat o @eo<? avrov vrrepvxpcocre /cat e^aptcraro avrut ovopa ro 
 
 vrrep rrav ovopa. ' I0) tva ev rat ovopari Irjo-ov Xpicrrov 
 
 ( + Xpicrrov cum X* gr, non copt) rrav yovv Kapxjrr] eirovpa- 
 
 vlcov /cat emyeiwv Kat Karaydovioiv! 
 
 In this grand passage, practically unchanged, we see nothing 
 
 but clear Greek. 
 
 The omission of yap in verse 5 it is true = copt and sah, but 
 also N*ABC 17 37 73 arm aeth (Orig) ; but the addition oJ 
 Xpio-rov in verse 10 is against both Coptics and only has the 
 support of K* 47 73 114 115 118 aeth Orig 1/4 Chr 1/2 Cyr 
 Vigil Taps. N* and Marc mon seem to conspire here. 
 
 L 
 
I46 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Mark repeats Phil. ii. 5/8 in opusc. vii (Galland. 73 ) without 
 variation except for (j>poveio-0e verse 5. He again omits yap. 
 Again : 
 
 Acts vi. 2/5. ovk apecrTov €<ttl KaTaXnrovTa<; ypas {pro rjpas 
 KaTaXeixpavTas) tov Xoyov tov Qeov SiaKoveiv Tpane^ai?. 
 (3 ' eiTi(TK&\ia(Tde ovv ( — aSeXcpoi) ef vpcov avrcov avSpas 
 {pro avSpas ef vpcov) papTvpovpevovs eirra (— TrXrjpeis 
 TrvevpaTos ayiov Kai crofyiai) oris KaTacrTrjcrcopev (stc) em 
 T1 ? s XP etas ' TaVT V' ; - (4) Vptis § e T V Ttpocrevyv) Kai ttj SiaKovia 
 tov Xoyov vpoo-KapTeprjcrapev {stc). (5) /cat rjpeo'ev o Aoyos 
 evomiov 7ravros tov TrXrjdov;. 
 
 The differences are certainly not &?/£ (i^ not extant in 
 Balestri, but I do not find them in Mr. Horner's text). 
 
 A gr omits aSeX(poL and aeth with Orig' m \ 
 
 There seems to be no authority for omitting TrXiqpeis etc. except 
 by arm. 
 
 Eph. iii. 14/17. <I4) tovto ^apiv kgl/jltttg} ra youara pov irpo? tov 
 irarepa tov Kvpiov rjpcov Irjcrov XpicrTov. (t6) iva Bcor] Vfjuv 
 o Kvpios Svvapiv KpaTaicodrjvai Sia tov TrvevpaTos avrov eis 
 tov ecrw avdpcjnov. (l7 ' KaTOiKrjcrai tov XpicrTov ev Trao-rj 
 TrXr)po(j)opia Kai aicr&jcrei eis ras KapSias r/pcov Sia tijs 
 
 7TlCTTe&)S. 
 
 We elide verse 15 ef ov iracra iraTpia ev ovpavoi<; Kai eiri y^s 
 ovop.ale.Tai. 
 
 In verse 16 we cut out Kara tov ttXovtov ttj<; Sofjys avrou, 
 substituting o Kvpios, and use Svvapiv for Siwa^ei. 
 
 Verse 17 we expand, inserting ev Trao-y] ttXt] po<f>op 1a Kai aiaOecrei 
 and placing Sia tijs 7rtcrT€ojs at the end instead of after Xpiarov. 
 
 This ev Trao-r) TrXrjpo^opia Kai aio-0eo~ei is not scriptural but is a 
 recollection of Col. ii. 2 /cai eis iravra ttXovtov ttjs TrXiqpo^opia^ ttjs 
 crweo~e«s, or Heb. x. 2 2 Liera aXrjOr/viqs /capSias ev TrXrjpofyopia 
 77tCTTe&)? eppavTiapevot ras /cayoSias a7ro crweiSrjcrecos . TTOvrjpas. Yet 
 to find a parallel for aio-Qecrei we must turn to Phil. i. 9 iva 77 
 ayairrj vpcov cti paXXov Kai piaXXov irepiaaevq ev emyvcoo-ei Kai iraar] 
 aio-drjo-ei. 
 
 In Justin or Clement of Rome or Poly carp this would be called 
 a quotation from an unknown source outside of Ephestans, but 
 Marc mon is merely free here. No support from the Coptics. 
 1 Cor. i. 17, 27/29 : 
 
 (l?) ovk aneaTeiXe pe Xpicrros f3aiTTi[,eiv aXX' evayyeXi- 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 1 47 
 
 t,€cr9ai ovk ev cro<f>ia \oyov iva jxr/ Kevcodr) o crravpo^ tov 
 XpicrTov (/ecu irakiv) <2/ ' tcl papa tov KocTfJiov efeXefaTO o 
 ©eos tva KaTaio~)(vv7) rows o~o(f>ovs. (28) /cat Ta ayevrj tov 
 Koapov /cai ra efouSei'ou/^et'a e£eX.efaro o 0eos Kai ra p.y\ 
 ovto, iva ra o^Ta KaTapyiqo-rj ottcjs ^t) Kav)(7)0"r)Tau iracra 
 (rapt; evamiov tov Qeov. 
 Verse 1 7 agrees exactly. 
 
 In verse 27 the order Lua KaTaio-^yvq tov? <ro</>ous agrees with 
 the Greek uncials and copt, against textus receptus uva tovs cro^ov? 
 KaTaLax- He then abandons the rest of the verse : /cat ra aadevt} 
 tov Koo-p,ov e£eke£a,To o @eos ica KaTaio-^yviq Ta Lcr^ypa (cf. greek 
 AFG and salt) and continues with verse 28. It seems pretty 
 clear that even in these long quotations Mark the monk lived up 
 to his reputation of knowing the Scriptures by heart and did not 
 use the book. 
 
 In verse 28 for egovdevrnieva he uses e£ov8ei>ovp,€va (cf. 
 Greek 17 252 Orig); and closes verse 29 tov 6eov for avTov 
 (against text, recept.) with most Greeks and copt. 
 
 Heb. vi. 1/2, 4/6. The quotation yields the rather significant 
 variation wpos p.era.voia.v for ets jieTavoiav in verse 6 with- 
 out Greek support, but boh is EYJueTAXtoiA. , gy = eoy, 
 " towards a" e in coptic being the equivalent of irpos as 
 well as of els (Mallon, § 46 and 313). (Sah not extant.) 
 This is followed immediately by : 
 Heb. x. 26, where the verse closes ov/ccti airoXeimTai Qvaia. 
 Trept ap.apTta<; (for ovkctl irepi afJLapTLOi' aTroXemerai 6vo-lcl) 
 with Greek D c only as to order, but distinctly with boh 
 (sah wanting) bringing irepi ap.ap. last, thus : 
 
 AJumorr cyoYtyouovcyi xe couscn eeRe gArmofii . 
 Rom. vii. 24/25, viii. 2. In practical accord with the ordinary 
 text, but it is noteworthy that viii. 2, quoted on three 
 occasions, is given each time minus ev Xpicno> Irjaov. 
 This is not boh or sah as we know them, but omitted by 
 K gr 76 Chr and Tertullian. Although Tischendorf 
 records Marc mon fairly often he does not do so here. 
 The agreement with lO is interesting in connection with 
 afjuapTrffxaTcav in 2 Pet. i. 9 by Marc mon 1/2 and the 
 Greeks NAK. And the agreement with Tertullian (Pudic.) 
 here is very curious, for Mark emphasizes this omission 
 most decidedly three times over, bu,t Tertullian only 1/2. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 Rom. ~x\. 34/36. rts eyvo) vow Kvpiov 77 rts ctvju/3ou\os olvtov 
 eyevero 77 Tt9 irpoeSajnev avTO) /cai avTairoSodrjO'eTat aurco 
 on ef avrov k<xi Si aurov /cat eis avrov rravTa ( - ra) 
 cwr&> 77 Sofa eis tovs aicovas tcov acwvcov aprjv. 
 
 Practically no variation. As to iravra cf. boh THpOY. 
 Greeks do not omit. 
 
 In the Epistles then there is a good deal of interest. 
 
 Mark the Monk in Epistles, etc. 
 
 We forbear to go through these in full as it would take too 
 long. We will point out some places which seem near to copt, or 
 otherwise interesting. 
 
 (1 Tim. i. 7. vept twos (for irepu tlvcov) = P gr syr sch : Not boh. 
 
 All boh, but one, say erfH 6TOYXCXJ (B a omits em*). 
 
 Sah (Balestri) = mteTOYXcu .) 
 Heb. iv. 13. vavTa yap yvpva TeTpay^jXicrpeva (— Kai). Thus 
 
 Mark, yap for Se is read by the boh mss. H mg J [no 
 
 Greeks] but all have kcu before rer/oa^. (One sah us. 
 
 has Se, the other omits Se.) 
 Gal. v. 17. crapf ewiffvpa, Kara tov Trvevparos Kac to irvevfia 
 
 /cara Tr)s crap/cos. 
 
 /cai to (for to Se of all Greeks) is read by boh mss. HJ 
 
 (sah not extant in Balestri but confirmed for sah by 
 
 Horner). Repeated in the same form (Galland. 75 ) but 
 
 regular (Galland. 86 ). 
 [Mar/e's knowledge of Scripture is again shown by the combina- 
 tion of Rom. x. 17 and Heb. xi. 1 (opusc. ii.).] 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5 (boh and sah both extant). SoKipateTe eavTovs (for 
 
 eaurous So/a/aa£eTe of all Greeks) is very definitely with 
 
 boh : <5.pi2^0KIJtA<5^m JUAJlOUTerf JUJUUVYVVTErt ©HftOY 
 
 and sah : Xokisjl^b JUUmouTTt . (As regards order 
 both boh and sah turn the phrase thus : " Try your 
 own selves whether ye are in the faith ; prove your 
 own selves," while Mark, eliding the introductory eavrous 
 77-ei.pa^eTe (copt 7reipa£eTe eaurous) merely says : " SoKipa- 
 £ere eavTovs ei ecrTe ev tt) -mcrTeL.) 
 
 Continuing he writes : ec Se ovk eniyvcoo-KeTe otl Xptoros 
 I770-OUS olkeu ev vjxiv (pro ev vp.iv ecniv) ei py)TL apa (abest 
 apa in Graecis plur.) aSoKtpoi core. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 49 
 
 Most Greeks elide co-rw, but boh is very definite with 
 tyon £>eft -©HltOY = either eort ev vpiv or cukci ev v^iv. 
 (Sah FgHTTHYTH.) Marcmon repeats this (Galland. 41 ) 
 exactly the same way. See also Isai Abb {infra). 
 
 apa is found in a handful of cursives (seven) but not in 
 our greek uncials, and while sah says eiJUHTl :£€ AiecxjAK 
 ( = apa), boh = efi.H?\ A. pHO Y XE conveying apa 
 perfectly and (against xe jmety^K of sah) keeping apa 
 (^pHOv) behind see. Clearly then nearest to boh is 
 Mark. 
 Heb. iv. 12. For tfav yap o Xoyos tov ©eov Kai evepyrjs (evapyrjs 
 B gr Hier) Marc mon has tpv yap o Xoyos tou &eov /ecu 
 evepyos virap^ei . Cf. boh OYOg qepgoufi (.ftf^ A.VCO 
 qerteprei). 
 [Rom. xii. 10 in Gallandius (p. 30) should be Phil. ii. 3.] 
 2 Cor. x. 5. Mark (Galland. 32 ) substitutes ttjs Sof^s for rqs 
 •yvwerew?. No Greeks do this except the MS. 17 (17 
 however is often close to us). Sah is wanting, and boh 
 says nieAJU = TT7S yvajcrecos. I do not see that any words 
 for glory except perhaps niAJUOYrt and nmiOK have any 
 resemblance to niexil. On the other hand another 
 word for knowledge, mcoovft, is rather like niA-Jmovrr, 
 glory, in sound. But I do not see the connection here. 
 
 Quoting again (Galland. 39 and 4I ) tt)% yvacreajs is used 
 however on both occasions. 
 Rom. iii. 23/24. Travres r/paprov (— yap) k.t.X. 
 
 Some boh mss. also omit yap. 
 It would have small significance except in such an important 
 passage. The verse begins with yap " ov yap ecm SiacrroA.^ " 
 and continues with all Greeks iravres yap rjpapTov " For all have 
 sinned and come short of the glory of God." And boh and Mark 
 conspire to omit the second yap {sah missing, but in a fragment 
 which Mr. Horner will publish the t of T<*.p appears present). 
 Rom. vi. 7. vtto T17S ap.apri.as Mark. Ordinary text a-no. 
 Boh = bKo7\ gA , while sah eRo?\ g,H . (This is 
 repeated by Mark again [Galland. 46 ] in the same way.) 
 [2 Pet. ii. 22. cjs kvojv e7n,crr/3ei//as em tou iSlov eperov. So 137 
 182 Ephr Chr Thdrt Thpl Maxim, all no doubt liber e 
 with Marc mon for egepapa of the rest. (The boh word 
 is erteqcy4 T f-.)] 
 
150 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 [J as. ii. 12. ovtcds rroieLTe kgu ovtws XaXeire is against both 
 greek and boh order. Boh reads CA.2CI xinA.ipH'i" 
 OYOg, ApiOYI Hn.MpH'i", but sah looks and sounds 
 more similar: cy<50ce itTeige rrreTffeipe rrreige, and 
 
 may have given rise to the confusion.] 
 [Note that in 2 Pet. i. 9 Mark (Galland. 37 ) reads a/xa/DTijjiiarw 
 (for a[x,apTLO)v) with NAK, while previously (Galland. 35 ) he read 
 a[iapTi(i)v with the rest.] See Rom. viii. 2 where three times over 
 Marc mon omits ev XpujToi Irjo-ov with K and Tertullian 1/2 only. 
 (See K gr again James i. 17 with irapa.) 
 
 Gal. iv. 26. Omit ttolvtoiv with fo^ (.ra/& Balestri missing but 
 Tisch. quotes for omission [and other Oxford fragments 
 omit] and most Greeks). 
 1 Tim. ii. 4. " ei/n-ep o fjiev deXet. vavra? avOpwrrovs crcod-qvaL 
 (pro os iravTas avOpwTrov; OeXei <ra)dr)vai) /cai eis eiriyvca- 
 a-iv aXi70eias eXdew," agrees (against Greek) with boh 
 order exactly : cj>Ai eeovcxjcy rtTe pumi rfi&ert 
 itOgeJU, bringing 0eXet before "the men" and apart 
 from araffrjvai. 
 
 So also sah : n«M eTOYeuj Tpe pcjujue mix cjuitg . 
 1 Cor. vi. 11. vvv Se aneXovo-aaOe vvv Se eSi/ccucu&ire j/uj/ Se 
 eKa6apL<T0r)Te apparently free, omitting aXXa Tjyiao-OrjTe 
 and doubling the " cleansing." 
 Note boh ms. M omits aXXa aycaaOr/Te, as Horner says ex 
 homoioteleuton. 
 
 Neglecting the doubling of " cleansing " we may note that 
 previously (Galland. 36 ) Mark quoted aXX aneXovcracrOe aXX ijyiao- 
 OrjTe, omitting aXX eSiKcuwdfyre, so it would seem merely free. 
 
 Acts ii. 38. Mark adds tov Kvpiov -qfxwv after ovofiaTL with 
 Epiph etc. and sah {teste Ti ' ch., wanting in Balestri), 
 and has ev to ovop.aTi with Greek BCD (most Greeks 
 e7n as NAEP min, against the editors L. Tr. W-H. R) 
 while boh is ec|>pA.it. 
 Eph. iv. 30 omit tov 0eov Mark, but this may be free, yet 
 Tertullian omits 1/2 with Greek 2 49 aeth Ath 1/2 
 Epiph Chr, [not boh nor sah']. 
 Gal. v. 22/23. The order is exactly with Greek and copt, but 
 Mark opens ot Se Kapirou for o Se Kapiros without Greek 
 or <fo/k support. 
 Follow Eph. iv. 13, Heb. xii. 22, Phil. iii. 12, Rom. viii. 35, 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 5 I 
 
 38, 39, Rom. viii. 16, i Cor. xv. 3 without variation ; also Gal. 
 iv. 6, only substituting r\p.oiv for vp,a>v with many Greeks. Boh 
 is divided. 
 
 Rom. v. 8, 9. Mark writes r)p.wv ovtcjv for ovtwv tj/jlcov. Cf. boh. 
 
 Rom. vi. 4 is shortened " kcli <rvveTa<f>r)iiev (— ovv) clvto) Sta tov 
 
 ySaTrrio"jU,aTOs ( — ets tov davarov) uva. wcnrep rjyepdr) Xpioros 
 
 e< veKpo)v (— Sia T17S So^s tov naTpos) ovtcj kou 17/^619 ev 
 
 kouvottjti tfi)rj<; TrepLwaTrjaiDpev. 
 
 Most boh have OYlt, but one ms. ort, and one omits. All have eis 
 
 tov OavaTov, but one MS. omits with Mark Sia 717? Sofxys rou 7rar/)os. 
 
 [Balestri's Wz only begins at Rom. vi. 5 ; Horner shows me 
 
 this verse mutilated, but it has tfe = ovvJ] It is seen, however, in 
 
 this and in other places that the agreement of boh mss. between 
 
 themselves seems to post-date Mark the monk. 
 
 Notice again here that Tertullian (bis) and Iren int with Pacian 
 Gaud and Chrom omit with us Sia ttjs Sof>?s tov iraTpos. Again 
 Tischendorf omits Mark's testimony here. 
 Eph. ii. 8/9 is deliberately shortened. 
 
 Follows Eph. v. 8 regular, and rather fragmentary quotations 
 from other places, running. Eph. iv. 30, ii. 3, Gal. iii. 3, Rom. viii. 12 
 together. 
 
 The only variation is in Gal. iii. 3 hiapi;ap.evov<; for evapgapevot. 
 Rom. xii. 2. Mark says t]\L<av for vp,cov. 
 
 Greek ABD*FG with boh Clem Orig Cypr omit. The 
 others have vp.a>v. 
 Eph. vi. 12 in full is without variation. 
 
 1 Pet. v. 8. Galland. prints /caramei for KaTawir]. Very likely 
 it should be KarcOTteiv with NKLP most cursives copt 
 Orig Cypr etc. 
 Rom. v. 14 is quoted twice (Galland. 5 ° and54 ), the first time eni to 
 op.oiwp,aTL, but the second time with boh : ev tw opoio\pa.Ti. 
 James i. 17 (Galland. 54 ). Mark uses irapa tov iraTpos for airo 
 tov iraTpos. Cf. boh glTEIt and sah glTJU. This is 
 interesting. So note only K gr and a few cursives with 
 Cy r ioh et amo S> ^ g r can b e seen w i t h us a bove at 2 Pet. i. 9 
 
 and Rom. viii. 2.) 
 
 Trapa is used again (Galland. 78 ). 
 Eph. iv. 13. Eliding Kai e-rnyvcocreo)? tov vlov tov &eov, Mark 
 opens with ew? av instead of ju.exp<- Cf. boh and sah 
 tyAltTe . No Greeks vary. 
 
152 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 2 Tim. Hi, 5 is free : /jbop^oio-iv evcre/3ei.as e^oi^es tt)v Se 
 Swa/ALP avTrjs zvomiov Qeov p/r] KZKTrjfievoi. 
 
 This evomiov Qeov prj KeKTrjpevou taking the place of 
 Tjpvrjpevoi. 
 
 (Boh is TECXOJUt 2l€ EYX(JU?\ JUWAOC E&0?\.) 
 
 1 Cor. iv. 5 is free, as is 2 Cor. v. 15 and Rom. xii. 1, but as 
 
 to the latter note w? Qvcriav and compare boh, which 
 might possibly have given rise to it from confusion of 
 ep<VT oy with part of the verb-form. From Greek ws 
 is absent. 
 
 Boh is rtETEitcum* ep<vrov HovtyoYtycjuoYtyi 
 eqort <£> , 
 
 while sah rtrtETJtcujJUA. rtoYOYCia. Ecortg. 
 
 2 Cor. viii. 9 again is very free, as 1 John iv. 18, 16, while 
 Phil. iv. 8 seems to be intended to be accurate ; here Mark omits 
 ocra Trpo<T<f)ikr), continuing TravTa, \oyilpp,evo<; (for ravra Xoyi^ecrde) 
 after /cat et T19 eirauvos. 
 
 This TravTa is most interesting. It conveys to me the impres- 
 sion that Mark was looking at his graeco-coptic Bible, for while 
 Greek is ocra . . ocra . . ocra . . ocra . . ocra . . 00-a throughout, both 
 Coptics begin very soon after the opening to emphasize " every." 
 I will show them in full. As regards Mark's omission of ocra 
 irpoo-^ikr) boh does not bear this out, but sah seems to transpose 
 /cat Trpoo-<t>i\r) and /cat ev(f>r][xa in a peculiar way. In view of 
 Mark's great accuracy in other long Pauline lists there must be a 
 reason for this. Here is boh : 
 
 to 2\omort rt^crtHov rtH et e g<MtojuHi he . rm ete 
 
 gAltJUETCEJUUtOC ITE . ffH ETE gAft2UKEOrt JtE . 
 ItH ETE gArtjmETTOY&O ItE . gU)R ItlllEft *)Eft 
 
 oyjuei. guuR mREit rttyerfrtoYqi . c[>h ete oy^peth 
 
 HE . OYOg, c|>H ETE OYT<MO HE . rf«5.l JUEYI EpuJOY. 
 
 While sah : TEitOY 6e rtEcrtHY 
 
 gcjufi. rfum jujue ■ guuR 
 m*x rtcEJLtrr oft ■ 
 gouK rtjju rtXiK^iort ■ 
 
 g,U)J&. rt IJU ETOYAA& ' 
 
 gcjufi rtiju ETrt«MtoYq ' 
 
 CAtOY rtlJUl • <\pETH 
 
 mju • ta.eio rtuui • rt<M 
 
 .M.EEYE EpOOY 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 153 
 
 Note how sah makes the last part tripartite beginning with 
 cjuioy rtiju. . 
 
 [Rom. i. 25. For " Kai eo-e/3acr0r)aav k<xi eXarpevaav T17 KTiaei 
 trapa tov KTccravTa" Mark has: " ttj KTio~ei XarpevovTes 
 irapa tov KTicravTa" freely as Iren twice " creaturae poltus 
 (1/2, magis 1/2) qitam creatori servientes."~\ 
 2 Cor. v. 20 though short : IIpeo-fBevcov virep Xpicrrov {pro 
 Tirep XpLo-Tov ovv Trpeo-fievop.ev) has a ring of boh where 
 Trpecrfi. begins the verse : 
 
 <Mtepnpec&6Yjrf ovrr exen n^cc- 
 1 Cor. xiii. 5/7. Passing quickly from verse 5 to verse 7 
 " KadoTi ov Xoyt^erat to kcxkov " Mark continues : 
 " aXXa iravTa arepyet, iravra e\7ri£ei, iravTa Trio-revet, wavra 
 VTTop,evei, (fcara ttjv ypa^rjv)." 
 This is decidedly interesting. In the Latin translation opposite : 
 " sed omnia suffert" is given, but this translation repeatedly 
 wanders away to the common latin text from the real greek text 
 of Mark (which is evidently printed faithfully because quotations 
 repeated more Marc, apart from the ordinary text are given in 
 the same form). Now Cyprian (and Zend) witness to this o-repyei 
 (for crreyet) by giving diligit, and Tischendorf calls our attention 
 to this in his notes, printing thus : " Cyp 1 "' 252 ' 3 ° 4 Zeno 2 ' 6 (Gall. 5 ' 112 ) 
 diligit (o-Tepyec?) . Utrumque ut vid conjung. aeth." He had evidently 
 overlooked o-Tepyei in the text of Marc mon. How is it Cypr 
 witnesses to uTepyei if Latin Africa was so far removed from 
 coptic, or bohairic Egypt ? Marc mon does not quote this passage 
 again, but cnepyei would seem certain here. 
 
 The boh is however : cy^ccuoY rtg,HT *)Elt g,a>& rtiRerr ; 
 and sah : cyAC qj g,A guoil Jim ; clearly stiff ert, but without 
 expressing g,HT of boh. 
 
 The only thing that can have happened, as it seems, is that the 
 rtgHT in boh was confused with JUEttpiT and thus diligit found a 
 place back in Greek ! The place is worth studying. 
 
 The only other difference in Mark's quotation (thus probably 
 from memory) is that he gives the order navTa ek-m^ei (printed 
 in Galland. ttovto, e\i£e<,, but there is no such word) iravTa -aio-Tevei 
 for wavTa TTio-Tevei iravra. eA7ri£ei against Greek Latin boh and sah 
 order (but with Isai Abb). (One boh MS. omits iravTa marei/ei.) 
 
 The interesting part is that it was hardly an error oculi of 
 Cypr or Marc mon, for aeth conflates, according to Tischendorf, 
 
154 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 and therefore aeth, later than either Cypr or Marc mon, found both 
 readings somewhere. 
 
 [i Cor. iii. 18. Instead of ei rts Sokci o-o<f>os eivcu etc., Marc 
 mon gives (after Sia tovto <f>r)o-Lv o a,7rocrToAos) : o dekav 
 
 yevecrdai cro^os for which there seems to be no 
 
 authority, nor support in the Coptics.] 
 [Eph. ii. 3 again is free, with 7)p.ev yap irore k<li 17/ms curei- 
 Oovvras .... for " ev ots /cat ij/iets 7ravres avearpa- 
 (j)7][JLeV .... "J 
 
 [J as. iv. 6 again, the substitution of Kvpios for o @eos is not 
 witnessed to by coptic, but Tisch. gives thirteen Greek 
 copies, one lectionary, and arm Antioch* 09 ®, without 
 mentioning Marc mon^\ 
 
 Rom. xii. 2 is given in full without variation from text, recept. 
 except (T^/AaTt^eo-^e (so however no Greeks) for o-vcty^- 
 fxaritficrde. 
 
 {Boh separates : should no more share | fashion rtc^HJUtA. 
 being a separate word. But sah is in one word : rtTETrt- 
 TJubagpE.) 
 
 Eph. vi. 1 8 also has only the variation eiraypvirvovvTes (for 
 aypvirvovvres) with greek 31 Euthal. {Boh OYOg 
 epeTertoi rttypouic ' ecJ><M £>ert xjiovn rtifierf 
 [+ eRo?\ F boh K boh ]. mut. sah Balestri.) 
 
 Phil. iv. 5/6 practically in full, but minus p.era evYa/Hcmas 
 which boh has, but apparently wanting in sah. 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 7 and 1 Pet. v. 7 form a continuous quotation. 
 
 In iv. 7 we notice irpocrevxas, — ras, with NAB and a 
 few, but all boh mss. have the article. 
 
 In v. 7 eni&evTes em rov @eov for emppLxfjavTes eir avrov. 
 We can neglect tov @eov for avrov, allowing for the context, 
 but for eTrt,$ei>T€s consult boh OY^pcj = addere rather than 
 " cast all your care upon him " in the sense of emflei'Tes, 
 placing upon (note : oveg, p<VT " ponere pedem," Peyron 
 p. 160). 
 
 (Eph. v. 14 is regular.) 
 
 J as. i. 17 (Galland. 78 ). KaT^p^ofievq ttapa tov iraTpos toiv <j>coto)v 
 for Karafiaivov ano tov iraTpos tcdv (j^corcov we have had 
 before (Galland. 54 ) where trapa occurred as well ; see note 
 on that place, but Karafiaivov was used there while 
 KaTepypp.evrj here. The boh evifHOY enecHT emphasizes 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 55 
 
 the Kara (which we hold in both places) but really 
 approximates ep-^ofxevr) rather than fiaivov, = cometh (sah 
 extant : eqrtHV enecHT). To an Egyptian mind 
 Karepxo/tevT? would be a perfect synonym for Kara^aivov. 
 Rom. xv. 2, i Cor. x. 32, Eph. vi. 6 call for no remark. 
 In Gal. i. 10 apecrai takes the place of ape.crKe.iv, and rjpeo~Kovv 
 
 of rjpecrKov. 
 2 Cor. v. 15 is free: "o TravTuiv tov davarov avaSefayxei'o? /cat 
 virep iravTcav airoOavov" the ava§e£ap.evos being apparently 
 imported from Heb. xi. 17 where Abraham is spoken of 
 as offering Isaac. 
 Rom. iii. 23, 24 is thus given: otl 7ravTe<s (- yap with some 
 boll) r^iaprov (cat vcrTepovp.evoi (for vuTepovvTai) T179 80^175 
 tov Qeov SiKaLovjJievoL Scopeav tyj avrov ^apiri. 
 Cf. Horner's foot-note in boh. 
 Gal. vi. 7. For the usual o yap eav o-rretp-q avOpcoTros tovto Kai 
 depicrei, Mark writes Kai o enreipei e/cacrros tovto /cat 
 depto-ei. But this is only "free." Cf. Orig a o-ireipei 
 e/cacrros TavTa Kai, depto-ei. The e/cacrros of Marc mon 
 and Orig is not in boh. Boh says nipuuxtl and sah 
 npcojue . 
 Rom. iii. 5/6 is without variation except at the beginning, 
 where for ei Se rj aSt/cta r)jj,(ov Oeov, Mark says /cat ei tj/joov 
 aSt/cta Oeov. He quotes again shortly after, saying : et 
 ow 17 rjfjLCDv aSi/aa. This rjfioiv before aSi/aa is rather 
 Egyptian than Greek. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 9 as far as avefir) (where Mark ceases) agrees word 
 
 for word with Greek. The boh varies a little, using 
 OY&.E for /cat and so forth. 
 Col. i. 24 in full only varies with avaTrXrjpo), for avTavairXrjpo), 
 with Greek FG four cursives and Origen, but has an 
 addition ray eOvojv (after virep vp,mv) without authority. 
 I hope I may be excused if I point out once more that 
 this could have occurred from misreading boh exerc 
 eHftcnr (sah is gApuJTrt). 
 
 2 Cor. i. 6, which has been rather a stumbling block to the 
 
 editors, is thus given by Marc mon : 
 eiTe yap (jyrjcnv 6Xi/3op.eda virep Trjs v/xcov Trapa/cXijcreaJS 
 /cat crwr^ptas ( — r^s evepyovjJLevrjS ev vttojjlovt) tcov avTaiv 
 TTa$rjp.aTOiv u>v /cat 17/Aeis irao~)(op.ev) etre TrapaKaXovpieda 
 
156 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 vnep ttjs vjJLOiv (T(x>TrjpLa<; /cat napaxXrjo-ecos (pro ira.pa.Kk. 
 
 Kai croTTjp.) [— /cat f] eXwis tjixcov /3e/3ata vnep vjjlojv]. 
 
 We can draw no real inferences from this. napaxX. /cat o-arqp. 
 
 prim, is the order of boh while boh omits the second crwrijpias 
 
 which we place after napaKXrjo-ea><; with gr 37. In boh the clause 
 
 rr)<; evepyovp,evr)s k.t.X. follows the second napaKXr)o-ea><; as in some 
 
 Greeks. The inference is that it did so in Mark's copy and that 
 
 he did not elide it but simply cut short his quotation at napai<X. 
 
 sccund. (Aeth and Gr 42 give the order cnwr^ptas Kat napanXr) crews 
 
 in the first place ; B 17 176 omit /cat cr&mjpia? there). 
 
 1 John iii. 16 is thus given : "eio Kvpios ttjv xpvx^v avrov vnep 
 7][i(ov eOyjKev," continuing more regularly " o^eCXojxev /cat 
 Tj/xets ra? rpv^as tj/awv vnep TOiv a$eX<f>(i)i> Tidevai." 
 
 Boh says for one another instead of vnep tcov a&eXfav 
 but sah — for the brethren. 
 Gal. vi. 2 follows, with avanX-qpcoaere with Greek BFG latt 
 
 boh sah aeth goth etc. 
 1 Pet. iv. 12 agrees with ordinary text except for yivo^evov 
 
 instead of yivop.ev7j. 
 Gal. v. 17, 16, quoted in this order, now supplies us in verse 17 
 with the ordinary to Se nvevpa for /cat to nvevp,a on two 
 previous occasions. 
 
 Verse 16 ends by Mark with nore. (No Greeks.) Cf. 
 e&o?\ also at the end in boh. Boh says " and the lust of 
 your flesh ye shall not fulfil out " (ovog, ■ r f~enieY.M.lA. 
 mteTertCApg mteTEmcoKC eRo£\). This might have 
 given rise to the nore as emphasis. 
 Col. ii. 21. Mark: p.iq a\\iiq p.7] yevo-rj jxrj #tyiy? exactly as our 
 A. V.: Touch not taste not handle not for the Greek of 
 the majority p,r) a\pr) /i/rjSe yevo-rj p,T)8e 6iyr]<; (as R. V. : 
 Handle not nor taste nor touch): We can hardly draw 
 an inference here. Boh goes with Gk majority having 
 ov2i.e twice, and sah (Balestri) is unfortunately missing. 
 It was easy to quote as Mark does. We find Tertullian 
 doing it, six Greek cursives, Origen 1/2 and Orig mt , 
 Ambrose often and Ambrst, yet most hold to the 
 Greek. 
 
 [Mr. Horner shows me ov^e present bis in his sak.~\ 
 I Cor. x. 1 1 (Galland. 88 ) thus : ravra yap (pro ravra Se 
 navra) TU7rt/ca>9 (pro rvnoi) o-vvefiaivev (pro o-vvefiaivov) 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 57 
 
 e/cetvois " eypa(f)7) Se 7rpos vovdecnav rjpcov eis ous to. reXri 
 tcov aicovcov KaTrjvTrjaev. 
 [navTa is omitted by Greek AB 17 Marcion Tert Orig Dial 
 Hipp Cyr Bas Chr (Ir) Pacian and sah, but not by boh. 
 
 tvttlkcos is read by Gk XABCKP al. Mcion Orig etc. {boh 
 rtTYnoc • rtrtH, sah rmH rtTvnoc). 
 
 o-vvefiaLvev is read by NBCKL etc. Mcion Orig etc. 
 We hold KaTTjVT-qa-ev against KaTTjvTrjKev of KBD*FG 39 46 
 JVaas h[pp Orig Bas Euthal Cyr.] 
 
 But on Galland. 98 we read the quotation again thus : otl ravra 
 tvttoi crvvefiaivov e/ceivoi? " yeypanTai Se eis vovdecnav yjpeTepav 
 eis ovs to. Teky) tcov aicovcov KaTrjVTrjcre. 
 
 We drop iravTa again [Orsiesius does not] ; we read avvefiaivov ; 
 we vary with yeypa-mai ; we use a new expression vovdecnav 
 yj/xerepav as the Latin ; and we read ets for irpos with H* 3 1 Epiph. 
 All this against Coptic. 
 
 It is very rare for Mark to vary substantially when requoting 
 the same passage. This is a marked exception. 
 
 Heb. vii. 2 (regular) is followed by Heb. vii. 13/14 where in 
 ver. 13 a<£ 77? ouSeis Trpocreo-^Ke tco Qvo-iacrrr)pico is elided, and in 
 ver. 14 rjpcov after 6 Kvpios is dropped. Not so boh nor Greek 
 (sah wanting). Mark also adds r\pcov shortly after in a renewed 
 quotation. 
 
 This is followed by Heb. vii. 3 partially (regular) : 
 Aeyei yap acf>cop.oicopevos tco vlco Qeov pevei tepeus eis to Sui^e/ccs 
 and, after an interval, by the rest of the first part of the verse : 
 
 (Seifov 7Tcus) cnraTcop koll apsiyrcop ecrrt ( — ayeveaXoyr/Tos) prjTe 
 apxyv rjpepcov [irjTe £0)775 TeAos e^cov acpcopoicopevos Se tco 
 vlco tov Qeov. 
 This is intentionally free. The copula is not present in Greek 
 or boh, nor do they drop ayeveaXoyrjTo?. 
 
 2 Cor. v. 16. Regular except for omission of kcu before 
 eyvcoKapev which agrees with boh (all mss.). [Sah 
 wanting.] 
 Heb. vii. 4. He now takes up Heb. vii. again, and in this 
 4th verse substitutes epepicrev Afipaap. for A/3paap eScoKev. 
 Compare as to position Greek A 37 jt, 116 eScoKev 
 Afipaap (/ vg dedit de praecipuis Abraham) and boh 
 c|><M ET^q+pEAJlHT" It^q ftXEA.RpAAJUl . (This 
 ep^epiaev probably came from verse 2 however ; boh 
 
I58 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 differentiates, using cj>ecy in verse 2 and *f" as above in 
 
 verse 4. I hardly think Marks eye could be misled 
 
 here by peJUHT (decima pars) but it is possible.) 
 
 Mark quotes the same verse 4 again however on the next page 
 
 (Galland. 96 ) : aAAa Oecopeue, <f>r)<TL, -r^Ai/cos ovtos <o /ecu hexar-qv 
 
 epepio-ev Afipaap, repeating epepLo-ev Afipaap although clearly 
 
 verse 4 and not verse 2. 
 
 He now passes again to : 
 Heb. vii. 13/14. ecj> ov Xeyerai ravra (f>vXy)s erepas pereo-^rjKe 
 (adding kou ovSeiroTe TrXavrjdrjcrr), and omitting again 
 a<j> 179 ovSeis TrpocT€cr)(yjKe tu> 6vcna.crTy]pioi) npoBrjXov yap 
 otl e£ Iov&a avarerakKev o Kvpcos rjpcov (this time supplying 
 rjfxaiv, and adding) Itjo-ovs Xyaicrros. 
 (Gr 17 31 add Itjo-ovs.) 
 He then passes back to : 
 Heb. v. 11, quoting verbatim -re/n ov iroXvs iqp.Lv o Xoyos Kai 
 SvcreppyvevTos XeyeLv, stopping there and adding a> tt/s 
 akatpveias. hoKovvres elvau to>v clttoo-toXcov cro^wrepoi, and 
 continuing from : 
 
 1 Tim. i. 7 ovre voovaiv a Xeyovcnv ovre nepc tlvcjv Sia- 
 
 y8e/3atowrai 
 
 for the regular : prj voovvTes pyre a Xeyovcru prjTe wept, 
 tlvcov Sta/3e/3aiowrai. 
 This is not uninteresting, for both boh and sah use the regular 
 Coptic oyXe for Greek pr]Se with Mark. And boh favours voovo-lv 
 against voowres (rtceK<v r t~ ; sah : rtce rtoiei). Note Epiph 1/4 
 " ov yap a XeyovcrLV oiSacnv ouSe ire.pL tlvcov Sia/3e/3." 
 Eph. iii. 5 is quite free : 
 
 otl erepats yeveais, to pvcrnqpLov tovto (this is supplied as 
 end of previous verse tco pvcrTrjpLco tov XpLcrrov is not 
 quoted) ovk eyvcopLaOr) ( — tois vtots tcov avdpcoTrcov) ois 
 vvv aireKaXv(j)8r) rots ayiois a7rocrroX.ois ( — avrov) koli 
 Trpo<f)r)TaLs ( - ev wevpaTi). There is no authority for 
 these changes. 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 1 as far as quoted agrees : (otl) ecrovraL i//euSoSi- 
 
 Sa.o~KaX.oi oltlvcs TrapeLO~a£ovo-Lv aipeaei? a-rojXeias. 
 After another brief reference to Heb. vii. 3, 2, 13, we get the 
 quotation from : 
 
 Acts iv. 1 2 otl ovk eaTLV ovopa erepov vtto tov ovpavov ev to Set 
 
 o-cu0r)vaL iravTas rjpas, but to SeSepevov ev avdpconoLS is 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 59 
 
 elided (freely) without authority, and Mark continues 
 aA.A.a Kvpios Irjcrovs XpLcnos and then drifts straight 
 into : 
 Eph. i. 23 to likrjpoi^a tov iravra ev Tracrt irXrjpovpevov (without 
 
 variation), continuing very soon with : 
 2 Cor. xi. 4 (in full) ei pev yap o epyojiievos aWov Itjctovv 
 Krjpvcrcret o (pro ov) ovk eKrjpvtjapev rj irvevpa erepov 
 Xapfiavere o ovk eXa/3ere 77 evayye\Lov erepov o ovk 
 ehe^aadaL KaXcos avet^eo-ffe. 
 As regards this first o for ov (against Greek) it is quite inter- 
 esting to observe in both sah and boh that the manner of treating 
 the threefold clause is the same in the Coptic and shows no 
 difference. Thus, boh : 
 
 MKeiHC jinerfgiuuicy juumoq 
 itKenrtX juineTerffrrrq 
 KeeY<vrre?\iorf jutneTerfcyonq . 
 1 Cor. ii. 2 thus freely : otl ovSev erepov eKpuva eiSevcu ( - ti 
 ev vp.iv) ei prj Itjo'ovv XpLO~TOv /ecu tovtov eo-Tavpwp.evov. 
 
 The regular Greek opens : ov yap eKpiva (tov) etSevcu tl 
 ev vpiv. 
 
 (Orig Ath are also free here.) 
 The last quotation is from : 
 
 Col. ii. 9, IO. (iva 7raX.1v tj)Ty]o~<jip.ev aXXayov to irXr]pmpa) ev 
 
 avTco yap (evSoKyjae) Karo ikijctou 7rav to TrXrjpwpa tt)<; 
 
 deoTrjTOS crcopaTLKO) 1 ; /ecu eapev (pro eare) ev avroj ire- 
 
 trXrjpapevoL (7ravres ol VLaTevovres rots Aoyois avTov cus 
 
 viov Qeov . . . ). 
 
 The form is about the same employed more shortly before 
 
 (Galland. 95 ) where Mark wrote otl evBoK-rjo-ev ev avrw /ccu-oi/oycrcu 
 
 7rav to irXrjpcjpa tt)S deorrjTO? awpaTLKcos. 
 
 Perat hipv Monoimos hipp also supply euSo/ojcre. 
 It seems perfectly clear that Mark intended simply to use 
 Greek forms throughout, yet unconsciously and subconsciously he 
 lets us see enough of the ' hintergrund ' of his mind to be sure that 
 he was familiar with a coptic version or versions, and apparently 
 at times drifts in thought or otherwise to both forms of sahidic 
 and bohairic. At times, too, the agreement of Mark with both 
 coptic versions is very distinct. 
 
 My excuse for re-examining this question is that Tischendorf, 
 although quoting Marc mon fairly often in his apparatus, has not 
 
l6o CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 done so throughout, and the complete picture is thus entirely- 
 lost. 
 
 Turning to Serapion we find several interesting touches. 
 
 Serapion {adv. Munich.). 
 
 In the second quotation : 
 
 Matt. vii. 15 we have Trpoueyere eaurois ano tu>v \]jev?>oTrpo(f>- 
 
 yyrutv .... 
 This eavroLs is absent from all Greeks, but present in boh and 
 sah (although only Englished by Horner for sah). 
 
 Boh — ^peg 2lE epurrert e&o?\ gA rtmpocpHTHc rtrtov2c 
 Sah — 'f-gTHTrt epouTTt erfenpocpHTHc rmovx 
 (and in a few Old Latins, with Lucifer and Gildas, " vobis " is 
 added after " Attendite "). 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 19 (wrongly indexed in Galland. as iii. 16) is thus 
 given : 
 ovk oiSare on ra crw/^ara vpuiv vaos tov ev vjxlv ayiov 
 
 TTV€V[JLaTO<; €0~TLV. 
 
 The reading of NA*BCDEFGKP defgsyr^ Chr Thdrt 1/2 
 Orig' mtA ' 5i * is to o-cojxa. (Tisch. also quotes " bashmuric" for this), 
 while bohairic (sah not extant) agrees with Serapion to. a-co^aTa 
 (rfGTerfcujJLi^). A few Greeks give this, viz. A 2 L some cursives 
 Orig ter (et Orig int 2 ' 4 ° 9 ) Meth Did Cyr Thdrt*'™ 1 and other 
 Fathers. While this modification is quite likely in the Fathers' 
 writings, we see from Matt. vii. 15 above that it was an Egyptian 
 form which Serapion was following. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 31. oti 01 Tekavat, /ecu at iropvai irpoayovcriv vp.a<; ets 
 Ti)v /3ao"(,A.ei(W tojv ovpavav (pro tov Qeov). 
 
 Here again we have this Egyptian muddle of tu>v ovpavav for 
 tov Qeov (which can occur from proximity of the word for {iao-ikeiav 
 in bohairic or from confusion of JunrfOVTe "of God" and 
 itjiinHYe "of the Heavens" in sahidic, as previously pointed out). 
 Here boh retains "of God," but one sahidic ms. says rtJUinHYe 
 with arm one ms. of syr pesh and Irenaeus. It is certainly not 
 a Greek reading. 
 
 Rom. xii. I. [to. Be \oyia fBocovTa kou XeyovTa) TTapacrT7}0-aT€ to. 
 aaipara vjxwv dvo'iav t^coaav evapearov tu> ©ecu. 
 
 Trapao-Trjo-aTe for TrapacrTrjaai is merely engendered by the 
 introduction. The important part is the order of evapeoTov t<h 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 6 I 
 
 ©ew, which Teschendorf and Westcott-Hort took the liberty of 
 changing to ra @ew evapea-rov on the strength of N*AP vg, but 
 both Coptics with N C BDEFGL d e f g arm syr witness with 
 Serapion to evapearou tu> Qeco. Why did they abandon B gr here, 
 when Serapion (a..d. 350) contradicted NA ? 
 
 1 Tim. i. 15/16. Serapion omits irpcoToi in verse 16 with D gr * 
 d aeth. 
 
 Serapion says avrov p-aKpoOv/xiav with boh and sah 
 distinctly (as D gr d syr sch Thdrt Azig 1/5). 
 [Luke xii. 19. Thus : ^vx 1 ? e X ets a 7 a ^ a ( — troWa with 0rz£" 
 &r) K€ip.ev<x ets er^ 7roXXa" <£aye me evfypaivov ( — 
 <wa77-auou with 36 Clem bis). (Tischendorf neglects 
 Serapion in both places.) Boh and sah have noXXa 
 prim, and avanavov, but one ^/z MS. (F,*) omits 
 ava7rauov.] 
 (2 Tim. iv. 9 is quoted without variation ; curiously enough 
 Serapion gives this verse, while Orsiesius quotes the 
 previous ones [vide post].) 
 Luke x. 17. A little thing occurs here showing, I think, that 
 sahidic was under the eye of Serapion. He writes : 
 Kvpie t,Sov /cai ra ha.ip.ovia, ~qp,iv viroracrcreTai. 
 The addition of iSou is not found in Greek, nor in Latin, 
 nor in Syriac, and is not present in boh nor in sah. Boh says 
 "xe nov rfiKE^.eJU.ujrf ," while sah is: "xe nxoeic mceXAi- 
 Jtiornort ." I submit that it was this eic (= tSou in boh and 
 sahidic) which engendered Serapion s + tSov here. I consider this 
 extremely interesting and incontrovertible. It might easily have 
 been confused in a closely written uncial. 
 
 (John i. 43. Note that Serapion supports crv et 2t,p,coi> o uios 
 lava with AB 3 XrAAII unc 9 al. mult, c q {gat) vg syr 
 arm aeth Epiph Cyr Chr with one boh MS. (the note- 
 worthy M boh ) against rest of boh and sah who with Greek 
 NB*L 33 a b f 'ff t I am fu fossat etc. have been followed 
 by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott-Hort, with 
 Icoavvov). 
 - Phil. iii. 8. Thus Serapion, exhibiting only part of the verse : 
 " TravTCL ijyov/xat o~xv/3aXa iva, XpicrTov Kepor/cro}. 
 This Travra, not present in Greek in this part of the verse, is 
 found in Horner's text of boh and some boh mss. ; sah (Balestri) 
 is unfortunately mutilated here, but there is space to contain the 
 
 M 
 
1 62 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 word (I think Mr. Horner's text will have it), eivcu is omitted 
 by Scrap as copt and N*BD*FG d efg vg arm aeth Lucif etc. 
 
 Palladius. 
 We may now consult Palladium Lausiac History (ed. Butler, 
 1904). 
 
 Matt. ix. 11. Although in Palladius the sentence does not take 
 (Luke v. 3 o.) ^g f orm f a question, note that 6 StSaovcaXos v/jlcuv 
 heads the clause in Palladms, while both sah and boh 
 bring these words early in the sentence and not at the 
 end as in the Greek. 
 Luke v. 31. Palladius: vyiaivovr^ with Luke. 
 /Matt. ix. 12) N 
 
 (Mark ii. 17/ = «^^«-) 
 
 Sah in all three places = rfETTHK translated healthy by 
 
 Horner, but Peyron only gives fortis as the equivalent, 
 
 while boh in all three places = eTXop translated strong 
 
 by Horner, but Peyron gives fortis, potens, validus, 
 
 solidus, or munitus. 
 
 This place therefore remains quite indeterminate, as each 
 
 coptic version uses its own word thrice over, while the Greek 
 
 holds icTYuovre; in Matt, and Mark and has vyLcuvovres in Luke. 
 
 Note that Macirms (de caritale) uses vyiaivovTes also. 
 
 Matt. xi. 18, 19. In verse 18 Palladius adds ev oSw Sikcuoctwtjs 
 after v)\6ev lwavvrjs without boh or sah support, which is 
 merely an importation from Matt. xxi. 32, showing how 
 they used to combine Scripture. 
 Matt, xxiii. 9 or 10. Pallad reads : 
 
 ju,tj KaXearjre SiSacrKaXov etrt tt)<; yr^?. 
 Butler indexes this as xxiii. 9, but there is no variation 
 from narepa in xxiii. 9, both Coptic versions having 
 "Father." 
 
 But in verse 10 "jit^Se KXrjdrjTe Kadr)yr)Tat," boh says 
 ECA*> = scriba, doctor, magister (Horner: "scribe"), 
 and sah says peq^fxHuu = doctor (Horner : "teacher"), 
 so that BiSaa-KaXov of Palladius savours very strongly of 
 retranslation. 
 Mark ii. 18. Pallad is short and free, giving : 
 
 iva rt /xadrjTaL crov ov vrjcrTevovaLV ws kcu ol toi> Icoclvvov 
 for the longer phrase (with variations) of other authorities. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 163 
 
 Luke ix. 62. This verse has many variations in Gk and in all 
 the Versions. 
 
 Pallad : ouSeis eTrufiaXov ttjv x ei P a ( ~ clvtov) stt aporpou 
 Kat o-rpg^ets ets ra otticto) evderos ecrrtv ei? tyjv fiacrCkeiav 
 Toif ovpavav. 
 
 Palladius thus omits avrov with B p fan? a b q Orig Bas Cyr 
 Tert, but against boh and sah. crrpa^ets for fi\eiro>v is read by 
 a dozen cursives, by Orig Cyr Chr Antioch Dam and Mark the 
 hermit. In this connection the latter absolutely confirms Palladius 
 text here at a simultaneous epoch. (Cf. "retro adtendens " of 
 c e Cypr.) But boh = xovtyr "respicere," as sah. ets rrjv 
 fiaaiXeiav is the reading of most Greeks (sah eTJUtirrepo), but N c 
 1 j 1 q Valent ap. Iren Bas Chr and Mark the hermit prefer ev tt) 
 /3ao-i\eia (boh *)ert 'fjuteTOVpo), while N*BLH I 33 and most 
 lalt have merely ttj /JacriXeia. 
 
 The close, however, is really the important part for us here, 
 for Palladius writes tcov ovpavcov instead of tov Oeov, while boh is 
 distinct with rtT6 $>"^~ thereagainst and sah Unrt OYTe . This is 
 in the nature of a key, and Pallad has support from Valent apud 
 Iren, Cyr* ior and Mark the hermit, who read also tu>v ovpavuv 
 with Horner's bohairic catena X. 
 
 We have noticed and pointed out several times how such 
 substitutions occurred from the proximity of JUBT O'Y po in Coptic. 
 It occurs in Greek A and in the new Freer Greek W, and I 
 think also in Greek X. To find it in Palladius, supported by 
 Coptic catena N with Mark the monk lends decided force to our 
 remarks, and this would rather point to Palladius having had 
 before him a graeco-coptic version, and having also confused 
 xieTOYpo with ovpavwT like the others.f 
 
 John v. 14. This short quotation agrees with the usual Greek 
 text : tSe vyi/qs yeyovas (boh sah A.KOYXA.I) jx-qKen 
 afjLaprave. 
 Rom. i. 28, 21, 26. Pallad writes : 
 
 " eireiSr) yap ^ovk eSoKt/xacrav tov Qeov e^eiv ev eTnyvcocrei 
 TrapeScoKev cairous o @eo? ets aBoKi/xov vow iroieiv ra fir) 
 KadyjKovTa " (irepi Se erepcov tlvcov tcov Sokowtcov e^eiv 
 yvctio-iv &eov fiera 8Le<f>0ap[iev7)s yvoifir)<; ' EireiZr) yap) 
 
 •j- Scribal confusion is also possible in sahidic between ' God' and ' Heaven.' 
 
 M 2 
 
164 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 (2l) " yvovres tov Qeov oi>x ws Qeov eho^acrav 17 'qv^apLaTrjcrav 
 (28) napeScoKev aurovs o 6eos eis TraOiq cm/Aias." 
 The whole of this runs as usual, eireihy] yap for /cat Ka0ws in 
 ver. 28 and for Slotl in ver. 21 being merely used for an apposite 
 introduction here. 
 
 Rom. xiv. 23. vav yap o ovk e/c TnaTeox; apapTia eariv. 
 
 The only difference here is yap for Se {boh also 2s.e, .ra^ 
 Balestri wanting [but Horner shows me Xe for sah~\) 
 which is negligible. 
 1 Cor. iii. 18 runs with the ordinary text. The Pallad mss. 
 are divided as to ev vp.iv or ev j)piv. (Copt goes with 
 Greek ev vp.iv.) 
 1 Cor. vi. 9. Pallad on ciSikch /Saaiketav 0eov ov KXrjpovo- 
 p-qarovcTL. The order y8acr. Qeov agrees with boh (sah not 
 extant) Greek L etc. d efvg Clem etc. Tert Cypr against 
 NABCDEP who write Qeov /Sao-iXeuw. This holds 
 Pallad down to graeco-copt again. 
 1 Cor. vii. 16. tl yap oiScts, yvvai, ei tov avSpa o-oxreis agrees 
 with the usual Gk text. Boh has xe ApHOY for ei = si 
 forsan, not emphasized here at all by Palladius. 
 
 1 Cor. ix. 25. Merely a line: ira.% o ayaivitppevos iravra 
 
 eyKpareverat. The ordinary text has 7ras Se as all boh 
 
 mss. but one, which omits ^.e . Balestri's sah (extant 
 here) has it. 
 
 2 Cor. xii. 5. v-rrep tov tolovtov Kavy^qo-opai. Merely a short 
 
 interjection here, followed by ofo? rp> ouros. But this 
 Greek order is contrary to the Coptic one. 
 2 Cor. xii. 7- ehoOrj poi cr/coAoi/* ttj aaptci ayyeXo? crarav iva pe 
 
 Ko\a(j)i£,r] tva prj vnepaipcopai. 
 This again follows Greek (exactly as Macarius does) and does 
 not supply ev before ttj aapKL as boh, nor anything before ayyeXos, 
 while boh (not sah) writes rtXEOVA-VTE^sOC = namely an angel. 
 Sah writes eT^c^pg for 717 o-apxi. 
 
 Gal. i. 18. Pallad: " avefirjv" (pro eiretTa peTa eTT) rpta 
 
 avrj\9oi>) " ets LepocroXvpa io-Topt)o-ai Krj<j)av" (pro rreTpov). 
 
 This is distinctly Greek as regards io-ToprjcraL, for all &?/? with 
 
 Balestri's W^ have merely ert«wv. Both fo,& and sah have KHcbA. 
 
 with Palladius and with Gk N*AB against the other Greeks. 
 
 While boh has ei2\hjh, sah has EeiEpoco^sYJUU*.. 
 
 As regards avefirjv, for which no Greek support in Tischen- 
 
OF THE U0IIA1RIC VERSION. 1 65 
 
 dorf, cf. Aug Ambrst " adscendi." Boh = AltyE (rtHl) Egpm and 
 sah <Mflujic Eg,p<M, in both cases emphasizing the Gk dud. 
 
 An indecisive but rather a pretty place as regards composite 
 treatment. 
 
 It is rather curious that both Coptics are content with videre 
 for Lcrroprjcrai,, which is very latin sympathy. 
 
 Gal. iii. 28. ev XpicrTO) Irjcrov ovk zvi apcrev Kai 6t]Xv. 
 The ev XpiaTco Itjctov is supplied from the context. Otherwise 
 there is no comment to make, except that boh writes ov2^e for kcu 
 before drjXv against Palladius and the Greek {sah Balestri not 
 extant). 
 
 Gal. v. 22/23. Pallad: " on to Kapiros" (rutv Xoyco TroXirevopevaiv 
 
 Ka.L crwecrei Kara tov 0€lov airocrTokov) " ayairrj ecrrt /cat 
 
 X a P a KaL ecprjvrj ko.1 paKpodvpta, ^tjcttottjs, ayaduxrvvrj, 
 
 maris, TrpavTrjs /cat eyicpaTeia " (cjpoXoyrjTcu. auros yap 
 
 eXeye IIcuAos - ) " o yap Kapnos tov irvevpaTOS eo~TL " (ra 
 
 Kai ra). 
 
 Sah is not extant in Balestri, so I do not know, unless Mr. 
 
 Horner has this section, whether sah couples any of the list. The 
 
 order is perfect Greek and Bohairic order and is either copied out 
 
 or the writer had it perfectly in his memory. The only difference 
 
 boh makes is to say a love, a joy, a peace, and thus throughout 
 
 using the indefinite article OY which might be taken for the copula 
 
 OYOg (especially in OYgipHNH), which it will be noticed the writer 
 
 drops after paKpoOvpia [he might have paused there as boh 
 
 expresses it OYJUETpEquJOY rtgHT"] and does not use again until 
 
 at the last, where OYJU.ETpE.M.pA.Yji} OYerKp<VTlA. might have 
 
 suggested to the eye item or OYOg, . 
 
 The boh writes thus : 
 
 cJ>AI ne : OYAfAnH • OYpA<±Jl • OYgipHlTH • OYJUETpE- 
 qUJOY MgHT • OYXtETXPC • OYJUETAFA^OC • OYftAgi" . 
 OYAXETpEJUip^Yty . OYETKp^TJ^. 
 
 [Since this was written Mr. Horner for sah has shown me : 
 ITE TAVAnH np^tyE EipHffH TAJirtTgAptygHT ^JUUtTXPC 
 
 jurrrnETTf<MtoYq Tnicxic TJUirrrpIIpAty tetkp^tia, so 
 
 that sah does not couple, and uses the definite article.] 
 
 Phil. i. 23. Pallad: {ayadov pro ttjv eniQvpiav e\w) "to 
 
 avaXvaai Kai o~vv Xpto~Tco aval 
 This is rather more Greek than coptic. Boh says (some mss.) 
 
 rrTAtyuunt ftEJm n^cc, others : oYOg, NTAujourn rte^x n^c, 
 
1 66 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 all bringing the ecvai before Xpta-rw, some retaining and some 
 dropping kch. 
 
 Sah eujtone jurt ne^c dropping /ecu. 
 
 2 Thess. iii. 8. Only two words " Sctpeav aprov " (<j>aycoi>), but 
 it is greek order against aprov Swpeav of boh (sah 
 wanting in Balestri ; Horner shows me agreement of sah 
 with boh here). 
 I Tim. i. 9. " SiKGuw " (yap) " vo/jlos ov KeiTcu." 
 
 boh is 2ce rf<s.pe nmoxioc ^h (juime.ftjt.Hf &si) 
 sah xe itepe mtojuoc kh (Aft egp<M JunXiKA-ioc). 
 I John ii. 18. Merely: " 7raiSia " (yeypaiTTac irpo rerpaKoo-Lav 
 eTcov otl) " ecrynxTrj wpa ecrn." 
 
 As boh : rfi^?sa)OYi t*>ae Fovrtov T6. 
 
 Wz : It AUJHpe ©AH ItOYItOY T6 . 
 
 I have thought it worth while to recapitulate these passages 
 as Dom Butler in his long and excellent study of the Lausiac 
 History has not taken up these matters point by point, and while 
 much makes for his contention of basic Greek, there is an under- 
 current of Coptic visible at times. 
 
 Evagrius. 
 
 We can also consult Evagrius (Capita practica), who, although 
 only a transient foreigner in Egypt, should not be neglected. 
 The very second quotation : 
 
 John v. 44, yields £7770 wres fin. (for ^retre) which both 
 Macarius and Marc mon exhibit with N* and ten 
 cursives. 
 Matt. vi. 5. orav TTpocrev-^crd^ (or Trpocrev^eo-Oe) ovk ecrecrOe for 
 oTav Trpoo-€V)0 ovk ecrrj agrees with boh and sah N* etC BZ 
 1 22 1 18 it vg aeth arm against the majority of Greeks. 
 Some mss. of Evagr. as Galland. txt. add ttolovctl after woK-pirat 
 without apparent authority, illegitimately doubling the verb. For 
 e.v reus yoivia.1% tcov TrXaTeiw Evagr substitutes ev rcu? TrXareiats 
 (some mss. and Galland. text) against Gk, boh, and sah and 
 apparently only with Augustine. 
 
 Matt. vi. 16. to-eade (pro ytveo-de). No Greeks apparently, 
 
 but Coptic also uses same word as above in verse 5. 
 ibid. — on with XBD 1 22 118 124 al. 6 a b f h k in q arm 
 aeth A teg 
 
OF THE BOHAIR1C VERSION. 1 67 
 
 against bulk of the Greeks c ff t g Ii2 vg and boh sah which 
 naturally have it. Here is rather a pretty diversity in 
 the same verse. Evagr first with and then against 
 Coptic. 
 Col. iii. 10 is shortened and rather free ; (interposing a reference 
 to Gal. iii. 28) he continues verse 11, and when he 
 reaches /8ap/3a/)os says " fiap/Sapo? koli SkvOtq^, SovXos Kat 
 eXevOepos, aAAa iravTa ( — to.) /cat ev Tracrt, Xpicrro?. 
 This fiapfiapos /cat Hkv0t)<; Sot/Aos Kat eXevOepos is exhibited 
 partially by Coptic. 
 
 Boh says : &A.p&A.poc CKYeoc fkjuK oyof> pejitge 
 Sah says : R^pRApoc CKYeHC g,jiIgA?s • pilpe . 
 Thus sah uses guigA.2\ for Rouk of boh, and this gH may have 
 influenced a copula. Notice boh has ovog, following between 
 BlUJK (SouAos) and peJLtge (eXevOepos), while Wz does not have it. 
 As to /SapySapos Kat SkvOt)? support is found by Greek D*E* 
 FG de fg vg goth and Petr Alex. The Greeks AD*E*FG 3 46 
 73 it vg goth aeth also add /cat between S01A0? and eXevdepos. As 
 regards iravra ( — xa) of Evagr it has support of N*AC CY^m. 
 boh is a.?\?n<js. guuR mRerf *>err ovoit m&erf n^c 
 and sah a?\?\A nTHpq <wuj neTgH rrrHpq ne ne^c . 
 Matt. xiii. 24. Evagr writes ev tw tStco aypa with D gr Etis i,s 
 (for ev to) aypw avrov). In Coptic the possessive precedes 
 the noun ; Horner mentions D Ens in his sahidic notes. 
 These things are lost if we do not consider contemporary 
 evidence. Neither Tisch. nor Homer mention Evagrius 
 confirmation of this reading. 
 (Eph. vi. 17, 14, 16, is merely a paraphrase.) 
 (2 Tim. ii. 12 and Rom. vi. 8 are involved together.) 
 Evagrius {Rerum Monach. raliones) : 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 33, 34, is thus given : 
 
 o yap,r\aa<i avOpwiros p,epip,v<x ra tov Kocrfiov ncos apecret 
 
 T7) yvvaiKi Kat p.e[iepLcrTcu ' Kat 77 ya^cracra yvvr) p.epip.vo. 
 
 ra tov Koo-p,ov 7T(ws apecret tw avopi. 
 
 Although rather free and eliding part of verse 34, it will be 
 
 noticed that ttj yvvaiKL Kat /Liepepicn-at .( instead of ttj ywat/ct . 
 
 pe^e/jto-rat) agrees with boh. {€/. Isai Abb infra.') 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 4 following, shows no variation ; 
 while Matt. xi. 30, Luke x. 41, 42 are memorial ; 
 and Mark xii. 44 (Luke xxi. 4) is thus referred to : 
 
1 68 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 eKetvoi pev yap ((^criv) eK tov TrepurcrevpaTOS efiiaXov ev tw 
 ya(,o<j>v\aKia), clvtt) Se, airacrav eavTrj? Tt]v virap^iv. 
 2 Cor. viii. 14, 15, in full, shows no variation except KaOa 
 yeypanTat for KaBws yeypawrai. Cf- boh KA.TV&. C^pHT" 
 ETC*)HOYT. Greeks do not vary Kafcs. 
 Matt. viii. 22 (somewhat blended with the order in Luke ix. 60) 
 is given as : 
 a^es (<f>rj(ri.v) o Kvptos tov; veKpovs Oaxfiau tovs eavrcov 
 vexpovs ' crv Se Sevpo axokovdei p,oi. See Clem as to this, 
 as also syr S. 
 Matt. xii. 50. This next quotation, freely inverted : 
 
 prjrrjp pov KO.L a?>ek(f)Ob pov koli Trarepes ovrot eicnv 01 ttoiowtes 
 to deXrjpa tov irarpos pov tov ev tois ovpavoLS 
 also agrees with Clem. 
 
 Evagrius closes with Rom. viii. 18, regular, to all intents and 
 purposes. 
 
 From the testimony of Mark the monk, whether familiar with 
 boh or sah (and it would appear that he knew both) we have seen 
 how Latin c d e ff, I intrude into the Egyptian text. 
 
 We must bear in mind that some of the monks in the Egyptian 
 monastery regions only knew Latin. In Proleg. to Orsiesius life 
 and writings in Galland., vol. v., p. viii. : — 
 
 " Siquidem in praefatione ad Regulam Sancti Pachomii quam 
 sub finem praecedentis voluminis excudendam curavimus, haec 
 habet Doctor maximus : Accept libros ab homine Dei Silvano 
 presbytero mihi directos quos ille Alexandria missos stisceperat vt 
 etiam injungeret transferendos. Ajebat enim quod in Thebaidis 
 ccenobiis — habitarent plurimi Latinortim quiignorarent 'sEgyptiacum 
 Grcecumque sermonem, quo Pachomii et Theodori et Orsiesii prczcepta 
 conscripta sunt. Paucisque interjectis : Itaque, subdit, accito notario, 
 ut erant de yEgyptia r a in Grcecam linguam versa, nostro sermone 
 dictavi. Praefationem vero suam claudit sanctus Doctor his 
 verbis : Simplicitatem sEgyptii sermonis imitati sumus, — ne viros 
 apostolicos et totos gratiae spiritalis sermo rhetoricus immutaret. 
 Cetera autem quae in eorum tractatibus continentur praelibare 
 nolui ut in suis aiscantur auctoribus ; et de fontibus potius quam 
 de rivulis bibant, quos sanctae conversations studia delectant. Hue 
 usque Hieronymus. 
 
 " Ex quibus ergo compertum fit ut equidem arbitror sanctum 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 69 
 
 Doctorem non solum Pachomii et Theodori set etiam Orsiesii, 
 quorum nempe paullo ante simul meminerat, litterarum monimenta 
 Latine vertisse. Accedit praeterea eorumdem patrum ^Egyptiorum 
 scripta saeculo V desinente Latinis innotuisse ut ex Gennadio 
 erudimur (de Vir. illustr. vii/ix) ; qui quidem nonnisi ex versione 
 Hieronymiana ejusmodi notitiam sibi demum comparasse merito 
 existimantur. Neque aliter hac de re censuit cl. Tillemontius. 
 
 " Quae quum ita se habeant, in postrema operum sancti Doctoris 
 editione Veronensi opportunum fortasse locum nacta fuisset haec 
 Orsiesii Doctrinae Hieronymiana versio ; eo scilicet nomine quo 
 eruditissimus editor Pachomii Regulam nee non ejusdem ac 
 Theodori epistolas illuc primus invexit. Horum namque trium 
 sanctorum abbatum Tabennensium opera Graece reddita junctim 
 ab homine Dei Silvano presbytero accepit sanctus Doctor eaque 
 simul ut erant de yEgyptiaca in Graecam linguam versa proprio 
 sermone dictavit, ut modo ab eo accepimus. 
 
 "Quod superest, Orsiesii 'Doctrinam' ex codice Regularum 
 Holsteniano editionis Romanae descripsimus ; libellum vero de sex 
 cogitationibus sanctorum, ex Thesauro Canisiano." 
 
 At any rate we have seen what the writings of Macarius, 
 Mark, and Serapion have yielded as regards a coptic current in 
 their day, and what may still be gleaned from the few words 
 which the traveller Evagrius has to say [the latter neglected by 
 Tischendorf even when in agreement with Clement], for the latter 
 represents a foreign element in temporary residence among the 
 Egyptian monks. 
 
 And we can close with a reference to Orsiesius Latin testimony. 
 
 His testimony is slightly complicated by a possible Vulgatizing 
 of part of his texts, but yet a good deal of interest is visible. His 
 quotations are of rather a peculiar type : sometimes unduly free, 
 at others exact. 
 
 Orsiesius. 
 
 Thus Gal. v. 15 ad invicem for ab invicem appears new, as 
 does ut dividat eum in Matt. xxiv. 51 init. As regards Matt, 
 xxv. 21, 23, which Orsiesius gives as super modiczim in the singular 
 against Greeks and Latins, but rather with in modico of syr, copt 
 is rather indeterminate and would bear either, but holds the in as 
 d " in paucis." Luke ii. 9 venit ad eos is new ; Eph. iv. 30 + 
 justi judkli post redemtionisyfe. is new ; 2 Cor. viii. 15 parum pro 
 
I70 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 modicum is new ; as Rom. xiv. 4 4- rursum, Phil. iv. 6 in oratione 
 intenti ; 1 Cor. xi. 22 ut libatis et comedatis, order against greek 
 sah boh and lat ; John xxi. 6 — to Slktvov. 
 
 Eph. iv. 30, in die redemptions Orsiesius (for eis iqfJLepav 
 aTro\vTpc0o-ea)<; or in diem redempt.) with Vigil Taps, and 
 Tert alone (in redemptions die) does not agree with copt. 
 Act. xx. 28 is very free : 
 
 "super quern vox spiritus sanctus constituit inspicere et 
 
 pascere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit proprio sanguine." 
 
 John xiv. 21/23 opens " qui audit mandata mea " (against boh 
 
 sah and greek o eYwv) and has Old Latin support b c 
 
 fossat aur and Lucifer Maximin Cassiod. 
 
 The close is mixed and free like Macarius' quotations of the 
 
 same place. 
 
 Luke ii. 52 is very free " puer autem ibat et crescebat et 
 
 proficiebat apud Deum et apud hominibus." 
 As regards the second apud, D Br does this and syr arm aeth. 
 Boh says rtejut. ft ipcjojuu (supplying the article, which Greek lacks) 
 as does sah. 
 
 Acts xx. 32 : "cum Sanctis" (for ev rots yyiacrju,ei'ois -rrao-iv) is new. 
 2 Tim. iv. 6/8. In verse 8 "qui dilexertint justitiam ejus" is 
 noteworthy. Greek is rots TjyairyjKocrL ttjv eTTL<f>a,veLav 
 avrov. Latt " adventum (at. manifestationem) ejus." 
 As regards the Vulgate see Col. iii. 13. Orsiesius quotes 
 "sicut et Christus donavit (for eyapto-aro) nobis sic facite." 
 This donavit is vg and it but not copt (= yjo)- 
 It is very interesting to examine Orsiesius in full, but it would 
 take too much space. As to cop tic note : 
 
 Matt, xxiii. 4. . . . et imponitis ea super humeros hominum . . . 
 
 with boh and sah against Greek and Latin. 
 1 Cor. xi. 2 thus : Laudo autem vos quod in omnibus me- 
 ministis mei et sicut tradidi vobis traditiones meas 
 custodistis. 
 
 This in omnibus is distinctly Coptic {boh: £>ert gcoft. 
 fflRert, sah: g,rt goufi. ItlJU.) against Greek iravra and 
 Latin omnia. 
 
 The "meas" is Latin (it and vg) with only Greek 
 D*FG, but compare sah. 
 1 Pet. iii. 15. parati estote ad respondendum omnibus qtii a 
 vobis cxigunt ratiouem super ea fide quae in vobis est. 
 
OF THE BOHAIK1C VERSION. I 7 I 
 
 Greek is ttclvtl tw oxtowti u/xas Xoyov, 
 Latin is omni poscenti vos rationem, 
 but cf boh rtoYort rtiRert eert^epeTm HjumuTerf 
 
 rtOYCAXI. 
 
 (Did. hbere : ws ev ttolvtl Kaipa> aTraiTovfievovs Tj/xas tov 
 Tre.pi a.VTTj'i \oyou.) 
 In John x. 11/13 note "ovibus suis" in verse 11 with boh sah 
 (and vg) against Greek. 
 
 In verse 12 Orsiesius omits prop riae (iSta). 
 (John xxi. 15, 16, is thus given : (I5) Simon Joannis diligis me 
 plus his ? Respondit ei ( - JVat Rvpie) Domine tu scis 
 quia ego diligo te. Dicit ei Jesus pasce agnos meos. 
 (l6) Dicit ei rursus secundo Simon Joannis diligis me. 
 Respondit ei etiam Domine tu scis quia diligam te. 
 Dicit ei pasce oves meas. 
 
 The variations marked by italics appear free, except 
 the last which is latin and coptic, oves for to. TrpofiaTa). 
 Luke xii. 35/37 free also, "similes nervorum" agrees with 
 
 Isaiah Abb "sicut servi" for the " men " of all others. 
 (1 Cor. x. 11 omits rravra (on Galland. 43 ) with Marc man, but 
 
 has it on p. 40.) 
 Eph. vi. 11, 12, thus : 
 
 induamur potius armaturam Dei ut possimus resistere 
 contra insidias diaboli. Non est enim pugna contra 
 camem et sanguinem sed adversus potestates et prin- 
 cipals, adversus rectores tenebrarum harum, adversus 
 spiritalia nequitia in caelestibus. 
 ■ potius appears new. 
 
 insidias (for /i,e#oSeias or /xe^oSta?) goes with e f g vg (remedia 
 Lticif remedium d, machinationes Tert maIC ; versutias Hier = 
 rriKOTC copt). 
 
 camem el sanguinem (against all Greeks at/xa koli crapKa and 
 sah : crtoq gl CApg) is the Vulgate (against Hier himself on 
 Eph. vi. 12) as well as bohairic order (cA.p? £,' crtoq). This 
 we retain in English, A.V. being flesh and blood (against Greek), 
 and strangely enough the Revised Version retained this.f It 
 
 I Wiclif, even Tynedale (flesshe and bloud\ Geneva, Rheims, all have y?«7z and 
 blood, but the Great Bible of 1539 had revised Tynedale to bloude andfleshe, which 
 was however not allowed to stand. 
 
1-J2 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 is impossible to connect Orsiesius here with boh, as vg and many 
 Latins have the order. Isai Abb also has the order of 
 boh vg. 
 
 " Et principalis " is against most Gr and Latin and boh, but 
 with sah jLiiT rcegOYCIA. and D sr E. er /vg ; so also Isai Abb, so 
 it is probably ex vg. 
 
 Gal. v. 13. Vos autem in libertatem vocati estis (— aSeX<£oi) 
 
 tantum ne libertate in occasionem carnis abutamini sed 
 
 caritate {pro Sta 7-775 ayaTrrj<;) servite invicem. 
 
 Note the addition of abutamini. No Greeks supply a verb 
 
 except FG : Score, following the Latin detis of f g vg and Fathers, 
 
 but cf. boh. 
 
 Matt. vi. 24 ) Nemo potest duobus dominis servire ; aut 
 Luke xvi. 1 3/ enim unum odio habebit et alterum diliget ; 
 aut uni est obediens et contemnet alterum. Non potestis 
 Deo servire et mammonae. 
 
 C/:/(Matt.) (Hier)goth (Matt.) and boh (Luke) for est 
 obediens against sah and Greeks. (See remarks in my 
 edition of the Morgan MS. where I omitted to note 
 Orsiesius testimony.) Aeth in both places goes with 
 Orsiesius, 
 1 Tim. vi. 6/10. Verse 8 victum et vestitum [for Gk S(,aTpo<£<xs 
 (Siarpocfyrjv DFGKP Orig) /cat o-/ce7raa-/xa.Ta] is Old Latin, 
 but also Coptic, and boh emphasizes with a food and a 
 raiment. Vg goes with Gk into the plural. 
 John. xi. 9, 10. impingit bis pro offendit latt (Gr. Trpoa-KoirTec). 
 
 Cf. copt. 
 John. xiv. 27. Pacem meam do vobis, pacem meam relinquo 
 
 vobis. 
 So boh and sah (emphatic) and some Latins (against Gk). 
 Continuing " Non sicut mundus dat pacem ego do vobis." This 
 pacem appears unauthorized. 
 
 John xv. 18. - viuou Orsiesius with N*D a b c eff 2 boh arm aeth 
 Cypr 2/4. 
 
 \Contra N C ABILNX rell fglq vg syr omn goth sah 
 Cyr.~\ 
 Luke vi. 25. + nunc {post saturati estis) with NBLQRX 
 A*AH al. min. pane, f goth boh sah arm aeth. 
 
 {Contra ADEHKMPSUVrn al. mult, a b c e gj q 
 syr pesh vg Iren Bas.] 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I 73 
 
 (Heb. xiii. 16. Bonorum operum (suppressing ct) communionis 
 oblivisci nolite ; talibus enim victimis placetur Deo. 
 
 No Greeks omit kcli ("t^s Se evirota^ Kai kolvcovlols 
 fiT) . . . ") nor Latins. 
 
 Boh and sah both use the Coptic equivalent "with." 
 " But beneficence with the sharing forget not." Orsiesius 
 remains alone apparently.) 
 
 i John iii. 12/14. Non sicut Cain, qui {cf. latt and copt) ex 
 maligno erat et occidit fratrem suum. Et quare occidit ? 
 ( - eum cum Aug, cf. copt). Quia opera ejus maligna 
 erant ; fratris autem ejus bona [without authority ; boh 
 gAft^.liceorf, sah g,erf2UK«s.lorf]. Non admiremur, 
 fratres, si oderit nos (sah Aug Lucif) mundus ; nos 
 scimus quia transivimus de morte ad vitam eo quod 
 diligamus fratres. 
 
 Isaiah Abbott. 
 
 As to Isai Abb at first it appeared to me that there might have 
 been considerable Vulgatizing of the quotations of this witness. 
 But after going through the whole apparatus, I am inclined to 
 think that most of the vg agreement with Isai is basic, because 
 at times we get right away from the Vulgate Latin in most 
 interesting and important places. 
 
 Thus : mutua for commoda in Luke xi. 5/8 is definite in this 
 connection. See boh and sah. 
 
 Note particularly Eph. vi. 11/12 and 1 Cor. xiii. 12 boh against 
 sah ; Matt. vi. 12, 14, Heb. iv. 10. Rom. ii. 29, 2 Cor. iii. 18, 
 1 Cor. xv. 50. Also : 
 
 John xii. 26 with one boh MS. D 2 alone. 
 2 Pet. i. 9 „ ,, „ ,, K ,, 
 1 Cor. xi. 10 ,, five ,, mss. 
 
 John xiv. 16 ,, one ,, MS. A and Horner's text. 
 For details of these and other places consult what follows. 
 
 Matt. v. 25, 26, in full. Omits Tosyy without authority (only 
 Ambr 1/2), but agrees with most Greeks and boh s: h it 
 vg syr goth adding ere irapaZm after /cptr^s (et judex 
 tradat te) against NB 1 13 harm aeth. 
 John xiv. 27. Inverting (twice thus he quotes): "pacem 
 meam do vobis, pacem meam relinquo vobis " ; he gives 
 
I 74 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 us meam twice as boh sah aeth and Orsiesius and some 
 
 Latins (against Greek). 
 (Matt. xxv. 34, 35, 41, 44, 40 [this wrongly indexed as 45] 
 
 is fairly regular, but the last is free " qui bene facit uni 
 
 ex his qui in me credunt mihi fecit.") 
 (John xiii. 35. " In hoc (inquit) cognoscent omnes vos meos 
 
 esse discipulos si dilectionem habueritis inter vos." 
 
 Vos is supplied against Gk and copt; inter vos is not 
 
 the coptic method here, nor Greek (ev aXA.77A.019) but X 
 
 has /act aWrjkcov \Latt plur. " ad invicem " (none " inter 
 
 vos") while fossat : "ad invicem ad alterutrum"] See 
 
 second quotation later. 
 [John xiv. 23. (twice thus) " Qui diligit me mandata mea 
 
 servabit." This plural is not countenanced by Greek, 
 
 copt, or latin.'] 
 Eph vi. 11, 12, in full thus : 
 
 " Induite vos (inquit Apostolus) armaturam Dei ut possitis 
 
 stare adversus insidias diaboli. Quoniam non est nobis 
 
 colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem sed adversus 
 
 principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tene- 
 
 brarum saeculi hujus contra spiritualia nequitiae in 
 
 caelestibus." 
 This vos coming early in the verse is with vg some Latins and 
 distinctly boh (Greek puts u/ack; after BvvaaQau where it is super- 
 fluous in Latin). 
 
 The order " flesh and blood " is also distinctly boh (against sah) 
 as pointed out before. 
 
 u Et potestates " against Gk and boh is again vg with sah and 
 Orsiesius D^'E*' f. 
 
 Luke xxiii. 42. " memento (inquiens) mei Domine, cum 
 
 veneris in regnuni tuum " (repeated thus again in a 
 
 second quotation). 
 
 Again in rcgnum tuum is vg with c e fff 2 I Orig mt quater 
 
 Hil and eis ttjv fSaaikeiav crnv B gr L gr against all remaining 
 
 Greeks ev rri /SacrtAeta aov with a b q Orig 4 ' 435, 45S syr arm 
 
 aeth ; boh *)erf TeKJueTovpo , sah g,rt TEKJurrrepo . 
 Matt. xiii. 31/32 in full. The order (32) "quod omnium est 
 
 seminum minimum " is not Latin, Greek, or Coptic order, 
 
 bringing minimum last. Hil agrees. 
 Luke vii. 22, 23, in full. 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. I 75 
 
 Order quae audivistis et vidistis is unusual (not sah boh) 
 witnessed to hyff^gr 69 and Basil. 
 
 Omit surdi audiunt Isai Abb. So only one sah ms. 
 (114), and syr pesh (13), no Greeks or Latins. 
 
 .. ( are thus combined : " Pater mi, si fieri potest, 
 
 ,, . . ( transeat a me calix iste in hac hora" 
 
 Mark xiv. 35 / 
 
 We know at any rate that this quotation has not been spoiled 
 
 by assimilation to the Vulgate. In Mark some Old Latins have 
 
 hora haec (d i q with D gr 7) wpa avrrj), hora ilia /, ilia hora c ff 2 (k 
 
 elides). So also sah TeiovrfOY, but boh 'f-OYltov. 
 
 (Phil. iii. io, 11, is free : " cognoscamus eum et virtutem resur- 
 
 rectionis ipsius et participes sumus passionem ejus, 
 
 mortique conformemur, ut occurramus ad resurrectionem 
 
 mortuorum.") 
 
 Heb. x. 34 also free : "rapinam bonorum nostrorum (ut Paullus 
 
 ait) cum gaudio suscipientes, quandoquidem meliorem et 
 
 manentem substantiam habemus in caelis." 
 
 "Suscipientes," "quandoquidem habemus," taking the 
 
 place of irpocreSe^ao-de, and ytpoHTKovTes ^X €iV - 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 28 J "ubi corpus est illuc congregabuntur et 
 
 Luke xvii. -x>l J aquilae." 
 
 We can draw no inference from this vg reading. In Luke 
 
 some boh mss. have the addition. 
 
 (Col. iii. 1/3 are turned into 1st person plural.) 
 
 Gal. vi. 5 is turned round and made to read : 
 
 " onus enim fert quisque suum " 
 
 which does not agree with Latin, Copt, or Greek, where 
 
 e/cacrros occupies the first place. 
 
 2 Cor. v. 10. " Omnes nos sisti ante tribunal Christi ut unus- 
 
 quisque recipiat ex operibus quae gessit in corpore suo 
 
 vel praemium vel supphcmm." 
 
 Sisti appears new, and the end for etre ayaOov etre ko.kov 
 
 (or (fxivXoi; NC Orig etc., Tisch. Treg. W-H) or sive bonum 
 
 sive malum is strange and bold, for one cannot well read 
 
 "praemium vel supplicium " into 
 
 boh: iTe neerfArteq itg neTguuoY (sah wanting). 
 
 Matt. xiii. 47, 48, nearly in full. Ex omni genere piscium is vg 
 
 and Latin and sah against Gk and boh which do not 
 
 supply piscium. 
 
176 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 i Tim. iv. 8. Corporis exercitatio parum utilis est. "parum" 
 
 here for "modicum" seems new. Isaiah used it thus 
 
 once before for okiyov. 
 Luke x. 18, 19, nearly in full. Isaiah uses dedi for do with vg 
 
 both Coptics many O.L. and Gk NBC*LX. Here again 
 
 it is hard to say if vg has been followed. He elides "et 
 
 super omnem virtutem inimici," but so do some other 
 
 Fathers when quoting this verse. 
 Luke xii. 32, 33. So again here "quia complacuit Patri 
 
 vestro," for on evSoKrjaev o Trarrjp v[uav is vg. He writes, 
 
 however, " et habebitis sacculos . . ." for rroi-qcraTe eavroi? 
 
 or facite vobis in verse 33, which seems new and free. 
 Luke xxii. 28/30 is regular. He uses in mensa mea (for em, 
 
 ttjs Tpane^7)<; fiov of Greek and super mensam meant of 
 
 latt). Boh is gt TWTp^ne^A. (some giscerf with sah) ; 
 
 gj is to be noted. 
 Gal. ii. 19, 20, is quite regular. 
 Gal. v. 24 is vg : " Qui Christi Jesu sunt (inquit) carnem 
 
 crucifixerunt cum vitiis et concupiscentiis." 
 
 Other Latins say passionibus {naffi} /xacrt) for vitiis. 
 
 Cypr also uses vitiis and Aug uses perturbationibus 1/2. 
 Boh with Gk rreju. necnAeoc. 
 2 Tim. ii. 12, is regular. 
 1 Cor. ii. 9. "neque oculus vidit neque auris audivit neque cor 
 
 hominis cogitatione comprehendit." 
 This third neque is vg, Tert etc. 
 Boh is divided, some oy^.6 some ovog, {sah Balestri 
 
 has rteTJUi throughout). 
 
 The Greeks all have /cat eni Kaphiav avdpoyrrov ovk 
 
 avefir). 
 Phil. iv. 5/7 is practically regular. 
 
 In verse 7 he uses superat (virepe^ovcra) for exsuperat 
 
 of vg. 
 
 Boh ETTToci {sah ET^oce). 
 Matt. vi. 12, 14 (eliding 13 and running 14 immediately after 
 
 12) are regular except that Isaiah supplies peccata vestra 
 
 at end of verse 14. Thus boh distinctly (all mss.), but 
 
 sah only partially (three out of five), with vg and some 
 
 Old Latin. 
 John. i. 12, 13, in full, are quite regular. 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. I "]<] 
 
 Luke i. 35. " Quia spiritus sanctus superveniet in te et virtus 
 altissimi obumbrabit tibi." 
 
 This introductory quia corresponds to the xe of boh 
 and sah. 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5 is shortened : " Probate vosmet ipsos utrum 
 Christus in vobis sit ne forte reprobi sitis " for : " eavrovs 
 Treipa^ere ei ecrre ev rrj Trio-ret, eavTovs So/aju-a£ere. rj ovk 
 ernyivoHTKeTe eaurous otl Itjctovs Xpuaros ev vp.iv ecrTtv ; et 
 fir) tl aZoKijxoi, ecrre." 
 Later Isaiah gives this verse regular from 17 ovk eTriyivoio-Kere 
 onwards. 
 
 Eph. iii. 16/18. Isaiah has habitare Christum- in interiori 
 
 homine per fidem in cordibus vestris, running part of 16 
 
 and 17 together, as boh. He continues: radicati et 
 
 fundati in caritate against the usual Gk (and Latin) 
 
 order " ev aya-rrr) epyot^w/ievoi kgu redefieXLCofievoL." 
 
 It is noteworthy that boh places ev aya-rn] between the two 
 
 verbs, thus : " being rooted in love being firmly founded," while 
 
 sah brings ev ayanrj last with Isaiah against all Greeks and 
 
 Latins. 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 7 is regular, followed (rough quotations from Col. 
 iii. 15 and Rom. viii. 10 intervening) by 2 Cor. iv. 6 more freely : 
 " Ouoniam e tenebris lux effulsit in cordibus vestris cognitionis 
 Dei." 
 
 Luke xii. 35 has in manibus vestris after ardentes, and con- 
 tinues " et eritis sicut servi exspectantes dominum suum 
 donee revertatur a nuptis." 
 This servi for hominibus is not Greek or Latin nor copt, but is 
 found in Orsiesius, " similes servorum." 
 
 (Eph. vi. 17 and 2 Cor. vii. 1 are combined.) 
 
 Rom. vi. 16 is regular. This is followed by 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5 regular, and not shortened as above. 
 
 Jas. i. 26 is regular, eliding ev v/juv, but omitting aXX cnraTOiv 
 
 KapSuav avrov. 
 1 Cor. ix. 24 follows, regular, to fipafteiov being transliterated 
 to braviwn as vg other Latins and Iren mt . Cypr has 
 pahnam. Hier contra Pelag : coronam. 
 
 Boh ttijEi<M {palmam), sih neK^sOJix [coronam), neither 
 transliterating here. 
 [Note. — It would almost seem as if Isaiah had a concordance 
 
 N 
 
I 78 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 in his hands. He follows quotation after quotation with verses 
 beginning "An nescitis" (ou/c otSare). Of course the monks of 
 the Thebaid were supposed to know the N.T. by heart (see 
 Butler, Lausiac History, notes), and so apparently did those of 
 Nitria, Sceti, and Cellia.] 
 
 1 Cor. ix. 25 follows, thus : " Qui enim (inquit) in agone 
 
 contendit ab omnibus abstinet." This is the regular 
 Latin form (for Gk : 7ras Se o aywvitp^vos iravTa. eyKpa- 
 reverat) but qui is substituted for omnis. 
 
 2 John ii. 15/17 in full is quite regular except that it follows 
 
 the Latin " concupiscentia carnis est et concupiscentia 
 
 oculorum," supplying "est" absent in Gk and copt. 
 2 John iii. 7, 8, follows, regular, but eliding /cameos e/ceivo? 
 
 Sikcuos ecr-riv, and closing " Ab initio enim diabolus 
 
 peccat " for " on an a-pxV 1 * ° StajS. apapravei " Gk and 
 
 copt and other latins. 
 Jas. iv. 4. " Amicitia enim mundi inimicitia est in Deum." 
 
 The vg is : inimica est Dei as Gk syQpa T0V ® eou ccttlv. 
 
 X = e^Opa eo-Tuv tw Oea) as Tisch. Boh OYJUeTXAXI 
 
 1 Peter ii. 11. " Hortor (inquit) vos fratres tamquam advenas 
 et peregrinos ut abstineatis a carnalibus desideriis quae 
 militant adversus animam." 
 
 ayaTTrjToi init. is superseded (without authority) by vos 
 fratres following hortor. 
 
 " Ut abstineatis" is against vg, and Gk airexzo-Oai, but 
 probably due to the translator of Isaiah. 
 John xiv. 30 is paraphrased : " Venit (inquiens) princeps hujus 
 mundi et in me nihil eorum quae ipsius stmt invenit." 
 The usual Latin is " et in me non habet quidquam " 
 (Gk koli ev ep.oL ou/c t^et ovhev). d says however : " et in 
 me non habet nihil invenire " and a " et in me nihil 
 habet invenire." Cf. Greek D and KII etc. 
 
 See the only Greek witness to agree with Isaiah, viz. 
 £pph 6So ov$ev t(oi> avrov euptcr/cet, to which Tisch. directs 
 attention in connection with Isaiah. 
 1 John v. 19. " Mundus in maligno positus est" omits oXos 
 
 without authority.. 
 Luke vi. 27/30 is practically regular, except that Isaiah adds 
 (without coptic support in Luke) Matt. v. 42 " et volenti 
 
OF THE HOHATKIC VERSION. 1 79 
 
 tmduare a te ne avertare " between " omni petenti te 
 
 tribue " and " et ab eo qui aufert quae tua sunt ne 
 
 repetas." (Cf. Justin***-) 
 John xv. 5, 4, is practically regular. 
 John xiv. 18. Isaiah adds sed before "et veniam vos." Not 
 
 Gk Lat or copt, but syr S adds this. 
 John xii. 24 is regular. 
 
 John xii. 26 elides e/Aot aKoXovdeira). So only boh D 2 *. 
 Matt. xix. 27/29 in full are regular except for omission of 
 
 duodecim in connection with sedes in verse 28. Not so 
 
 copt or others. 
 Matt. viii. 21 ) is most irregular: " (Ideo venienti ad se 
 Luke ix. 59 j dicentique) sequar te Domine sed permitte 
 
 ut prius disponam ea quae in domo mea sunt!' 
 This comes from Origen 3 ' 6 * 3 ov ix.ni-qo-ap.evoi rov zvttovto: akXa 
 vpcDTOv emTpexjJov ixol ets t. oik. pov airekdeiv kou airoTa^acrdai tchs 
 
 CIS T. OIK. fJLOV . . . 
 
 It is interesting as regards the range of Isaiah's reading. 
 
 Luke ix. 62. "aptus est ad regnum caelorum" (vide supra). 
 
 Luke xiv. 26 is regular. It doses metis esse discipulus with vg. 
 
 Matt. xxii. 11, 13, is rather free. 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 4, 5, are rather free " Nemo militans vitae negotiis 
 implicatur ut ei placeat a qtio miles electus est. Neque 
 pugil quisquam corona tur nisi legitime certaverit." 
 Followed by : 
 
 2 Tim ii. 6 regular. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33. "Qui sine uxore est (inquit) solicitus est 
 quae Domini sunt quomodo placeat Deo ; qui autem 
 cum uxore est quae sunt mundi quomodo placeat uxori 
 et divisus est!' (Cf. Evagrius and boh!) 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 50 is quite free : " qui turpiter fiagitioseque vivunt 
 (ut ait apostolus) regnum Dei possidere non possunt." 
 
 Gal. v. 22, 23. Thus : " Fructus (inquiens) spiritus est caritas, 
 gaudium, pax, patientia, longanimitas, bonitas, benignitas, 
 mansuetudo, fides, modestia, continentia, castitas. Ad- 
 versus hujusmodi non est lex." 
 
 There is some amplification here. Isaiah is the first of the 
 Egyptians examined to tamper with the accurate repetition of St. 
 Paul's language here, unless his translator be responsible. 
 
 Matt. xxv. 1 1 is a little loose. 
 
 N 2 
 
l8o CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 John xv. 5, 6, is rather in accord with the previous quotation, 
 
 but fuller. 
 John xvii. 9 is regular. 
 John xvii. 15, 16, is free. 
 
 John xvii. 20, 21, opens regular, and closes free: "sicut et 
 nos unum sumus," against xadcos trv -nojrep ev e/xoi Kayco 
 ev croi. 
 John xvii. 24 regular. 
 1 John iii. 2 regular. 
 1 John ii. 3 free. 
 
 1 John iii. 13, 14, pretty regular except for the use of carissimi 
 here for aSeX^ou fxov, just as above (1 Pet. ii. 11) Isaiah 
 inversely used vos fratres for ayaTrrjToi. 
 1 John iii. 10 regular. 
 1 John ii. 29. ex Deo for e£ avrov is free. 
 1 John iii. 8 regular. 
 
 1 John iii. 9 quite regular. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 5/9. This long quotation is quite regular until the 
 
 end, where we omit tov Kadapia^ov with K boh alone. 
 Luke iii. 8/9, omitting /cat /1.17 ap£r)o-0e to end of verse 8, is 
 
 regular. 
 Matt. xii. 33 regular. 
 Matt. vii. 16, 21, regular. 
 J as. ii, 20, 19, 26, are regular. 
 Eph. v. 3/5 in full, quite regular. 
 Eph. v. 6/1 1 is regular. Note ver. 9 " Fructus enim lucis" 
 
 (against textus rectptus tov irvevixaTos) with most 
 
 authorities, including copt. 
 Eph. iv. 31 regular. 
 1 Cor. xi. 1 regular. 
 Gal. iii. 27 regular. 
 Matt. vii. 7. Thus : " Petite et accipietis (Gr omnes So&jo-ercu 
 
 v/alv) quaerite et invenietis pulsate et aperietur vobis." 
 
 This accipietis is with Aug against dabitur vobis of the 
 
 rest, and against Gr and copt. 
 Luke xi. 5/8 is condensed : " (Qui media nocte ad amicum 
 
 suum accessit) Mutua (inquit) mihi tres panes quoniam 
 
 amicus ad me venit de via. Cum igitur pulsare pergeret 
 
 quod petebat impetravit." 
 This mutua, however, is quite remarkable (other Latt "com- 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. l8l 
 
 moda") for it agrees with both Coptics {boh ertOYty<*.n, sah 
 ene*vvx)A.n) rather than with Gr xpycrov or lat. commoda. 
 
 Luke xv. 7 supplies Amen at the beginning ; and elides owrw, 
 the latter apparently with boh. 
 
 . ' I Isaiah supplies et tolle crucem suam not present 
 Matt. xix. 21 ' ! 
 
 I in Greek. 
 
 Mark x. 21 
 
 In Matt, syr cu adds it (with Athaii). 
 
 In Mark many Greeks add with some boh and the two 
 
 sah mss. which are extant here. 
 1 Cor. xiii. 1, 3/5, regular. The translator uses non indecore 
 
 se gertt for ov/c acrxq/xoveL. We omit rj ayanr) before ov 
 
 £r)\oL and before ov irepirepeverai. 
 Acts xxi. 13 elides eis lepovcraXijju, eroijuoos e^w with nine greek 
 
 cursives Bas Thdt Aug. 
 John xiv. 2. " Multae (enim) sunt (inquit) mansiones apud 
 
 Patrem meum." See remarks elsewhere on this (p. 143), 
 
 against Greek order. 
 1 Cor. xv. 41 is condensed "alia sit solis gloria, alia lunae 
 
 ( - /ecu aXXr) Sofa acrTepoiv) et Stella a Stella differat in 
 
 claritate." 
 Col. ii. n, 12, omits rcov Guia/maw with half the Greeks, it vg 
 
 boh etc. 
 
 Adds sed before " in circumcisione Christi " with vg 
 
 Cypr Hil without Gk or cop tic authority. 
 Eph. iv. 22/24. Regular, but for spiritum mentis against 
 
 Latin spiritu and Greek ra Trvev/xaTL tov voos, and boh 
 
 *>eit nmrt*; rrre neTeitgHT, also sah. 
 
 And Jin. : in justitia et sanctitate et veritate (for ev 8lk. 
 
 /ecu oaLOTyjTL Tr/s aA/^etas). Some O.L. read thus and 
 
 Cypr [not vg nor boh nor sah~\. 
 1 Pet. ii. 24. " ut moriamini quidem peccato vivatis autem 
 
 justitiae." 
 
 The vg says mortui, but other Latins separati (Gr. 
 
 omn. aTToyevo^voi). Boh agrees with Isaiah using the 
 
 usual word for dead. 
 John. xix. 28/30 are condensed, which leads him to say " (quo 
 
 degustato dixit) Consummata sunt omnia" supplying 
 
 omnia erroneously in verse 30 from verse 28. 
 Heb. iv. 10. He elides kcu before KaTeiravo-ev, having " ab 
 
1 82 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 omnibus operibus suis quievit." Not so Latins or 
 Greeks. So does boh, writing " For he who came into 
 his rest, himself also rested from his works." 
 
 Eph. ii. 14, 16, is loose, and the translator uses inimicitias for 
 tyjv e^dpav, as vg and some Latins. 
 
 Rom. xi. 25. Thus freely : " Caecitas enim (inquit apostolus) 
 contigit ex parte populo Israel donee omnes ingrediantur 
 nahones" (for ov to TrXrjpcopa tcov edvwv etcreXdr) and donee 
 plenitudo Gentium intraret). 
 
 Gal. vi. 16 is free, eliding kcu eAeos without authority. 
 
 Rom. ii. 28, 29. Thus : " Nam (ut idem ait apostolus) 
 non qui in manifesto Judaeus est in carne, ille Judaeus 
 est, neque circumcisio quae cernitur ilia est circumcisio ; 
 sed qui in occulto Judaeus est et circumcisio cordis in 
 spiritu non in littera." 
 
 It will be seen that two clauses are boiled together, bringing 
 in carne too early without authority. 
 
 As regards in littera at the close (not Greek = ypa.ppa.Ti only, 
 nor Latin = littera only) note boh distinctly *>erf OYC*><M <3UT . 
 
 2 Cor. v. 1 seems a little corrupt, thus : " Et si terrena nostra 
 habitatio hujus tabernaculi dissolvatur scimus nos (bring- 
 ing oiSapev init. very late) habitationem habere (for 
 €)(opev) domum non manufactam, in caelis ( — eucoviov)." 
 
 This treatment and omission of aiwviov are not authorized. 
 
 Tit. i. 2. " Deus qui non mentitur" (Gr 6 ai/zevS^s 0eos) 
 Vg " qui non mentitur Deus " against more elegant 
 " non mendax Deus " etc. of others. Boh follows the 
 Greek. 
 
 Rom. vi. 9. Thus : " Christus enim mortuus est et resurrexit et 
 amplius non moritur ; mors illi ultra non dominabitur." 
 
 The mortuus est is superfluous as regards Rom. vi. 9, being 
 brought in from the seventh verse " o yap anoOavoiv." 
 
 Luke x. 4, 5, is loose. 
 
 1 Cor. xiii. 8, 7, is rough : " Caritas vero numquam excidit sed 
 omnia sperat et credit et sustinet." It is only noteworthy 
 because the order sperat, credit (against Gr iravra mo-revet 
 navTa eXm^ei) has the support of another Egyptian, viz. 
 Mark the monk. Thus we connect the very language of 
 the monks of the day ; for committing so much to 
 memory, they spoke in Scriptural sentences, and when a 
 
OF. THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 183 
 
 well-known verse was habitually repeated in wrong order 
 it became stereotyped or linguityped. 
 Matt. xi. 29, 30, now in full, only lightly referred to before, is 
 regular, eliding the final est with vg. {Boh elides est in 
 both places, while the Greek final ea-rcv has to do service 
 for both clauses.) 
 Luke xvii. 10. Thus: " Cum feceritis omnia quae praecipio vobis 
 (for travra to. hiara-^OevTa vpiv and quae praecepta sunt 
 vobis) dicite servi inutiles sumus : etenim quod debemus 
 facere fecimus." 
 
 Copt (with N C AB etc.) is : "all things which they com- 
 manded." 
 
 D 81 d are the only ones (with Ambrst + vobis) who 
 say ocra Xeyo, but / agrees with Isaiah saying quae mando 
 vobis. 
 1 Cor. xi. 3. Briefly referring " nam (ut ait apostolus) caput 
 
 mulieris est vir " he passes to : 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 7/12 in full, thus : w "Vir (inquit) non debet velare 
 
 caput : imago enim et gloria Dei est : mulier autem est 
 
 viri gloria. (8) Non enim est vir ex muliere sed mulier ex 
 
 viro. (9) Etenim non est creatus vir propter mulierem 
 
 sed mulier propter virum. (lo) Propterea mulier debet 
 
 velare caput et propter angelos. (ll) Verumtamen neque 
 
 mulier sine viro neque vir sine muliere in Domino. 
 
 <"' Sicut enim mulier ex viro sic et vir ex muliere omnia 
 
 autem ex Deo." 
 
 The most important thing here is in verse 10, where the 
 
 Greek runs : Sia tovto oc^eiXei rj yvvrj e^ovcruav ex ecv e77t T V^ fe^aXr^s 
 
 Sia tous ayyeXou?, and the sah : ET&e n<5U JryujE etc cgume 
 
 eKou rcovegoYci* exrt tecajte | et&e &.T*.YYe?\oc , but boh 
 
 (five mss.) : 
 
 EO&E cj>AJ CEJUTTUJA ftTE "^CglJUU ^CA. OYEpujUJJt EXEXT 
 TECiS.cl>E EO&E rflATFE^OC 
 
 agreeing with Isaiah except for the "et" before " propter angelos " 
 (which Bede has from the commentaries on this passage). I think 
 this is very important, for e^ovcnav is witnessed to by most with 
 Tert f ; Iren, however (gr /at), uses Kakvfj.[j,a, velamen, as Hier 
 (Ezeck.) Bede Aug harl**, while Origen of course conflates velamen 
 
 \ Tert {Marc and also De vel. virg.). 
 
184 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 et potestatem [see Tisch. ad loc. who does not quote the Coptic here]. 
 Vg and Latins have potestatem. While boh five mss. have 
 OYepjxjouff, the others have ovepojltyt. I do not go into 
 other minutiae in this passage which the translator of Isaiah may 
 have dealt with liberally. But he could not obscure the issue in 
 verse 10. In verse 7 we may note imago enim et gloria Dei est. 
 Boh : xe ovgiKuuit itejut oycxjov rrre <[>+ ne 
 
 while Gk is ziKotv /ecu So£a &eov virapxcov 
 and sah eTgeiKuorr ne a.yuu neoov UnrfOYTe. 
 After 2 Cor. vi. 16 comes a free reference to Matt, xviii. 19 
 and elsewhere ; 
 
 " Si duo vestrum consenserint quaecumque in nomine meo 
 petierint impetrabunt " 
 and another to John xv. 4 and elsewhere : 
 
 "manete (inquit) in me et ego in vobis" 
 and yet another to Rom. vi. 4, 6, and elsewhere : 
 
 " I Hi enim consepulti sumus in mortem (ut inquit apostolus) 
 ut destruat corpus peccati (hoc est) ut peccato • amplius 
 non serviamus." 
 Follows Rom. viii. 10 thus : "(Quamobrem) si in te Christus 
 habitat [pro et Se X/noros ev v/jllv] peccatum mortuum est 
 [pro to \xev o-oijxa vtKpov hi a/xapTbav] spiritus autem per 
 justitam vivit [pro to Se ttv€vjaol Icorj Sta SiKaioo-vvrjv ; 
 boh nm«A 2ve ovourt*) ne (ne nourtg sah) ee&e 
 ^-jueejuun (eT&e T2uK<MocvrfH sah)]. 
 This therefore is only a little loose, while the last clause agrees 
 in principle with vg (Clem) [not am fti harl*~\ and f g with Greek 
 FG £77 and arm (Xjdv led. 14). 
 
 Rom. vii. 2/3. Thus : " Quae enim (ut ait apostolus) sub viro 
 
 est mulier, ei dum vivit alligata est lege. Quod si vir 
 
 mortuus fuerit liberabitur a lege viri. l3) Itaque si vivente 
 
 viro cum alio fuerit adultera declarabitur : at mortuo viro 
 
 liberabitur a lege ut non sit adultera si fuerit cum alio 
 
 viro." 
 
 There is nothing particular to comment upon here. The 
 
 si fuerit at the end while agreeing with copt (Gr yevofj,cvr]i> simply) 
 
 is also a Latin and Vulgate reading. 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 16, 17. Thus: " Qui adhaeret meretrici (inquit apos- 
 tolus) unum cum ilia corpus efficitur. Et qui adhaeret 
 Domino unus cum illo spiritus est." 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 85 
 
 EJfiatur is vg (and Aug), but unum cum ilia and units 
 cum Mo is not. {Salt is wanting and boh hardly lends 
 itself to this, oyccjujuus. noycjut ne . . . oYnrtX rtoYu>T.) 
 Syr however is thus arranged. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 3 and 1 Pet. ii. 2 are regular (as 1 Pet. ii. 1/2 
 later in full). 
 
 (Eph. iv. 14, 15, in full, agrees with vg including in Mo per 
 omnia (Gr ei9 clvtov ra iravTa) while boh is "in all things 
 into him," but sah : egoYJt epoq xtmrapq.) 
 
 1 Cor. iii. 1/2/3 is regular. 
 
 Gal. iv. 1/3 is to all intents regular, and 2 Tim. ii 22, as also 
 1 Cor. xiv. 20, and Heb. vi. 13, 14, although the latter 
 closes briefly "Nisi benedicens benedicam." 
 
 Luke xxiv. 41. " Habetis (inquiens) aliquid quod manducetur." 
 He elides ei^aSe. Both Coptics supply Un<MJUiA.. 
 Observe N 6 ™** <uSe. 
 
 In Heb. ii. 14, 15, the order carni et sanguini is maintained 
 with one boh ms. (O) [sah Balestri missing] and only 
 Greek KL tnin with aeth vg f demid tol syr sch but a good 
 many Fathers. We cannot tell what Isaiah wrote, as 
 the translator may have used the vg order, [cnoq g,l 
 CA.pg sah teste Horner.] 
 
 Eph. iv. 13 elides kcu ttjs evLyvcoaeo}<; without authority. This 
 quotation occurs very often among the Egyptian monks, 
 given in part, rarely in full. 
 
 Eph. iv. 16 (latter part of the verse) regular. 
 
 1 John ii. 14 is irregular. He says " Haec scribo (inquiens) 
 voblsjilioli (for irarepes:) quia cognovistis eum qui est ab 
 initio. Scripsi vobis adolescentes quia vicistis malum." 
 By using two clauses out of three he confuses the first 
 two. Malum at the end for tov Trov-qpov] is very loose. 
 Even the vg has malignum. Probably the translator is 
 responsible for this. Boh is distinct enmorrnpoc, sah 
 ennorfHpoc . 
 
 1 Thess. v. 5, 7, 2, 3, he welds into one. " Non sumus 
 (inquiens) noctis nee tenebrarum. (Eos vero qui desidiae 
 dediti se ipsos negligunt coarguit) qui dormiunt [pro 01 
 yap KadtvSovres] (inquiens) nocte dormiunt et qui ebrii 
 sunt [pro kcu ol jxedva-Kopievot.] nocte sunt ebrii. (Et 
 rursum) Dies Domini tamquam fur veniet [- ev vvktl 
 
1 86 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 ovtgj?] et non effugient [ — orav yap ad a> yacnpi 
 e^ovo-Tj]." Continuing : 
 
 i Thess. v. 8. " Induentes " etc. regular. 
 
 John. xiii. 35 is repeated without Travres, and thus : " In hoc 
 enim (inquit) cognoscent vos meos esse discipulos si 
 dilexerilis \aya-nf]v ex 7 ? 7 " 6 ] i nter vos." (See ante.) 
 Cf. boh eujcxjn ^peTErrtyA-rfXterfpE 
 and sah eTeTruxj<*.rf Jiiepe 
 and gr 69-124 Evst 222 ayanaTe. 
 
 After a long series of O.T. quotations we run into : 
 
 Gal. v. 9. " Modicum (inquit) fermentum totam massam 
 corrumpit " [for Mu<pa t,vpr) okov to <f>vpap,a £vp,oi] . This 
 is the reading of vg and the Latins with Lucifer ; 
 not boh, nor Hier = "fermentat" and Sedul, who says 
 "non ut male in Latinis codicibus corrumpit." Epiph 
 wavers : " £17x01 " enoi-qos. " SoXot " as D* Const with 
 8o\ol, and Basil wavers with £17x01 several times, SoXaxnt) 
 once. 
 
 Matt. vi. 14, 15. In verse \\fin. " peccata vestra" is supplied 
 [vide supra], but verse 15 is shortened: " Quod si non 
 dimiseritis nee Pater vester dimittet vobis." 
 
 Gal. vi. 1 regular. 
 
 James v. 19, 20, in full, supplies met after Fratres at the 
 opening with the Latins, Greek NABKP [against L min. 
 Did Oec text. recept.~] and copt. 
 
 Matt, xviii. 32/35. Thus : " Serve nequam, omne debitum 
 ( — €KeLvr]v) dimisi tibi quoniam rogasti me ; nonne 
 oportuit et te misereri conservi tui (- ws kcu eyw ere 
 e\er)o-a). Et iratus (—0 Kvpuos avrov) tradidit eum 
 tortoribus donee redderet omne debitum ( — avru>). Sic 
 faciet Pater meus caelestis ( — vp.iv) nisi dimiseritis 
 unusquisque fratri suo e cordibus vestris (— ra napa- 
 TTTapara avTcov)." 
 
 Above is partially with copt as may be seen. 
 
 Matt. vii. 14, 13, more fully this time: (I4) " Angusta enim est 
 porta et arcta est via quae ducit ad vitam et pauci 
 inveniunt earn. (l3 ' Lata autem et spatiosa est via quae 
 ducit ad perditionem et multi sunt qui ingredientur per 
 illam." 
 
 The order is reversed. This is natural from mental treatment, 
 
OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 1 87 
 
 for verse 13 opens : eicreX^re Sia T17? crrevrys wXri?, continuing 
 with the broad way, instead of the narrow way. 
 Matt. vii. 15, 16, follow, regular. 
 
 Rom. viii. 35, 38, 39, follow. In 35 the order is wrong. He 
 
 writes " Quis (inquit apostolus) nos separabit a caritate 
 
 Christi ? Tribulatio an angustia an fames ( — rj Siojy/i,os) 
 
 an periculum an nuditas {pro rj yu/worijs 17 klvZvvos) an 
 
 gladius." 
 
 This is free and not the order of boh or sah ; nor do they omit 
 
 persecutio, but the Vulgate does and also Tertullian and Epiphan 
 
 [not Cypr nor Lucifer nor Hier {Eph.) nor Fulg (but out of 
 
 order)]. 
 
 Isaiah continues verse 38 in close connection without break : 
 
 " Certus sum enim quod neque mors neque vita neque angeli 
 
 neque principatus (— ovtc Swctjueis) neque praesentia 
 
 neque futura ( - ovre vxjjco/Ma ovtc fiaOos) neque ulla alia 
 
 creatura poterit nos separare a caritate Christi \j>ro tov 
 
 Qeov rr)<i ev Xptcrra) Itjctov to) Kvpio) {pel tov Kvpiov) t}fia>v]. 
 
 As regards omission of ovtc Swayz-eis its position is doubtful, 
 
 most Greeks transferring later. Boh mss. L and O write oy2^6 
 
 e^ovciA. after A-p^H but the rest add oyXe xoju at end of 
 
 verse. {Sah Balestri is mutilated, but Horner can complete, 
 
 reading with majority of boh.) Greek 116 omits outright with 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 In ver. 39 the omission of ovtc vifjco/xa ovtc /3a#os is gratuitous. 
 Hier 1/3 does it {Eph.) but apparently no one else dared to use 
 freedom here. 
 
 John iii. 14 is regular. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 9 is loose : " Et ne tentemus (inquit) eum [pro /ATySe 
 eKTreipat,o)ji.e.v tov XptaTov {vel Kvpiov)'] sicut illi [pro Kada><; 
 («:at) Twes avTa>v] tentaverunt et a serpentibus sunt 
 interfecti." 
 Matt. xxii. 35/40. " Accessit (inquit) ad eum unus e legis- 
 peritis tentans eum et dicens [- /cat Xeyav KBL^jf^^ / - 
 q vgsah copt syr sch aeth Orig ml ~] (36) M agister quod est mag- 
 num et primum {pro p.eya\rj) mandatum in lege. (37) Cui 
 respondit Jesus {pro o Se I-qo-ovs eunev avTco) Diliges 
 Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo ( - /ecu) ex tota 
 anima tua ( — kcu ev 0X77 tyj hiavoia aov) [om. ver. 38 ; 
 om. aya7rr/creis] (39 'et proximum tuum sicut te ipsum. 
 
1 88 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 t4o) In his duobus praeceptis universa lex pendet et pro- 
 phetae " \_pro 0X05 o vop,o<; Kai 01 irpo^Tai Kpe/xavrai, sed 
 KptfjiaTCLL Kai ol irpo(j)7]Tai. Lack. Treg. Tisch. W-H. Rev. 
 cum graec. NBDLZ 33 it vg syr aeth Bas Orig Tert, 
 contra (sak) boh et Gr rell.~\. 
 Thus Isaiah opposes copt pretty well all through, except in 
 verse 38, where boh gives "great and first" as we do in verse 36. 
 But copt has verse 38. 
 
 But it is all very free as is seen from " Cui respondit Jesus." 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 49. " Sicut portavimus imaginem terreni (inquit 
 
 apostolus) portemus et imaginem caelestis." 
 
 Portemus is the reading of practically all Latins, copt 
 
 and most Greeks. (B sr here goes with text, recept. 
 
 <frope(rop,€v. ) 
 
 Isaiah repeats this with portemus again on the next 
 
 page. 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 1 8 in full : " Nos omnes revelata facie gloriam Dei 
 
 {pro Kvpiov) veluti speculo referentes in eamdem 
 imaginem (cum copt pro ttjv avr-qv eiKova) transformamur 
 de claritate in claritatem tamquam a Domini spiritu." 
 While the Dei (unauthorized) appears to be a slip, Isaiah 
 agrees against Greek with boh {sak Balestri not extant) in writing 
 "in eamdem imaginem," *>ert T<Mg,!KCJurf (TA-lglKuurr) as 
 Macarius {vide supra) and Tick. Aug. Jerome others and the vg. 
 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Isaiah supplies a verb, writing: "Nunc autem 
 videmus per speculum in aenigmate tunc videbirmis ipsum 
 facie ad faciem." 
 This is most distinctly bohairic (all mss.) against sah and 
 against all Latins and all Greeks {rore Se Trpoo-oirov 77-/305 
 irpocroiTTOp). 
 
 John xv. 14/15. " (nosque sib'i) fratres et amicos (adscribens) " 
 is a little loose if it refers to John xv. 14/15 where <£<Aoi 
 is used, but Isaiah had in mind no doubt John xx. 17 
 " wopevov Se 7rpos tovs aSeX^ov? fiov Kai et7re aurots 
 ..." for he follows with : 
 John xx. 17. " Ascendo (inquit) ad Patrem meum et Patrem 
 
 vestrum Deum meum et Deum vestrum." 
 John xvii. 24, 23, is free and inverted : 
 
 " Volo pater ut ubi ego sum et ipsi illic sint mecum. 
 Quoniam dilexisti eos sicut tu dilexisti me." 
 
OF THE BOIIATRIC VERSION. 1 89 
 
 Boh is confused here, see Horner's note. Three boh 
 mss. omit the "loving" clause altogether in verse 23. 
 (See /<?.?/.) 
 
 John xv. 19 he inverts also: " Elegi (inquit) eos de mundo 
 propterea odit eos mundus quoniam ab eo non sunt." 
 
 Eph. v. 31, 32, is interesting because unlike the rest he runs 
 on into verse 32 : 
 " Propter hoc (inquit apostolus) relinquet homo patrem 
 ( — avTov) et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae {non 71730? 
 rr)v yvvaLKo. avTov sed tt) yvvaiKi avrov nun N*AD*FG 
 boh et sah eTeqcglxil Melon Metli) et erunt duo in 
 carne una : sacramentum hoc magnum est : Ego autem 
 dico in Christo et in Ecclesia " {pro ets XpiaTov hcll eis ttjv 
 
 €KK\.7]CrLav). 
 
 The latter is with vg f g, but boh is en^c rtejui 
 ■^"eKK^sHClA. as also sah. 
 
 Thus here we go against copt if we can rely on the 
 translator of Isaiah. 
 Eph. iii. 6. Thus : " (Idem apostolus) gentes (dixit esse) 
 coheredes et concorporales et comparticipes promissionis 
 (— ejus vg) in Christo yesu per Evangelium." 
 
 Both boh and sah have yesus with Greek KABCP. 
 Matt. x. 20 regular. 
 1 Cor. ii. 10, 16, regular. He merely passes from 10 to i&: 
 
 " nos enim (inquit) mentem Christi habemus." 
 Rom. xii. 5. " Unum corpus sumus omnes in Christo : singuli 
 
 autem alter alterius membra." 
 This alter alterius is Latin (Gk is o Se /carets aXk-qkbiv) , but 
 corresponds also to the coptic method niOYAJ mov<M as else- 
 where. 
 
 Eph. v. 30. " Quoniam (inquit) membra sumus corporis ejus 
 
 ex carnibus {pro tt^s a-apKo?) ejus et ex ossibus ejus." 
 This has no support except Iren (commenting). The others 
 all in the singular. But both boh and sah deviate seriously here, 
 for, with Gk N*AB 17 67** aeth Method Euthal ^ they omit eK ttjs 
 crap/cos avrov kcli. e/c tchv ocrreaiv avrov altogether. 
 
 John xiv. 15/17. This is condensed thus: "Si me diligitis 
 (inquit Dominus) mandata mea servate. Et ego rogabo 
 Patrem et mittet {pro Swcrei) vobis paracletum ( — aXXov, 
 et — wa i^cvr] fj.ed' vjxoyv ets tov aicova) spiritum veritatis." 
 
I90 CONCERNING THE DATE 
 
 It is quite noteworthy that A boh (and Horner's text) also omit 
 aWov in verse 16, but no Greeks and no Latins. The only other 
 support is one syriac ms. 
 
 Here I think we see the translator at work without being able 
 to injure the text. For he writes mittet for Swo-ei against Greek 
 and both Coptics. Now some Latins (but not vg) have mittet 
 instead of dabit (as Tertull). But the omission of alium is 
 probably basic, although only supported by one boh ms. 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5. " Nonne (inquit) cognoscitis quod Christus 
 Jesus habitat in vobis ? Nisi forte reprobi estis." 
 Greek is " ev v/alv ecmv " (some omit ecrrtv). 
 
 We have already seen from Mark the monk's Greek testimony 
 
 .- • C oLKei ev vulu (Galland. 8 ' 22 ), 
 
 twice over ; \ v 
 
 [ ot/cei ev rjfjLLv (Galland. 8,41 ), 
 
 that Coptic lends itself to this (against Latin). 
 
 The next references are only general, embracing Matt. xv. 1-12, 
 xiii. 47, 25-30, John xv. 6, Matt. xxv. 33, xiii. 3-8, xxv. 21, 23, 
 xxii. 11-13. 
 
 The last is followed by a quotation : 
 
 Matt. xxii. 14. " Quoniam multi sunt vocati pauci vero electi." 
 
 This quoniam appears almost superfluous here in the context, 
 but as it replaces yap of gk and copt it may be regarded as 
 intentional. Curiously enough neither Coptic version has any 
 introductory see here which might have given rise to it. 
 
 After Old Testament quotations, the next is : 
 
 I Cor. xv. 50. " Caro enim et sanguis (ut ait apostolus) regnum 
 Dei possidere non possunt" is regular with Greek. 
 (Repeated shortly after as " caro et sanguis regnum Dei 
 non possidebunt = boh and gk FG 42 f g Tert Macar). 
 
 1 Cor. iii. 3. Omit kch Ziypa-racriai with copt and gk NABCP a 
 
 few cursives vg arm aeth and Clem Orig. 
 The next reference is given as of 1 Pet. ii. 11 " Seque nobis 
 exemplum (proposuisse) ut sequamur vestigia ejus," but it is 
 perhaps a reference to 2 Thess. iii. 7/9 ; it certainly has nothing 
 to do with 1 Pet. ii. 11. 
 
 Phil. ii. 7 partially only : " Formam (enim) servi accipiens 
 (vehementer atque incredibili modo) humiliavit semet 
 ipsum " is quite regular. 
 
 2 Cor. v. 15 is quite free. 
 
 Acts xiv. 22. This reference is somewhat amplified, reading : 
 
OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. I9I 
 
 " per multas afflictiones et aerumnas ingrediamur in 
 regnum caelorum." 
 
 Gk is : on Sia iroWuiv OXurpecov Sei rjfias €L<re\0eiv eis 
 ttjv fiaaikeiav tov &eov. 
 
 Copt and Latt follow the Greek closely. 
 Matt. xxv. 21 (or 23) is regular but for + quia before "super 
 paucas." This is not Greek but Latin and vg (Iren mt 
 Orig int ) but also both Coptics very definitely eni2s.H, as 
 pointed out before. 
 Rom. viii. 13. "Si secundum carnem vixeritis moriemini " is 
 regular. 
 
 Gk ei ya.p Kara crap/ca £ijTe /AeXXeTe (nrodvrjcrKeiv. 
 1 Cor. x. 21. Thus: " Non potestis (inquit) mensae Dei 
 participes esse et mensae daemoniorum " regular, but 
 only giving the latter half of the verse. 
 Rom. xii. 17 regular. 
 
 John xvii. 24, 23. This is a variation on the previous quota- 
 tion (vide supra) but is also inverted : 
 " Ubi ego sum volo ut et ipsi sint quoniam dilexi eos 
 quemadmodum dilexisti me Pater. Et tu in me et ego 
 in eis." 
 
 The last clause (inverted) belongs to the beginning of 
 verse 23. 
 1 Cor. xv. 50. We now get the last clause of this passage 
 (missing above where the first part of the verse was 
 twice quoted) as follows : " corruptio incorruptionem non 
 possidebit." 
 
 The Gk is : " ovSe 17 (f>6opa ttjv a^Oapcrcav K\r)povofiel " 
 (but Kk.-qpovop.rjaei C*D*FG d e / g vg syr copt Meth 
 Orig iTit 2/3 al). 
 Follows a curious reference to Matt. viii. 20 : 
 
 " Vae nobis quia filius hominis qui est ejusdem essentiae cum 
 Deo et Patre, pro nobis factus homo non habet apud nos 
 ubi caput reclinet : cum vulpes hoc est astuti atque improbi 
 spiritus suas foveas in nobis struxerint." (The text may 
 be corrupt.) 
 Matt. vii. 3. The y8Xe7reis . . . Karavoei^ of Greek and Coptic 
 
 is lost in Latin, which has vides twice. 
 Isai gives us a pretty turn here, writing " Vae vobis qui trabem 
 habentes in oculo quam minimas fratrum festucas acute cemimus," 
 
192 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOIIAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 so that he was following Greek or Coptic or both. The Coptics 
 vary, and boh is nearest the Greek. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 27 and 29 he mixes thus : 
 
 "Qui manducat panem (verse 27 4- tovtov some and copt) 
 et bibit (so Gk ver. 29; ver. 27 rj -n-ivr) most) calicem 
 Domini indigne [— the rest of 27 and 28] judicium sibi 
 manducat et bibit non dijudicans corpus Domini." 
 
 2 Cor. v. 10 puts the verb last against Gk and copt: 
 
 " Ut unusquisque nostrum in suo corpore accipiat." 
 This ends the main work. 
 In Cap. de religiosa exercitu et quiete we find : 
 
 a free reference to Matt. xxiv. 43/44 and Luke xii. 39. 
 Then : 
 Luke xxi. 34 thus : " Videte ne graventur corda vestra 
 crapidis et ebrietatibus et curis saecularibus : et super- 
 veniet vobis repente hora." 
 This seems to me an important place, for the Greeks and 
 Latins all have this in the singular " ev Kpanrakq /cat fiedr)" "in 
 crapula et ebrietate," while boh seems to agree with Isaiah. 
 
 Boh says *>ert g^fttfixte item g,A.rtei|bl translated by Horner 
 " in surfeitings and drunkenness (plur.) " sic. 
 
 Salt is very different, emphasizing ov both times : grc ovci 
 jurt ov1"2,e . 
 
 As regards boh, two mss. seem to read gA.rt67jtie (or g&.rf(57juiH) 
 OV0I*)I, and others ov twice, but it must be clearly from the 
 boh plural (of some mss.) that Isaiah imbibed this, a apparently 
 alone of latins has " gratulatione et ebrietatibusy (In such places 
 the interrelation of the Versions and the individual mss. of each 
 may be closely watched with a view to purposes of dating. This 
 Vercelli ms. " a " of the Latin Version is one of the deepest interest. 
 Revised, as it has been, before it was recopied as it stands now, it 
 contains exceedingly ancient elements antedating this revision, and 
 antedating the iv th century.) 
 
 At the end hora is free and apparently unsupported (vg " dies 
 ilia " as Gk and copt). 
 
 Matt. vii. 14 is regular (not quoting 13 as above). 
 
 THE END. 
 
( »93 ) 
 
 ROUGH INDEX. 
 
 X saepe 
 
 KA 8/9 etc 
 
 A er saepe 
 
 Aethiopic 20 25 40 66 119 135 144 
 146 150 153 154 156 161 162 
 166 170 172 173 185 187 189 
 190 etc 
 
 Athanasius 14 note 150 159 181 
 
 Authorized version 171 etc 
 
 B sr (Evang. etc) 14 note 143 144 149 
 156 157 161 163 164 166 173 
 174 176 187 188 189 etc 
 
 B er (Apoc.) saepe 
 
 Balestri 2 4 18 19 27 28 41 77 79 
 80 121 129 138 145 146 148 
 15° I5 1 *54 156 161 164 165 
 166 187 
 
 "Bashmuric": see "Middle Egyptian" 
 
 Belsheim 70 109 
 
 Boh and sah, relations between 321 
 23 42 54 118 145 etc 
 
 Bohairic, date of 117 seq etc 
 
 Buchanan, E. S. 49 
 
 Butler, Dom 117 seq 138 162 166 
 178 
 
 C Br 42 99 103 119 144 <?/<: 
 Chase, Rt. Rev. F. H. 11 note 
 Clement rom 122 125 146 etc 
 Conflations vi 4 19 31 46 53 55 60 
 
 78 91 93 94 153 183/184 
 Confusion 5 9 32 35 39 41 44 
 
 47/48 49/50 S 2 5 6 57 59 63 
 
 74 75 79 80 8t 87 89 90/91 
 
 95 149 160 163 189 
 " Copt" definition of, as employed 
 
 here 2 
 Cyprian saepe 
 
 D gr 119 133 137 T41 142 144 147 
 
 161 167 170 172 174 175 178 
 183 186 188 r89 191 etc 
 
 Delitzsch 88 
 
 Error oculi 4 9 25 28 32 35 39 46 
 54 5 6 57 65 74 82 89 90/91 
 *33 144 153 161 163 165 
 
 Eustathius in 118 119 
 
 Evagrius 120 166/169 179 
 
 Evan. 28 in 
 
 F sr 125 131 137 147 151 155 156 
 
 162 167 170 172 184 189 190 
 191 
 
 Freer ms. hi 120 163 
 
 G er 125 131 137 147 151 155 156 
 
 162 167 170 172 184 189 190 
 
 191 
 Gigas 97 seq et saepe 
 Goussen 2 4 5 7 15 17 18 19 27 
 
 28 29 41 45 66 69 72 77 78 
 
 79 80 82 95 
 Graeco-Syriac 104/105 etc 
 Greek cursives 1/3 14 26 52 56 64 
 
 70/71 97 100 and note 101 102 
 
 103 etc and see Handlist 
 Ditto, specimen pages of collations 
 
 112/116 
 Guidi 117 
 Gwynn, Dean vi 65 74 82 91 97 
 
 seq 
 
 Harnack 14 note 
 Hippolytus saepe 
 
 Homoioteleuton 7 27 40 44 57 68 
 102 112 150 
 
194 
 
 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 Horner, Rev. George vi vii i 3 note 
 7 10 15 17 20 26 27 28 30 31 
 3 2 34 3 6 37 4° 43 46 48 S 1 
 5 2 54 5 6 5 8 62 ' 6 4 68 69 72 
 75 76 77 88 96 121 125 129 
 138 145 146 148 149 151 155 
 156 160 161 162 163 164 165 
 
 166 167 173 185 187 189 190 
 
 Inscription 14 
 
 Irenaeus saepe 143 153 160 183 
 
 189 etc 
 Iren 11 " 131 144 151 177 191 etc 
 Isaiah Abbot 120 131 132 149 153 
 
 167 171 172 173/192 
 Itacism 29 49 55 80 
 
 Jerome, St. 43 79 97 131 139 143 
 
 168 171 172 177 186 187 188 etc 
 Justin 122 144 146 179 
 
 K> 147 150 151 178 185 
 Karlsson 70 
 
 W 130 135 143 744 151 160 163 
 164 174 176 185 186 187 188 etc 
 
 Lake, K. 714 note 
 
 Latin 1 n A 34 81 83 88 89 97 
 seq 101 note 102 seq 105 seq 168 
 180/181 et saepe 
 
 Latins a 178 192 etc 
 
 ,, c d e ff i I 141 168 
 
 d 133 171 178 183 
 
 etc 
 Lausiac history 117 138 140 162 
 
 166 178 
 Lucifer 98 160 162 170 171 173 
 186 187 et alibi 
 
 Macarius 120/140 162 164 166 169 
 
 170 188 190 
 Mallon {Gram, copte) 33 53 147 
 Mark the monk 119 120 127 note 
 
 140/160 163 166 168 169 182 
 
 190 
 Mental process 25 28 30/31 32 46 
 
 49 55 58 86 89 134 159 186/187 
 Middle Egyptian 3 26 77 160 
 
 Moling 140 
 Morgan Gospels 
 
 140 172 
 
 Order 2 4 5 7 14 15 16 20 22 24 
 
 26 27 28 37 38 39 42 44 45 
 48 49 52 S3 54 57 64 65 66 
 67 69 74 78 83 88 92 94 171 
 
 174 
 
 Origen vi 118 131 132 135 137 
 142 144 146 147 155 156 159 
 160 161 163 172 174 175 179 
 183/184 187 190 191 etc 
 
 Orsiesius 120 157 161 168/173 x 74 
 177 
 
 Oxyrynchus 123 
 
 Pachomius 120 seq 168 169 
 Palladius 117 120 130 134 135 
 
 162/166 
 Petr. Alex. 167 
 Peyron {Diet, copte) 154 162 
 Polycarp 146 
 Polyglot bases 2 15 19 20 22 33 61 
 
 82 97 no 
 Present participle 61 63 
 Primasius saepe 
 Punctuation 26 45/46 55 
 
 Retranslation 107 etc 
 
 Revised Version 137 171 188 etc 
 
 Serapion 120 160/162 169 
 
 Sylburg 84 
 
 Syr S 13 16 17 19 21 and note 26 
 
 27 33 41 42 46 48 54 55 59 
 64 67 70 71 74 79 82 85 89 
 91 97 99 129 168 179 etc 
 
 Tattam 17 (see also T, pp. 65 77 
 
 90 etc) 
 Tertullian 7 n 15 etc 80 83 93 119 
 
 13 1 !43 147 15° I 5 t *5 6 l6 3 
 
 164 170 171 176 183 187 188 
 
 190 etc 
 Tichonius saepe 
 
 Tischendorf vi 7 10 etc 67 91 120 
 
 125 129 137 144 147 150 151 
 
 153 J 54 i59 160 l61 l6 4 167 
 169 175 178 184 188 etc 
 
ROUGH INDEX. 
 
 195 
 
 W sr (Freer) in 120 163 
 Wells, Dean of v 
 Westcott and Hort 120 
 
 175 188 etc 
 Wiseman 98 
 
 137 
 
 161 
 
 vovs 
 
 26 84 85 
 126 
 
 gHT 126 etc 
 
 IN RE INDIVIDUAL COPTIC MSS. : 
 
 
 Boh 
 
 A 
 
 IS 33 6° 64 69 87 88 90 173 
 
 
 190 
 
 B 
 
 25 33 87 88 90 148 
 
 C 
 
 15 37 69 72 79 90 
 
 D 
 
 3 note 5 31 64 72 87 90 
 
 D 2 
 
 173 179 
 
 E 
 
 3 note 87 90 
 
 F 
 
 3 note 87 88 90 154 
 
 Fx 
 
 161 
 
 G 
 
 72 87 90 
 
 H 
 
 57 64 72 82 90 148 
 
 J 
 
 148 
 
 K 
 
 3 note 154 173 180 
 
 L 
 
 187 
 
 M 
 
 3 note 140 and note 150 161 
 
 N 
 
 5 15 33 6o 8 7 9° 
 
 
 
 121 185 187 
 
 T 
 
 15 6 s 72 
 
 Z 
 
 37 64 72 90 
 
 a mt 
 
 163 
 
 r 
 
 3 note 
 
 A 
 
 3 note 
 
 Sah 
 
 73 3 note 
 in 3 note 
 
 134 .3 note 
 m 1 3 note 
 113* 3 note 
 114 142 175 
 
( i97 ) 
 
 INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS. 
 
 datthew 
 
 
 
 Matthew 
 
 
 
 Matthew 
 
 
 i. 20 
 
 144 
 
 
 xi. 29 
 
 144 
 
 183 
 
 XXV. 21 
 
 140 169 190 
 
 v. 25 
 
 173 
 
 
 3° 
 
 167 
 
 183 
 
 
 191 
 
 26 
 
 173 
 
 
 xii. 33 
 
 180 
 
 
 23 
 
 140 169 190 
 
 40 
 
 122 
 
 note 
 
 48 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 191 
 
 42 
 
 178/179 
 
 5° 
 
 168 
 
 
 33 
 
 190 
 
 vi- 5 
 
 166 
 
 
 xiii. 3/8 
 
 190 
 
 
 34 
 
 174 
 
 12 
 
 173 
 
 176 
 
 24 
 
 167 
 
 
 35 
 
 174 
 
 14 
 
 173 
 
 176 186 
 
 2 5/3° 
 
 190 
 
 
 40 
 
 129 174 
 
 15 
 
 186 
 
 
 3i/3 2 
 
 174 
 
 
 4i 
 
 174 
 
 16 
 
 166 
 
 167 
 
 33 
 
 140 
 
 
 44 
 
 174 
 
 21 
 
 126 
 
 127 
 
 44 
 
 142 
 
 145 
 
 xx vi. 26 
 
 144 
 
 22 
 
 122 
 
 
 47 
 
 190 
 
 
 39 
 
 175 
 
 24 
 
 172 
 
 
 47/48 
 
 J 75 
 
 
 xxvii. 65 
 
 1 01 note 
 
 25 
 
 127 
 
 143 MS 
 
 xv. 1/12 
 
 190 
 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 126 
 
 
 11 
 
 125 
 
 127 
 
 Mark 
 
 
 3 2 
 
 127 
 
 
 xvi. 24 
 
 131 
 
 
 
 134 162 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii. 17 
 
 33 
 
 143 
 
 144 
 
 26 
 
 139 
 
 
 18 
 
 162 
 
 vii. 3 
 
 191/ 
 
 192 
 
 28 
 
 143 
 
 
 viii. 35 
 
 141 
 
 7 
 
 139 
 
 180 
 
 xviii. 3 
 
 185 
 
 
 ix - 35 
 
 128 
 
 11 
 
 127 
 
 
 x 9 
 
 184 
 
 
 
 122 181 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x. 21 
 
 12 
 
 143 
 
 
 32/35 
 
 140 
 
 141 186 
 
 xi. 12 
 
 120 
 
 T 3 
 
 186 
 
 187 
 
 xix. 21 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 xii. 44 
 
 14 
 
 186 
 
 192 
 
 27/29 
 
 179 
 
 
 xiv. 35 
 
 J 75 
 
 IS 
 
 160 
 
 187 
 
 xx. 27 
 
 128 
 
 
 xvi. 18 
 
 126 
 
 16 
 
 180 
 
 187 
 
 xxi. 22 
 
 130 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 180 
 
 
 31 
 
 160 
 
 
 
 
 viii. 20 
 
 191 
 
 
 xxii. 11/13 
 
 190 
 
 
 Luke 
 
 
 21 
 
 179 
 
 
 11 
 
 179 
 
 
 i- 35 
 
 144 177 
 
 22 
 
 168 
 
 
 13 
 
 179 
 
 
 ii. 9 
 
 169 
 
 29 
 
 in 
 
 note 118 
 
 14 
 
 190 
 
 
 52 
 
 170 
 
 ix. 6 
 
 119 
 
 
 35/4o 
 
 187 
 
 188 
 
 iii. 8/9 
 
 180 
 
 11 
 
 162 
 
 
 xxiii. 4 
 
 170 
 
 
 iv. 35 
 
 126 
 
 12 
 
 134 
 
 162 
 
 9/10 
 
 162 
 
 
 v. 30 
 
 162 
 
 x. 20 
 
 189 
 
 
 xxiv. 20 
 
 140 
 
 145 
 
 3 1 
 
 134 162 
 
 38 
 
 140 
 
 
 28 
 
 175 
 
 
 vi. 25 
 
 172 
 
 42 
 
 128 
 
 
 43/44 
 
 192 
 
 
 27/3° 
 
 178 
 
 xi. 12 
 
 136 
 
 
 5i 
 
 169 
 
 
 29 
 
 122 note 
 
 18/19 
 
 162 
 
 
 XXV. II 
 
 179 
 
 
 3i 
 
 143 
 
i g8 
 
 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 Luke 
 
 
 
 John 
 
 
 
 John 
 
 
 
 vi. 36 
 
 122 
 
 note 125 
 
 i. 
 
 3 
 
 142 
 
 
 xvii 
 
 J2 , 3 
 
 188 191 
 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 
 12/13 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 180 188 191 
 
 46 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 161 
 
 
 xviii 
 
 28 
 
 126 
 
 vii. 22/23 
 
 174 
 
 175 
 
 iii. 
 
 14 
 
 187 
 
 
 xix. : 
 
 '8/3° 
 
 181 
 
 ix. 59 
 
 179 
 
 
 iv. 
 
 24 
 
 122 note 
 
 XX. 
 
 17 
 
 188 
 
 60 
 
 168 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 142 
 
 
 xxi. 
 
 6 
 
 170 
 
 62 
 
 163 
 
 179 
 
 v. 
 
 14 
 
 163 
 
 
 3 
 
 5/i6 
 
 171 
 
 x - 4/5 
 
 182 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 128 
 
 142 166 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 161 
 
 
 vii. 
 
 38/39 
 
 142 
 
 
 Acts 
 
 
 
 18/19 
 
 176 
 
 
 viii. 
 
 44 
 
 131 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 38 
 
 i5° 
 
 41 
 
 130 
 
 167 
 
 
 59 
 
 118 
 
 
 iv. 
 
 12 
 
 158 i59 
 
 42 
 
 130 
 
 167 
 
 X. 
 
 1 
 
 125 
 
 127 
 
 vi. 
 
 2/5 
 
 146 
 
 xi. 5/8 
 
 173 
 
 180 181 
 
 
 7 
 
 125 
 
 
 xiv. 
 
 22 
 
 131 190 191 
 
 8 
 
 132 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 125 
 
 
 xvi. i 
 
 [6/19 
 
 119 
 
 13 
 
 127 
 
 
 
 "A3 
 
 171 
 
 
 xix. 
 
 2/6 
 
 145 
 
 34 
 
 122 
 
 
 
 3i 
 
 118 
 
 
 xx. 
 
 28 
 
 170 
 
 xii. 19 
 
 161 
 
 
 xi. 
 
 9/10 
 
 172 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 170 
 
 32/33 
 
 176 
 
 
 xii. 
 
 24 - 
 
 179 
 
 
 xxi. 
 
 13 
 
 181 
 
 34 
 
 126 
 
 127 
 
 
 26 
 
 173 
 
 179 
 
 
 
 
 35 
 
 177 
 
 
 xiii. 
 
 35 
 
 174 
 
 186 
 
 Romans 
 
 
 35/37 
 
 171 
 
 
 xiv. 
 
 2 
 
 143 
 
 181 
 
 i. 
 
 21 
 
 163 164 
 
 39 
 
 192 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 J 53 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 141 
 
 
 
 I5/I7 
 
 189 
 
 190 
 
 
 26 
 
 163 
 
 2/5 
 
 141 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 173 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 126 163 164 
 
 xiv. 18 
 
 122 
 
 note 
 
 
 18 
 
 179 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 4/5 
 
 122 
 
 26 
 
 131 
 
 141 179 
 
 
 21/23 
 
 170 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 182 
 
 33 
 
 140 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 122 
 
 133 
 
 
 29 
 
 173 182 
 
 xv. 7 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 133 
 
 136 174 
 
 iii. 
 
 5/6 
 
 i55 
 
 xvi. 10 
 
 144 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 134 
 
 
 
 23/24 
 
 i49 i55 
 
 r 3 
 
 172 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 172 
 
 173 174 
 
 iv. 
 
 15 
 
 I2 5 
 
 24 
 
 49 
 
 in note 
 
 
 3° 
 
 178 
 
 
 v. 
 
 8/9 
 
 151 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 
 xv. 4 
 
 179 
 
 184 
 
 
 14 
 
 I 5 I 
 
 xvii. 10 
 
 183 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 142 
 
 179 
 
 
 20 
 
 125 
 
 37 
 
 175 
 
 
 
 5/6 
 
 180 
 
 
 vi. 
 
 4 
 
 151 184 
 
 xviii. 7 
 
 128 
 
 132 
 
 
 6 
 
 190 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 151 
 
 22 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 *3 
 
 144 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 184 
 
 xxi. 4 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 M/15 
 
 188 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 149 182 
 
 34 
 
 192 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 142 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 167 
 
 xxii. 28/30 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 172 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 182 
 
 42 
 
 175 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 177 
 
 xxiii. 42 
 
 174 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 140 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 122 note 
 
 43 
 
 119 
 
 
 xvi. 5 
 
 134 
 
 
 vii 
 
 2/3 
 
 184 
 
 xxiv. 41 
 
 185 
 
 
 
 12/13 
 
 134 
 
 
 
 19/20 
 
 136 
 
 45 
 
 126 
 
 
 xvii. 9 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 126 
 
 
 
 
 
 15/16 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 24/25 
 
 147 
 
 John 
 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 136 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 126 
 
 i. 2 
 
 131 
 
 
 
 20/21 
 
 180 
 
 
 viii 
 
 2 
 
 !47 *5° 1 5 I 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS. 
 
 199 
 
 Romans 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 Corinthians 
 
 
 1 Corinthians 
 
 viii. 3 
 
 136 
 
 
 iii. 18 
 
 154 
 
 164 
 
 xv. 41 
 
 181 
 
 10 
 
 177 184 
 
 
 iv. 5 
 
 152 
 
 
 49 
 
 122 note 188 
 
 12 
 
 J 5i 
 
 
 8 
 
 133 
 
 
 5° 
 
 131 173 179 
 
 13 
 
 191 
 
 
 9 
 
 134 
 
 
 
 190 191 
 
 16 
 
 151 
 
 
 20 
 
 122 note 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 136 168 
 
 
 v. 31 
 
 128 
 
 
 2 Corinthians 
 
 26 
 
 134 
 
 
 vi. 9 
 
 164 
 
 
 i. 6 
 
 155 156 
 
 28 
 
 130 136 
 
 
 11 
 
 15° 
 
 
 iii. 7/11 
 
 137 
 
 29 
 
 122 note 
 
 
 16 
 
 184 
 
 
 12 
 
 137 
 
 35 
 
 136 150 ] 
 
 87 
 
 17 
 
 135 
 
 136 184 
 
 17 
 
 125 
 
 33 
 
 151 187 
 
 
 19 
 
 160 
 
 
 18 
 
 122 132 137 
 
 39 
 
 151 187 
 
 
 vii. 16 
 
 164 
 
 
 
 173 188 
 
 x. 17 
 
 148 
 
 
 32/33 
 
 179 
 
 
 iv. 6 
 
 138 177 
 
 xi. 25 
 
 182 
 
 
 33/34 
 
 167 
 
 
 7 
 
 133 177 
 
 34 
 
 126 
 
 
 ix. 20 
 
 135 
 
 
 v. 1 
 
 122 182 
 
 34/3 6 
 
 148 
 
 
 22 
 
 135 
 
 
 10 
 
 175 192 
 
 xii. 1 
 
 152 160 
 
 
 24 
 
 177 
 
 
 15 
 
 152 155 190 
 
 2 
 
 126 151 
 
 154 
 
 25 
 
 164 
 
 178 
 
 16 
 
 157 
 
 5 
 
 189 
 
 
 27 
 
 122 
 
 
 20 
 
 i53 
 
 6 
 
 139 
 
 
 x. 9 
 
 187 
 
 
 vi. 14 
 
 132 
 
 10 
 
 149 
 
 
 11 
 
 156 
 
 157 171 
 
 16 
 
 131 184 
 
 17 
 
 191 
 
 
 13 
 
 130 
 
 136 
 
 vii. 1 
 
 135 177 
 
 xiv. 4 
 
 170 
 
 
 17 
 
 144 
 
 
 viii. 9 
 
 152 
 
 S 
 
 126 
 
 
 21 
 
 191 
 
 
 14 
 
 168 
 
 23 
 
 164 
 
 
 3i 
 
 128 
 
 
 15 
 
 168 169 
 
 XV. 2 
 
 155 
 
 
 32 
 
 155 
 
 
 x. 5 
 
 131 136 149 
 
 
 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 180 
 
 
 7 
 
 138 
 
 1 Corinthians 
 
 
 2 
 
 170 
 
 
 xi. 2 
 
 i35 
 
 i. 10 
 
 126 
 
 
 3 
 
 183 
 
 
 4 
 
 159 
 
 17 
 
 146 147 
 
 
 7/12 
 
 183 
 
 184 
 
 14 
 
 130 136 
 
 18 
 
 I3 2 133 
 
 
 10 
 
 173 
 
 
 xii. s 
 
 164 
 
 21 
 
 132 
 
 
 22 
 
 170 
 
 
 7 
 
 130 164 
 
 23/ 2 4 
 
 122 123 
 
 127 
 
 27 
 
 192 
 
 
 xiii. 3 
 
 136 
 
 
 131 i3 2 
 
 133 
 
 29 
 
 192 
 
 
 5 
 
 148 177 &> 190 
 
 27/29 
 
 146 147 
 
 
 xiii. 1 
 
 181 
 
 
 13 
 
 135 
 
 3° 
 
 133 
 
 
 3/5 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 
 ii. 2 
 
 159 
 
 
 5/7 
 
 153 
 
 
 Galatians 
 
 
 6/7 
 
 135 
 
 
 7 
 
 119 
 
 182 
 
 i. 10 
 
 155 
 
 9 
 
 125 134 
 
 155 
 
 8 
 
 130 
 
 182 
 
 18 
 
 164 
 
 
 176 
 
 
 11 
 
 130 
 
 
 19/20 
 
 176 
 
 10 
 
 134 189 
 
 
 12 
 
 173 
 
 188 
 
 ii. 20 
 
 136 
 
 11 
 
 134 
 
 
 xiv. 14 
 
 126 
 
 
 iii. 3 
 
 151 . 
 
 13/15 
 
 135 
 
 
 15 
 
 126 
 
 
 27 
 
 136 180 
 
 16 
 
 126 189 
 
 
 19 
 
 126 
 
 
 28 
 
 165 167 
 
 iii. 1/3 
 
 185 
 
 
 20 
 
 185 
 
 
 iv. 1/3 
 
 185 
 
 3 
 
 190 
 
 
 xv. 3 
 
 iSi 
 
 
 6 
 
 I5 1 
 
 17 
 
 135 
 
 
 26 
 
 122 
 
 
 26 
 
 ISO 
 
200 
 
 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 Galatians 
 
 
 
 
 Ephesians 
 
 
 
 2 Thessalonians 
 
 
 v. 9 
 
 186 
 
 
 
 vi. 17 
 
 167 
 
 177 
 
 iii. 8 
 
 166 
 
 
 13 
 
 172 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 154 
 
 
 10 
 
 129 
 
 
 15 
 
 169 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 135 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 156 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 148 
 
 156 
 
 
 Philippians 
 
 
 
 ii. 14/15 
 
 185 
 
 
 22/23 
 
 15° 
 
 165 • 
 
 [79 
 
 i. 9 
 
 146 
 
 
 iii. 12 
 
 129 
 
 
 24 
 
 176 
 
 
 
 2 3 
 
 165 
 
 
 iii. 16-iv. 3 
 
 129 
 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 122 
 
 note 1 
 
 86 
 
 "• 3 
 
 149 
 
 
 iv. 10 
 
 173 
 
 181 
 
 2 
 
 156 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 190 
 
 
 11 
 
 129 
 
 
 5 
 
 *75 
 
 
 
 5/8 
 
 146 
 
 
 12 
 
 149 
 
 
 7 
 
 *55 
 
 
 
 5/™ 
 
 145 
 
 
 1 3 
 
 148 
 
 
 16 
 
 182 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 133 
 
 
 v. 7 
 
 131 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 122 
 
 note 
 
 11 
 
 1S8 
 
 
 ^phesians 
 
 
 
 
 iii. 8 
 
 161 
 
 
 14 
 
 138 
 
 
 i. 23 
 
 i59 
 
 
 
 10/11 
 
 175 
 
 
 vi. 1/2 
 
 i47 
 
 
 "• 3 
 
 151 
 
 153 
 
 
 12 
 
 15° 
 
 
 4 
 
 122 
 
 note 124 
 
 8/9 
 
 151 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 134 
 
 
 4/6 
 
 147 
 
 
 14 
 
 182 
 
 
 
 iv- 5 
 
 154 
 
 176 
 
 13/14 
 
 185 
 
 
 16 
 
 182 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 J 54 
 
 170 176 
 
 vii. 2 
 
 157 
 
 158 
 
 iii. 5 
 
 158 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 126 
 
 176 
 
 3 
 
 157 
 
 158 
 
 6 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 !5 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 i57 
 
 158 
 
 14/17 
 
 146 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 3/ I 4 
 
 !57 
 
 1S8 
 
 16/18 
 
 177 
 
 
 
 Colossians 
 
 
 
 ix. 14 
 
 129 
 
 
 19 
 
 133 
 
 
 
 i. 24 
 
 155 
 
 
 x. 1 
 
 122 
 
 note 
 
 iv. 13 
 
 150 
 
 iSi 
 
 '85 
 
 ii. 2 
 
 146 
 
 
 22 
 
 129 
 
 146 
 
 14/15 
 
 185 
 
 
 
 9/10 
 
 J 59 
 
 
 26 
 
 i47 
 
 
 16 
 
 185 
 
 
 
 11/12 
 
 181 
 
 
 34 
 
 175 
 
 
 17 
 
 126 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 122 
 
 note 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 148 
 
 
 22/24 
 
 181 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 126 
 
 
 17 
 
 J 55 
 
 
 23 
 
 126 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 156 
 
 
 xii. 8 
 
 136 
 
 
 3° 
 
 i34 
 
 iS° 
 
 iSi 
 
 iii. 1/3 
 
 *75 
 
 
 22 
 
 150 
 
 
 
 169 170 
 
 10 
 
 167 
 
 
 xiii. 16 
 
 173 
 
 
 3 1 
 
 122 
 
 127 
 
 136 
 
 13 
 
 170 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 177 
 
 
 1 Timothy 
 
 
 
 v. 3/5 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i- 5 
 
 124 
 
 
 6/11 
 
 180 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 148 
 
 158 
 
 8 
 
 !S! 
 
 
 
 1 Thessalonians 
 
 
 9 
 
 166 
 
 14 
 
 154 
 
 
 
 i. 9 
 
 129 
 
 
 15/16 
 
 161 
 
 
 3° 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 V. 2 
 
 l8 5 
 
 
 ii. 4 
 
 142 
 
 15° 
 
 31/32 
 
 189 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 185 
 
 
 8 
 
 122 
 
 
 vi. 6 
 
 IS5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 122 
 
 185 
 
 iv. 8 
 
 176 
 
 
 11 
 
 I24 
 
 171 
 
 172 
 
 7 
 
 185 
 
 
 v. 6 
 
 127 
 
 
 
 173 J 74 
 
 
 8 
 
 185 
 
 
 8 
 
 121 
 
 
 12 
 
 122 
 
 I5 1 
 
 171 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 121 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 2 173 
 
 174 
 
 2 Thessalonians 
 
 
 vi- 5 
 
 126 
 
 
 14 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 ii. 2 
 
 126 
 
 
 6/10 
 
 172 
 
 
 16 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 iii. 7/9 
 
 190 
 
 
 7 
 
 *39 
 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS. 
 
 20I 
 
 2 Timothy 
 
 
 
 1 John 
 
 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 ii. 
 
 4 
 
 167 
 
 179 
 
 »• 3 
 
 180 
 
 
 iii. 17 
 
 16 
 
 
 5 
 
 179 
 
 
 14 
 
 185 
 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 
 6 
 
 179 
 
 
 18 
 
 166 
 
 
 19 
 
 16 17 107 
 
 
 12 
 
 167 
 
 176 
 
 29 
 
 180 
 
 
 iv. 6 
 
 17 
 
 
 22 
 
 185 
 
 
 iii. 2 
 
 180 
 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 iii. 
 
 5 
 
 *5 2 
 
 
 8/9 
 
 180 
 
 
 8 
 
 17 i°3 
 
 
 8 
 
 126 
 
 
 10 
 
 180 
 
 
 9 
 
 17 
 
 iv. 
 
 2 
 
 121 
 
 
 12/14 
 
 173 
 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 
 6/8 
 
 170 
 
 
 13/14 
 
 180 
 
 
 11 
 
 9 17 
 
 
 9 
 
 161 
 
 
 16 
 iv. 16 
 
 156 
 152 
 
 
 v. 1 
 2 
 
 7 18 
 18 119 
 
 Titus 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 IS 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 *5 
 
 182 
 126 
 
 
 v. 19 
 
 2 John 
 "• I5/I7 
 
 178 
 178 
 
 
 5 
 7/9 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 6 18 
 18 
 
 119 
 8 18 
 
 James 
 
 
 
 iii. 7/8 
 
 178 
 
 
 12 
 
 19 106 
 
 i 
 
 i7 
 
 I 5° 
 
 151 154 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 3 4 19 
 
 
 
 155 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 
 26 
 
 177 
 
 
 i- 3 
 
 14 
 
 
 vi. 1 
 
 19 
 
 ii. 
 
 12 
 
 !S° 
 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 4 19 
 
 
 19 
 
 180 
 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 7 9 19 20 
 
 
 20 
 
 180 
 
 
 6 
 
 99 m 
 
 5/8 
 
 20 
 
 
 26 
 
 180 
 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 
 9 
 
 6 19 20 106 
 
 iv. 
 
 4 
 
 178 
 
 
 9 
 
 105 in 
 
 10/12 
 
 21 
 
 
 6 
 
 140 
 
 154 
 
 11 
 
 14 IC 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 6 9 21 22 
 
 V. I 
 
 9/20 
 
 186 
 
 
 16 
 ii. 1 
 
 5 14 
 5 i4 
 
 io 5 
 
 14 
 
 14/16 
 
 21 note 22 
 
 22 
 
 i Peter 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 9 J 4 
 
 
 17 
 vii. 1/2 
 
 22 23 
 
 
 1/2 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 5 x 4 
 
 I0 S 
 
 23 
 
 ii. 
 
 185 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 6 I 5 
 
 I0 5 
 
 3 
 
 9 23 
 
 
 11 
 
 178 
 
 180 190 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *3 
 
 6 15 
 
 105 
 
 4 
 
 23 
 
 
 24 
 
 181 
 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 
 5/8 
 
 23 
 
 iii. 
 
 IS 
 
 170/ 
 
 171 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 
 9 
 
 10 23 
 
 iv. 
 
 7 
 
 J 54 
 
 
 17 
 
 6 IS 
 
 
 11/13 
 
 23 
 
 
 12 
 
 156 
 
 
 22 
 
 7 " 
 
 *5 119 
 
 14 
 
 23 24 
 
 v. 
 
 5 
 
 140 
 
 
 2 3 
 
 9 15 
 
 16 
 
 IS 
 
 24 
 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 iS4 
 I5 1 
 
 
 2 5 
 iii. 1 
 
 3 
 
 16 99 
 16 
 3 16 
 
 
 16 
 viii. 1 
 
 3/5 
 
 4 24 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 2 Peter 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 
 7 
 
 24 103 
 
 i. 
 
 5/9 
 
 180 
 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 
 8 
 
 24 
 
 
 9 
 
 147 
 
 i5° I 5 I 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 
 9 
 
 4 6 24 25 
 
 
 
 i73 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 
 19 
 
 138 
 
 
 10 
 
 16 
 
 
 11 
 
 3 4 25 
 
 ii. 
 
 1 
 
 158 
 
 
 14 
 
 16 
 
 
 12/13 
 
 25 
 
 
 22 
 
 149 
 
 
 16 
 
 6 16 
 
 
 ix. 1 
 
 25 
 
202 
 
 CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION. 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 ix. 2 
 
 6 25 26 
 
 xiii. 2/4 
 
 40 
 
 xvi. 16 
 
 6 58 
 
 3 
 
 107 
 
 S 
 
 40 41 107 in 
 
 17 
 
 10 58 
 
 S/ii 
 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 41 
 
 18 
 
 10 58 
 
 7 
 
 106 
 
 7 
 
 2 41 
 
 J 9 
 
 4 58 106 
 
 8 
 
 107 
 
 8/9 
 
 41 
 
 20/21 
 
 58 
 
 12 
 
 8 26 
 
 10 
 
 10 41 107 
 
 xvii. 2 
 
 6 58 
 
 *3 
 
 6 7 10 26 
 
 12 
 
 3 4 4i 
 
 3 
 
 106 
 
 14/16 
 
 27 
 
 13 
 
 41 
 
 4 
 
 58 
 
 17 
 
 6 27 101 
 
 14 
 
 6 41 
 
 6 
 
 58 59 
 
 18/19 
 
 27 
 
 15/16 
 
 42 
 
 8 
 
 10 59 106 
 
 20 
 
 2 27 
 
 17 
 
 4 9 42 
 
 9 
 
 4 59 i°5 I26 
 
 21 
 
 27 28 107 
 
 18 
 
 42 43 126 
 
 10 
 
 4 60 
 
 X. I 
 
 6 28 
 
 xiv. 1 
 
 10 43 
 
 11/14 
 
 60 
 
 2 
 
 10 28 
 
 */5 
 
 43 
 
 15 
 
 10 60 61 
 
 3 
 
 28 106 
 
 3 
 
 106 
 
 16 
 
 61 106 
 
 4 
 
 6 28 104 106 
 
 6/7 
 
 44 
 
 17 
 
 10 61 
 
 5 
 
 28 29 
 
 8 
 
 7 44 
 
 18 
 
 61 
 
 6/9 
 
 29 
 
 9 
 
 10 44 45 
 
 xviii. 1 
 
 61 62 
 
 10 
 
 3 2 9 
 
 10 
 
 10 45 
 
 2 /5 
 
 62 
 
 11 
 
 8 29 
 
 11/12 
 
 45 
 
 4 
 
 104 
 
 xi. 1 
 
 29 30 
 
 13 
 
 3 45 46 107 
 
 6 
 
 4 63 
 
 2/7 
 
 3° 
 
 14 
 
 46 47 
 
 7/8 
 
 63 
 
 8 
 
 8 3° 3 1 
 
 15/18 
 
 47 
 
 9 
 
 63 64 
 
 9 
 
 4 31 
 
 18 
 
 106 
 
 10/11 
 
 62 64 105 
 
 10 
 
 31 107 
 
 19 
 
 4 47 48 
 
 12 
 
 5 I0 64 65 
 
 11 
 
 8 31 
 
 20 
 
 48 
 
 
 104 106 
 
 12 
 
 8 31 
 
 XV. 1 
 
 48 100 
 
 13 
 
 65 i°7 
 
 13/14 
 
 3i 
 
 2 
 
 48 
 
 14 
 
 6 65 
 
 IS 
 
 6 31 32 
 
 3 
 
 4 48 49 5° 
 
 H/iS 
 
 65 66 105 
 
 16 
 
 8 32 
 
 
 97 106 
 
 16 
 
 2 10 66 
 
 17 
 
 6 32 
 
 4 
 
 10 50 
 
 17 
 
 66 104 
 
 18 
 
 *° 32 33 
 
 5/6 
 
 5 1 
 
 18 
 
 9 66 
 
 J 9 
 
 10 33 
 
 7 
 
 5 1 5 2 
 
 19 
 
 5 66 67 
 
 xii. 1/2 
 
 33 i°7 
 
 8 
 
 5 2 
 
 20 
 
 67 
 
 3 
 
 106 
 
 xvi. 1 
 
 52 
 
 21 
 
 5 6 7 
 
 3/5 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 8 10 52 53 
 
 22 
 
 5 9 10 67 68 
 
 6 
 
 8 34 
 
 3 
 
 6 53 I0 ° 
 
 
 112 113 
 
 7 
 
 34 
 
 4 
 
 !° 53 54 
 
 2 3 
 
 68 99 106 
 
 8 
 
 4 10 35 36 
 
 5 
 
 54 
 
 
 113/115 
 
 9 
 
 2 36 
 
 6 
 
 6 54 55 lo6 
 
 24 
 
 68 115 116 
 
 10 
 
 3 6 i°3 
 
 7 
 
 55 
 
 xix. 1 
 
 68 
 
 11 
 
 36 37 
 
 8 
 
 6 55 I02 
 
 2 
 
 68 69 107 108 
 
 12 
 
 3 37 38 
 
 9 
 
 55 56 102 104 
 
 3 
 
 69 109 
 
 nhs 
 
 38 
 
 10 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 6 69 
 
 16 
 
 10 38 
 
 11 
 
 56 57 
 
 5 
 
 3 6 7 69 70 
 
 17 
 
 4 38 39 
 
 12/13 
 
 57 
 
 
 99 
 
 iiii. 1 
 
 39 40 
 
 14 
 
 8 57 105 106 
 
 6 
 
 70 108 
 
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS. 
 
 20- 
 
 pocalypse 
 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 
 Apocalypse 
 
 
 xix. 7 
 
 8 70 108 
 
 xx. 7 
 
 77 
 
 
 xxi. 20 
 
 5 87 
 
 8 
 
 70 108 109 
 
 8 
 
 3 5 77 
 
 107 
 
 21 
 
 5 87 
 
 9 
 
 2 6 9 70 71 
 
 9 
 
 77 78 
 
 
 22/23 
 
 87 107 
 
 
 100 no 
 
 10 
 
 78 
 
 
 24 
 
 87 88 
 
 10 
 
 71 107 108 
 
 11 
 
 78 79 
 
 
 25/26 
 
 88 106 
 
 
 109 
 
 12 
 
 3 79 
 
 
 27 
 
 88 89 
 
 1 1 
 
 71 72 107 
 
 !3 
 
 79 
 
 
 xxii. 1 
 
 89 
 
 12 
 
 108 
 
 14 
 
 79 80 
 
 
 2 
 
 89 90 
 
 I2/l4 
 
 72 
 
 15 
 
 80 
 
 
 3 
 
 90 
 
 13 
 
 107 108 
 
 xxi. 1 
 
 80 
 
 
 5 
 
 9 9° 9 1 
 
 14 
 
 108 
 
 2 
 
 80 81 
 
 
 6 
 
 5 91 
 
 J 5 
 
 72 99 no 
 
 3 
 
 81 106 
 
 
 7 
 
 9 1 
 
 16 
 
 6 72 73 108 
 
 4 
 
 5 81 8 
 
 2 97 99 
 
 8 
 
 7 9 2 
 
 17 
 
 3 5 73 Io8 
 
 5 
 
 11 82 
 
 83 
 
 9/10 
 
 92 107 
 
 18 
 
 73 106 no 
 
 6 
 
 7 83 106 
 
 11 
 
 92 93 
 
 19 
 
 73 74 108 
 
 7/8 
 
 83 
 
 
 12/13 
 
 93 
 
 20 
 
 10 74 97 106 
 
 9 
 
 6 83 84 
 
 14 
 
 3 93 94 
 
 
 108 
 
 10/11 
 
 84 106 
 
 
 15 
 
 94 
 
 21 
 
 74 75 
 
 12 
 
 84 85 
 
 106 
 
 16 
 
 94 95 
 
 XX. I 
 
 6 7s 106 
 
 I3/-I5 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 107 
 
 2 
 
 2 6 10 75 
 
 16 
 
 85 86 
 
 107 
 
 17/18 
 
 95 
 
 3 
 
 75 76 
 
 17/18 
 
 86 
 
 
 r 9 
 
 11 95 96 
 
 4/5 
 
 76 106 
 
 J 9 
 
 83 86 
 
 87 101 
 
 20 
 
 7 8 96 
 
 6 
 
 6 76 77 
 
 
 102 
 
 
 21 
 
 11 96 
 
 106 
 
 106 
 
 109 
 
LONDON I 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E., AND GREAT WINDMILL STREET, W. 
 
I ; 
 
 IN! 
 
 
 tl 
 
 It 
 
 ! 1 
 
 1 
 
 -, I