YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

MANUSCRIPTS OF [THE
APOCALYPSE— RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS

-¦- by
H, C. HOSKIER

Reprinted from " The Bulletin of the John: Rylands Library "
Vol. 7, No. i, July, 1922
1922

S ~

¦-X e- 5 "E x3" c£^
<3 XlJ It

•3 V8

r * ?
z z a.
3
7.

r 1 1 s-f ft

1 *!

* f 3 r
5

b

o

5 .3 t
.3 >~iji

it

F1 /(^ '* ~?
r ¦ s

9

;ti,i&

•U,

-«

*& I Lit x».%.l\$&
*¦ W Si

jj,
il

'¦«•
1

"A

S

\C o F

tflifif-

fn <

o

WW*-1 "*#•*'

f o o \> ¦ a <% °<«i C 3

^~-

5'? aM tiJ-v

i *•<-

t^*^

9~ 5* ^ 3 1

O

f

I

Meteora No.
P. 264, Apoc. v. i seq
¦ '\
¦ '¦'¦
v 2j£p irkrA 'inure o-fr: c,6mo 1 tu»V ""H**!.
for^Lrt.trfryn£-- ^^-4«^y »q^*TV>£-»
V»4I6< «tT>V^t^ ^ ^*' 'T^n™ C3_C4><* °" *
. ^ . '. * -' .„i...!..1«t!.C<JU

llv^-

- iy o'.^ <t> n» «4 "-V^0 V-9J"

^ jvV ^,»r ^f «*^v«»p-?r^

573 - = Hoskier No. 201.
, showing work of the two scribes.

\ /_ iwA crofi-fi to ""4 «i{'irroWiii ooctf
In&ln W< &n *^o «4 <*fl ° p o"u V-o v o p -rarafip :
tiJj^ U o lB-ra>J»-Slwfr6v Uu^jIB'flfrp -^T<^pa4ij
yL£rv 0 y an j) Utij &n ao <^ frp <£.> p Ur^u tim 1 p 1
pjaj-nu - UXK ia^&^^ro!j-&u Uxu-fr>ur £nr| ICO
-rdrrfrp 1 «Hi-arro p-fttf<s clc i-fl-\uB cs& p -yl Aa youu
tjAivf^rt^-irnu-iti-J-! op ky <^rooi-ocrU^ geuv
to W W^frtxi -m "1 (!¦ A6- tAir&pco -tc*ju j3 V -rrfrol
-y^g*^-^^ ya4^t\rroDC*i-n"^UJU'cc'c(rJiillJ^ V*1^ 1
1A_1 u±^o p 6-WrUxr ^0 1 Qjr TDotairrrf^op-rorr^^
t^cq ^jucxu^*Ta^ofiipcKr^<^ajixuTT>y • c(*raLicM^

Reduced Jth from original.

Meteora 237 = Hoskier No. 202.
Apoc. xi. 16 seq., exhibiting tUtsiv in xii. 4.

\'t*r 'r4> <C&fii<rr>liluit nttTt'i fci -roty/To '*/\Tcj/»-
Icaiixdiiip, x eui i 6f -xfulrv t,<< i'-n^XiiSiaxrTii '//
Sv.u ...1;.  L,.l....r.u  SI . ' ' . ¦ '.->*

¦:£$M*fpr- katfio< yiSfft x>coy> *n $»yai- K'tU%^paft>ptu

TVItlKI/iXtU Ml/tffitirint T*v 8~vf p~p^awjC3- XH£-3$f %
4<fl**'vM& >» ;,, ¦ '•:'„,'•'"•>', -I w V ' ¦¦'¦¦ / -
.4f£--, rtrrtXiMf • » ¦#.¦ /- .' :¦. ,*^i / (\ * - r '-"*/ :-v.: ;

wCt'^^ "** *V **:#™^:x$4:*t& <urr»l, f"-ar*!fi«ftu
&¦*¦&»&/,? Txxrp +l/u)-m»y -rU&Yujicuxlt -rxe Ut>\<, \ox C-rtxliv-

41

,-••-:..' .»*« i-s' . -." - ~'«.V V . I _i«r* Ii .' ' .'l.?. ~v

Reduced |th from original size.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE — RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS. By H. C. HOSKIER.
I.
FOR all practical purposes we have the series of John's Apo
calyptic visions as he saw and recorded them. The exact
details of the primal text we shall never recover. As in the
other books of the N.T., original readings are scattered throughout our
various surviving documents, but are not inherent as a whole in any
one of our oldest MSS. or Versions.
We have sought among all our junior documents for further keys,
and for control of the readings of our elder documents. The results
are in some respects disappointing. However, there exist a number
of tenth, eleventh, and twelfth century Greek witnesses — all copied
quite faithfully from older sources — which throw much light on the
transmission of the text.
After going through the existing two hundred " cursive" MSS. of
the Apocalypse in Greek, I have dislodged certain facts from the mass,
and, without dogmatising, propose to exhibit some of the results, before
final tabulated publication in book-form.
Never before has a comprehensive examination such as this been
undertaken of any book of the New Testament. I selected the Apo
calypse simply because it was possible for an individual to handle the
matter within his lifetime, as the supply of known MSS. was sufficiently
small to make this feasible.
The task is now almost complete.
Without taking up space at this introductory point to make a long
list of the MSS. as I designate them by numbers — because I will give
the corresponding library mark and locality of each one mentioned
particularly — I may state : —
I st. That if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest
number of existing MSS. in the world of one type, he could not have
succeeded better, since his family- MSS. occupy the front rank in point
of actual numbers, the family numbering over 20 MSS., besides its allies.

2 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
2nd. That I have not found a MS. of the Complutensian family
group which contains the singularities of the printed text, and these are
most likely all errors of the press. Stunica's printed text varies from
the strict family type in but few places. This Complutensian family
now includes over a dozen MSS.
3rd. I am listing my MSS. by numbers from I to 230, following
the old numeration as far as it will go, and afterwards adopting my
own, because it is impossible to do otherwise, for Gregory has made
three changes in his system of numeration, making it impossible to be
followed, and no one would wish to adopt Soden's system, which is
one of the most trying and unsatisfactory which I know.
Thus, the new tenth century MS. from Meteora in Thessaly, dis
covered just before the war (Libr. mark 573 X 1) becomes Apoc. 200
in my list. It was unknown to Gregory, and does not appear in Von
Soden's lists, although he used it at the last moment, and calls it
"a 1073."
We will begin by a review of this important MS. because Von
Soden reports its readings but partially, and because it has a subscrip
tion of the highest interest in these studies.
There appear to be three MSS. of the Apoc. at Meteora which
have never been catalogued in our lists of sacred codices. We shall
number them 200, 20 1 , and 202.
Two of these are by the same scribe in part, but the texts are of
widely differing interest.
Apoc. 200 (Meteora 573) is by far the most important, in fact
in the whole range of our documents there is none more
important.
Apoc. 20 1 represents a commentary MS. and runs only to xiv.
5.1 The last leaf extant is crumpled and damaged, and the
1 Von Soden (Text-Band, p. 896). This is apparently his a 1072, but
he says it has a " chain " commentary whereas it is our 202 which has
one. Von Soden's a 1073 must be our Apoc. 200 (Meteora 573), although
he gives no library mark. This MS. is said now to be in Germany.
Harnack gives us to understand that the scribe of 201 is the same as the
scribe of 200, but this is incorrect. The writer of 200 begins 201, but
quite another hand goes on at i. 16 fin. At iii. 1 4 the original hand re
sumes, but is displaced again after v. 5 by the second (contemporary) but
rounder hand, and they hold on and off thenceforward alternately.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 3
remaining portion has doubtless perished long since. This is
said to be bound with the previous document.
Apoc. 202 (Meteora 237) is an eleventh century and early ex
ponent of the Complutensian type.

APOC. 200 (Meteora 573 X 1). Unknown to Gregory (Soden
= a 1073).
This MS. was photographed for me by H. Jantsch in 1912, with
two others of the Apoc. in this monastery. It appears that there are
other monasteries with libraries on the mount, but these three are from
the main Meteora monastery. A notice appeared in Neue Jahr-
bucherfiir das Klassische Alterthum for 1912, pp. 542-553, by
J. Draeseke on the whole subject of this Thessalian mount, and another
in Zeitschrift fiir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Jahrgang 1 3
(1912), pp. 260 ff., the latter dealing with our MS., but I have not
seen this article. The volume would seem to be one of Miscellanies,
and like that containing Apoc. 1 43, to have a rich surprise in store for us.
It is said that many of the Meteora MSS. were taken away to
Europe in former centuries, and many found their way to the library
at Athens. But this one was worth a long journey to fish up from the
dusty shelves of Meteora, and we must deal with it, late along as it
comes in our lists, with very particular attention.
The inscription is —
airoKakYxfriC L'cuaNNoY t 6no\ot {ctim Steph?)
but it is with the subscription that we must concern ourselves before
dealing with the text, for it has a peculiar character of its own.
Immediately after the close of the last chapter, we read : —
67rX.Hoa>#H H airoKa •
XYttC to? artoY iTu
aNNoY to? 0eo\dr\
Cti^^N a : «—
and then immediately follows a touching subscription, which can be
rendered : —
" O Lord, through the privileges of Holy John the theologian
{or ' Gods spokesman '), concede [forgiveness] for all my sins, and
if I have tripped in any sentence, or phrase, or in the order of

4 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
words, or in an accent, or in a single word, or in any other thing
— unwittingly or wittingly— pity Theodosius, 0 Lord, sinner
above all men, and my spiritual children, friends and brethren.
Amen."
Theodosius the scribe therefore claims that he copied as faithfully
as he knew how to do. Fortunately we have an extraneous check,
because another MS. at Meteora (apparently bound up in the same
volume as this one) was partially executed by him, and this type is
quite different.
I believe, therefore, that Theodosius did his best with the trans-
scription of Apoc. 200 from a very ancient text.
This can be proved in many ways. One thing quite noticeable is
the spelling of x^ia, x^AiaSes, which is constant throughout, although
not found in other MSS., while in the other copy which he executed
in part this peculiarity does not appear ; nor Olov, 0loj for deiov, deico,
which Apoc. 200 has throughout alone with N. (We have even
6io)Sei<; alone in ix. 1 7.)
On the other hand upvo-rak ... or /couo-raAA . . . varies, and
we waver between evonriov and evoinov, jjueTomcov and fJLeroTrojv.
Certain other itacisms are rarely present, and i for r) not very often.
v for i only once. Iota postscript once only (iii. 3 yvojcrrjc). v e<£eX/c.
occurs throughout. Ihov throughout, and without breathing. Where
breathings are given they are throughout absolutely angular.
We have to do with a very old (tenth century) cursive. Accents
are irregular and rather sparse. It is an educated handwriting. There
fore the mass of itacisms and blunders evidently represent a faithful
copying of an older and uncial MS., confirmed by the very touching
and humble subscription of the scribe.
The breathings, all very square, are often incorrect, as ov for ov,
and many accents are missing altogether on a string of words at a time.
We have here a very interesting proposition. Not only does he
write uniformly <£<AaSeA(£(.av, XaoSi/aav, Trrw^iav, but the converse
ev^apicrTetau, an equally good signal of age, all pointing to an intrin
sically old exemplar, but when we meet with LovSaicav for tovScuovs
in ii. 9 we know we have the real thing and a most ancient base (see
C I 4 3 aetK). Immediately following this we have a novelty, the
MS. being without the word " synagogue." It will not do to put

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 5
this aside too summarily, for it may (in the earliest times) have been
imported from the other passage (iii. 9). It has always seemed to be
a strange and rather objectionable phrase : " but of the synagogue of
Satan." Our MS. simply says : " d\\a rov a-arava," lovSauov and
tov a-arava now corresponding, without crvvayoiyq. The other
MSS., which read lovhaiuv in the genitive do not suppress crvvayoryr),
so that this MS. may take us back to a still older substratum of text
than they do.1 The first chapter makes this clear, for the exceptional
readings have good and sufficient support to entitle them to our most
serious consideration. Thus, although i. 2 is a surprise (avrov pro iu
X^), the omission of Xeyei at i. 8 is confirmed by 1 70 and was appar
ently so read by Tertullian (Prax) and by Hippolytus, than whom
we can produce no earlier witnesses ; therefore, while /3l/3\lov, (-eis)
at i. 11 and <ws e/c Ka/juvov pro ws ev Kap,iv<a at i. 15 have no support
as yet, tis pro 17T19 in i. 12 is supported by 99 and 1 70 (both wit
nesses of unimpeachable ancient bases) and -vai at i. 7 = boh (cf. h)
while Prim has ita and not etiam . So we are in the midst of very
old things (which really go behind X. behind Irenaeus' translator and
Gwynn's Syriac) as to all these important key-cursives like the present,
and like 1 30, 1 70, etc. It will not do therefore to dismiss the Kareywv
of our MS. for Kal k\u>v of the mass at i. 1 6, for the Patmos MS.
(Apoc. 1 78) so reads in another similar place (x. 2) confirmed by its
sister 38, and zeal eywv may just as well have grown out of an original
and forcible Kovriytov as KO.Ti\<x>v have been miscopied for Kal kyoyv.
A special feature here is that the stranger readings do not have the
usual version support. At least, where they support, it is due, no
doubt, to a real part of the underlying Greek text, and is not reflex
version action. The difference between this and other exceptional
MSS. lies in this very thing, that when we look into -the majority of
the idiosyncracies of our MS. we do not find syr S and other versions
conspiring with it, and this rules out secondary version influence. So
that, whatever be its merits, this text is very old, in fact amongst the
oldest which we have. Its continuous agreement with uncial forms
1 Our MS. makes a point of this matter because at ii. 24 it adds tov
deov aWa between ftadr) and rov aarava, reading : vpiv he Xeyai /cat toi?
Xoittois Tot? ev dvarr)poL<; 01 ovk e%ovcn Trjv Sihayr/v TavTtjv oirive*; ovtc
ejvcoaav ra fiaQi) tov deov aWa tov aarava, ax; XeyeTai ovv ov /SaAw
K.T.X.

6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
proves this, but much else besides.1 Yet at xiii. 1 1 + tco ante
apvioj is only found in the Graeco-Latin family 7, and therefore the
source of this must be retranslation from Latin, where the translator
unconsciously added the Greek article. Again, at xvi. 8 to is
avOpayirois might be retranslation. Observe Prim has hominibus.
Note at x. 3 the participial form for the Lion roaring, only coun
tenanced by 1 9 and Prim (aeth). Yet Horner so translates his boh,
although the boh appears to agree with Greek p.vnaTai (or /3pv)(arai),
so easy is it for a translator to glide into error. So Prim " rugiens."
The only unusual contractions are Trapvot for trapQevoi at xiv. 4
and o-tttt for airoaroXcov at xxi. 14. Some forms go with MSS. 81
and 104. Maybe our scribe was a stranger, transplanted to Thes-
salian soil. There is also sympathy with 1 2 and 1 4-92. Possibly
ireTTTCJKa at iii. 17 for 7re7rXovT^Ka, and vii. 2 avep,OLS for ayyeXots
are due to the original, or to infirmity. There are half a dozen
" monstra " (notwithstanding the subscription), e.g. o-TOfiaros for
dpovov (water proceeding out of the mouth of God) at xxii. 1 (of
which 92 is also guilty) ; Xvyyias for Sefias at i. 20 ; tKaBapio-d-f)
for eOepio-Orj at xiv. 16. As to xxi. 1 "empty" for " new," it is
deliberately supported by N twice over, as well as the variation Kai t\v
for Katvrjv in xiv. 3.
At x. 3 fiifiXapiov is agreed to by A, but is more consistently
used by Apoc. 200 and may have preceded both yStySXa/nSioi' and
(3t/3XiSapLov, because /3ij8Xapiov or ySiySXiaoiov would seem to be
the correct form. (Justin, however, uses /3l/3Xlo'iov.)
There are practically no corrections, and nothing in the margin,
except at xiii. 3, where tov 6a.va.Tov, omitted, is supplied in margin,
and in ch. vii. and xvi. there are numerals marg. opposite the fists of
tribes and angels.
The mention in the subscription of a thousand o-Tiypi is interesting,
but these are not shown.
One of the principal innovations, which should assist to date some
of the readings, is to be found at iii. 1 6, but even here the reading
was in doubt in the time of n. If our reading were the real one, it
would be strange, however, that the e/u.eo-ai reading should have
1 Note that where Oxyrim (fourth century fragment) is extant we go
with it (iv. 2-3).

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 7
become so stereotyped in all other documents but two. I refer to the
church of Laodicea.
Instead of : Because thou art neither cold nor hot, " peXXcn ere
epeerat ex tov crrouaTO? p-ov," N had already substituted : " iravere
tov o-roju-aros o-ov " (" cease thy drivel "), and aeth (Walton) omits
the clause, having probably found a conflation, marginal notes, or
something unintelligible in his copy. Now the conflation is exhibited
by 38- 1 78 and 1 56- 1 88, who write : " peXXa ere epeerai *ai eXeyx<u
ere £K tov crTO/xaros erov" (erov 178, pov 38 and 156-188). It
remains for our MS. 200 to give this half of the conflation in full
without the epeerai, clause, reading thus : " eXeyyoj ere ck tov
o-TOju,aTos erov." There is no support except by arm 1 , 2, 3, who,
however, reverse the order and adopt St. Luke's order, " out of thine
own mouth will I judge thee." In St. Luke, however, the word used is
Kpivoi and not eXeyyoj, and this may be a coincidence on the part of arm.
Let me make clear the general situation here, lest readers do not
grasp the full import of the matter.
None of our Latins or Church Fathers seem to know any reading
but the standard one of peXXw ere epeerai, ck tov erTopaTos pov, nor
does Gwynn's Syriac, nor the Coptic.
But already in Aleph's day, however, there was a variation
known, and an altogether strange one, viz. the substitution : iravere
tov crro/Aaros erov, the ere remaining, the ck disappearing, and ju,ov
being replaced by erov.
Along comes Apoc. 200 with another substitution : eXeyyai ere
em tov crro/i-aTos erov, the ck now remaining, and the eXeyyea
naturally followed by the erov of N.
The unimpeachably ancient testimony of 38- 1 78,1 now comes in
to exhibit the double reading : —
" peXXw ere epeerai Kai eXeyyea ere e« tov erTopaTo<s erov. '
Again, at iv. 4, we join that most notable combination of N, 1 30,
1 43, 1 78 for ev XevKots (-iju,aTiois), surely the basic reading here.
(See my note under Apoc. 143.) And we go beyond them all at
iii. 4, omitting ev Xevteo is altogether there.
JMy 178 is the Patmos MS. No. 12 (Greg. 178, Soden a406, but
apparently not thought worthy of a place in his apparatus!) I have now
identified the fragments of the uncial MS. F as being of this family. Also
the MSS. 67-120 as being the same as the MS. E.

8

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

Here are some of the readings which agree especially with our
" uncial " transmission (remember, after elimination of two hundred
cursive documents) : —

[Comparison with the text of Stephen,
i. 19. + Br) post a. tert

ii. 9.
iii. 1.
iv. 2 fin.
vii. 1 .
Ibid.

viu.

3.
10.

ix. 1.
Ibid. 4.
x. 7.

XI,
xiv.

xvi.
xvii.

xviu.

xxi.
xxii.

18. 3.
18.19. 6. 6.
15.
17.
II. 18.
15.
20. 6.
8.

lovBauov eivat, eavrot,*;
e/CK\7]cnai,<; pro e/c/cXrjaia<;
/caffijpevov pro rca0i]pevo<;
- tt7? (ante QaKao-o-qi)
eiri, BevBpov absque tl vel irav
— to ante evanriov

550, as reprinted by Scrivener.]
with N*C alone
with NC 1 43 aeth arm 3
with C alone
with Oxyr1080 alone
with A 127
with A alone (e-nt BevBpa aeth
copt arm)
with N alone

mairep Xap-rras pro o>? Xapira^ with F alone
to? a-^rivd tov pro ei<; atyivdov with F alone (cf. h copt syr S

acnepa<; pro aarepa ]
TTe7rTa>K0Ta<; pro ireirTrnKora)
aBiKTjaovcriv pro aBiKijawai
tovs eavTov BovXovs /cat tov;
•7rpo<f>ijTa^
ftiftXdptov

Prim)
with N* alone
with A alone
with N alone (and aeth)

with A* alone here (but A
abandons this, while Apoc
200 uses it all through)
tok? pucpow; Kai tov? peyaXovs with NCA (no cursives)

Kai r\v (pro /caivtjv)
+ 6 (ante e-yasv)
tov peya (pro ttjv peyaXrjv)
BeBa>Ka<; (pro eBatKas)
iBa pro e\Bov
TavTa pro ra vBaTa
avTcov pro avrov
ev avrrj pro eir avrr)
+ raVTTj post iro\ei
[tov oivov] ttj<; 0/37779 TOV
dvpov ( - /cai)
iv dim (sic, — tgj)
- to) ante BiyjravTi
eftXeirwv (vult efiXeirov) pro
e/3X,ei/ra

with N alone
with CA alone (and syr gig)
with A 18
with CA alone
with A alone (eiBa N)
with N* 130
with Na alone
with A alone
with C 1 04 latt arm boh

[with N

alone

with N alone
withP 146 f
with A 146 f

f 1 46 is the representative MS. of (Ecumenius, never yet published.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 9
Besides the matters of spelling, such as : iv. 6 Kai eppecroy with
A 1 1 4, 1 30 ; v. 6 eppeeroj bis with A alone ; vi. 6 eppeerca with
CA alone ; vi. 8 airoKTivai and vi. 14 eKeLvr/dr/erav with C alone ;
vii. 7 x«XiaSes ter, so N once ; vii. 8 x^XiaSes ter, so N twice ;
ix. 1 7 010^ pro delov with NCA alone ; ix. 1 8 0iov pro Seiov with
C A alone ; xiv. 1 0 6ioj pro 6et,<a with C alone ; xviii. 3 7ropvias,
so NC ; xxi. 1 ovvov Kevbv with N alone and arm i ; ibid. Kal yrjv
nevrjv with N alone and ai*m i ; ibid. aTrrjXdav with NA alone ;
xxi. 8 8ioj with N alone.
Before going further, I submit that the above is a very remarkable
showing indeed, if we remember that we have painfully traversed the
ground of 200 cursives to arrive at it. It shows indubitably a direct
foundation text of no mean age, by which I imply that we can say
confidently that a document directly underlies Apoc. 200 coeval
with our oldest uncial witnesses.
We will now proceed with some of the rarer readings and their
attestation. Instead of separating them into groups, we will take them
in order as they come : —
i. 6. ripcov pro r)pa<; with C and h harl
7. — vai with boh (cf. h Prim)
8. — Xeyei with 1 70 and Tert Hipp
9 fin. — xpio-Tov with^CAP al. aliq. et Dionys.
10. — ttj ante KvpiaKt] with fam 16, 121, 143 ( - ev
tt] KvpiaKt) tjpepa 146)
11. - Kai (post etpeaov, apvpvav, \
¦vrepyapov, dvaTTjpa, o-apBrjv I with 100,/«»z \\9 et Beatus
sic) J

12.

tk pro IJTK

with 99, 170

13.

\v%va>v pro Xvyyi&v

with 121 only

14.

Kai pro XevKov, ita : mai

epiov

1 with 8, 24, h syr S (Om Xev-

Kai (OCT %iv>v

j kov Prim Cypr)
18.
+ w9 ante veKpo<;
with (114) \78aeth
ii. 5.
pvTjpovevaov ovv
with 38-178, 81, 130
Ibid.
— Tayei
with NCAP 56, 130, 146,^
copt syr S aeth arm pIur Patr.
6.
a eyco piaco pro a Kaya> p-iaa
with 1 2, 1 06, aeth syr S
8.
avefyaev pro etflaev
with 67-120
14.
— eicei
with 62-63, 97-122
23.
KapBia<; Kai ve<fipov<}
with 51-90, 114, 127, 130,
copt arm aeth Vict Vigil
10

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

bid. fin,

, avrov pro vpcov

with 38 [non 1 78] arm copt

24.

oi pro oo~oi

with Na 1 30, arm Auct^esU

28.

— tov ante aarepa

with 130

iii. 2.

yevov pro yivov

with 130
3.
— ovv prim
with N 14, 16, 63, 69, gig
aeth syr S Prim
4.
aXX eyoa (pro e%«9)
oXiya ovo-
with syr S arm i (copt)
5.
Ibid. 12.
|20.
iv. 3. 4.
Ibid. 8.
v. 3.5.
para
— ev
airaXeiyfra) pro e^aXei-^reo
— tov deov sec. loco
per avTov pro irpoi avrov
[Kai o Kadijpevos] - rjv
opoim<; to9 opaaif
with 1 06 syr S
with 38-178
with 1 03 syr S and 2
with 14*, 67 copt arm syr S
with NABP Oxyrim al. syr S
with 38
ev eKaarov avreov
+ ovre ante ev tod ovpavat
- o mv
[rcai em tow Opovovs] " «&» jwith 12, 38-1 78 («)
tov9 eiKoai Kai reaaapat J
ev Xevicov; ( - iparioi<;) with N 130, 143 1 78 armm0
withN 38-178 syr S
with 36 et latt Prim
withn 14, 28**, 32, 127, 146,
1 78 gig copt syr S
with A 56, 130 copt latt (confi.
aeth syr S)
with 40 syr S
with ftCAP pauc. et syr 5
Iwith 40
tiKoXovdn ottictco avrov (pro 1 . , , -Q
„ ' . v/^ fwith 1 78 copt
aKoXovaei per avrov) ) withl, 16,32,39,67,69
with N (prob. = evBiK7jo-ei<i)
with 1 78 (38 = en riva)
with 178
with N al. aliq. copt syr
with 100 (fiaXXovaa N 18,
56, 130, 146 al.; fiaXovaa
al. ; a-Ko^aXXei 21, 28, 37,
73,79,80, 103^)
1 0. ^aaiXeiav Kai iepet,<;
vi. 6. — Teaaapcov
Ibid. Kpi0cov pro Kpi9r)<;
8. — ovopa avrcD (post
avrov)
Ibid. 10. Kpiv7]<i pro Kplveis
Ibid. eKBiKrjcreK pro e/cSweei?
1 1 . riva pro en
Ibid. 60)9 av pro eo>9 ov
13. em pro ei<;
Ibid. airoftaXXovaa pro fiaXXei
f This partially explains the strange icai eiaeXevaopai of fc*B and
so
many.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

11

1 7. avrcov pro avrov

with nC 18,38-178, 130, 146
gig syr St
" the great day of their wrath," instead

(This is a noteworthy change :
of " the great day of His wrath.")
vii. 2. - iiXiov with 59* aeth
Ibid. - avrom with minn quindecim gig copt
(This is one of the Seer's famous redundant relative constructions, prob
ably original : " 0.776X0(9 oh eBodr] avrolf.")

10.

+ em ante ra> apvico

with B 40

13.

Tas Xey/cas o-ToXa?

\<nla\fam 21 (C)

16.

— ovBe Bi-^rtiaovo-iv en

with ]Q9gr.

viii. 3.

— ayyeXos

with syr S solo

ix. 4.

prjBe pro ovBe bis

with 178 (38)

8.

ywaiKO^ pro yuvaiKcov

with 1 6 arm plur

11.

+ 7X0)0-0-77 post eXXrjviKt)

with h gig Prim ( + pyaei 38-
\78,fam 119)

14.

to) e\ovri pro 09 6t%e

•widx fam 34

17.

— OVTO>9

with 38, 1 46 arm plur et Prim

20.

— ra ante apyvpa, yaXKa,

Iwith 36, 130

Xidiva et %vXiva

x. 3.

poiKCD/ievo? pro pvKarai

with 19 p,vKopevo<i, So aeth
Prim (Observe fioixarai
by C)

Ibid.

Taw eavrwv <j>(ovai<;

with N 7-45 gig syr S

9.

airrjXda

with A al. pauc.

10.

Kare<f>aya av ra • sic

with 36

Ibid.

e<f>aya pro e<f>ayov

with 36, 59

Ibid.

eyepiaQt] pro eiriKpavQi)

with N 1 30 / gig arm Prim
Beatus

Ibid. fin.

+ iriKpia<;

with Na 130 / gig arm Beatus

xi. 5.

ffeXrjaei avrov; (pro ai/TOVS
deXrj sec.)

with 38, 127 (cf. NA)

9.

a<£ ico a iv pro a<fir)o-ovo-i

with 130

11.

Tas rpei<; ripiav ijpepa<; ( - Kai
sec.)

Jwith 14-92, 38-178, 100

Ibid.

arr^aovrai pro earrjaav

with 38-178

13.

avBpcov pro avdpatrreov

with 130

18.

+ 67T avToi/9 post 77 0/3777 aov

with 38-178

Ibid.

edvav pro veKpcov

with 38-178, \46al.pauc.

19.

+ 6 inter deov et ev rat ovpavm

with CA 14-92, fam 34, 38-
178,95-127*^

12

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

xii. 4.

T6^77 ^W T6/C77

6.

77%6v pro eyei [absque e/eet]

Ibid.

+ avrrj post rjToipaapevov

siii. 17.

prjBeis pro pr)Ti<;

xiv. 6.

ev peawov pavipari sic

Ibid.

evayyeXiaaadai + em

9.

tt/s yeipos pro ttjv %eipa

13.

<j>cov7jv peyaXrjv (pro <f>a>vr)<;)

Ibid.

yap pro Be

\4 fin.

o£vv pro o£v

xv. 4.

T49 ere ov pr) <f>oj3i)dri Ke '

6.

+ avrtov post arrrdr)

xvi. 3.

- 0.776X09

4.

eyevovro

14.

- eKeivrj?

xvii. 4.

Kai aKadapra T779 iropveia<;

T779 7779

8.

ev to) fiiffXia) pro em to /3t/3-

Xiov

xviii. 2.

Baipovieov

Ibid.

4- Kai (pvXaKTj 7ravro<; drjpiov

aKadaprov Kai pepiaripevov

12.

Xpvaiov (pro j^pvaov)

Ibid.

apyvpiov

xviii. 13.

ittttov; pro nnrwv

14.

— ra ante Xapirpa

16.

Xpvaa) ( - ev)

Ibid.

papyapiTT) pro pMyapirait

17.

Kai 7ra? 0 em rov roirov rrXewv

19.

eKpa^av pro expa^ov

21.

+ 77 ante 7roXi<;

with 40
with h vg syr
with 36, 1 78, copt aeth armino
with fam 34, 130, sah boh
with 104 («*) [Etiam xix. 17]
cf. nCAP/*»* 34, 130, syr S
with IS, fam 119
with 1 30 copt
with NCAP 18, 26, 38-178,
95-127, \07, 146, gig Prim
with fam 21 and 170
with 178
with copt aeth arm syr Anon
with NaCAP 18, 95-127, 130,
146, aeth
with A 36, 56, 95-127, 100,
1 30, 1 46, syr aeth copt Prim
with N 14-92, 38-178, 146-
155, vg gig copt aeth arm
Tich Anon
Iwith 40
With 95-127 gig arm syr S
j Prim
with NAB 95-127, 146 only
-| with A 35, 132, gig aeth (34,
J 156 Prim)
with 18, 36, Hipp
with 12, 18, fam 25, 36, Hipp
with 56, 95-127, 130 (i-mroi
146)
with NC 36, 40, 59, 106, 119,
121, 146
with 18, 92, 146-155 (auro
latt)
with nCAP 95-127, 146, copt
Prim
with nB 178
with CA 35, 120, vg arm syr
SHipp
with 40

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 13
22 init. - Kai with N 1 , 1 78
Ibid. caXmyymv pro aaXmo-rcov with fc$ fam 35, 90, 130 (cf.
146 Hipp aaXmyKTwv)
23. + <j>a>vr) ante vvpfyry; with C 19, 126, aeth syr S
xix. 13. pepavriapevov • with P 36
xx. 3. eKXiaev ( - avrov) with N 1 04
8. +77 irapa ro yeikou' (ante T779 ¦) • 1 93
^aXacro-779) J
11. + rov ante rrpoamirov with NAP 95-127, syr S copt
Ibid. + avrovpost irpoo-oairov with 56, 67, 95-127, 1 14, 120,
1 46, syr S copt aeth

xxi. 4.

— 0 ante davaro<;

with « 18, 22***, 23, 38, 47

18.

¦Xpvo-iw Kadapm pro %pvo-iov
Kadapov

jwith/aw 21, 1 14, 130, copt

19.

KapxrjBcov pro ¦xaXiajScov

with 35-68-132, 143, 146 txt
et com., copt syr S

21.

+ Kai ante eKaaro<;

with P 35-68-132, 56-108**,
syr S aeth latt

xxii. 2 init. + Kai

with gig arm aeth syr S

5.

en pro exei

with HAP fam 35, 56-108**,
65, 127, 143, \ 46 txt, copt

Ibid.

Kai ovk egovaiv %peiav

with A, 146, latt syr S

Ibid.

eir avrov<;

with NA \8, fam 35, \27, gig
Prim Anon

16.

ev pro em

with A \8,fam 21, 38-178,
56-108**, \27, gig copt

17.

— Kai 0 aKovcov eiirarco eXde

with 35, 90, arm aeth Anon

A careful study of the above will show endless combinations with
all our most striking documents (besides the uncials), such as 1 8, 56,
1 30, 1 46, and the Patmos MS. 1 78, especially the Syriacisers or those
with Graeco-Syriac base, such as 40, with which we are alone no less
than five times, and as many times with that interesting document 1 30.
All this does not seem to point to eclecticism, but to a base reaching
even beyond all these. It is important to consider in this connection
the syriac element underlying such MSS. as 1 8 and 40 with the agree
ments with the Patmos MS. 1 78 and with Gwynn's Syriac S for some
possible Graeco-Syriac common original base.
Next we must consider the new readings of our MS., and the list
would be a fearsome one indeed but for the lesson conveyed above,

14 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
where from Tertullian and Hippolytus to h, gigas, Primasius,
and Gwynn's Syriac we find such intense sympathy, so that, ruling
out a few which may have come into the text later, the bulk of them
must be relics of a text antedating all uncials and the important cursives
18, 36, 38, 40, 56, 95, 1 14, 130, 143, 146, 178.
Excluding spelling then, we have the following : —
Unique Substitutions.
1. 1 . avrov pro irjaov xpiarov
8. o 0eo9 pro o Kvpios (Kvpio<; o deo<;, 146)
The verse, omitting Xe7et, now runs thus : " eya> ei/xi to a Kai to do 77
apyr) Kai to T6X09 • 0 deo<; o <ov Kai o rjv Kai o ep%opevo<; o travTa-
Kparaip." Cf. Tert Hipp.
1 1 . aapBrjv pro aapBeis
15. too- 6« Kapeivov pro 0)9 ev xapiveo
16. Karexmv pro Kai e^wv init.\ (Cf. 178 in x. 2)
19/20. pera to pvarr-qpiov • tovs £ aarepa<; ovs tSes em T779 Xvj(yia<;
(pro pera ravra • to pvarrrpiov tcov eirra aarepasv cov eiSe<s
em T779 Sextos pov)
i. 20/ii. 1 . Conjungit ita : eiaiv reov ayyeXcov tcov ev ve<f>eaco • ( - e««X.)
ypayjrov Xeyov • (pro eiat tw ayyeXa T779 e<peo-ivr)<; [vel ev
e<f)eaa>] eKKXrtaia<; ypatyov)
ii. 6. e^e koX prjo-iaio- sic pro ex«9 on ptaevi (Cf. arm et Tert6e Prascr-)
13. /Mvproevais (Obs. - evai<; AC 1 46 copt syr S)
14. et pro on (Om. on C 130 Prim)
16. 0)9 av Kparei<; pro rayy
1 7. to pavva to KeKpvppevov (Cf. 1 43 ; cf. aeth vg latt [non
Prim])
Ibid, to ovofia pro ovopa Kaivov (Cf. 59 arm)
22. avrovs pro avrrrv
23. avriov pro avri)<i (Cf arm 1 /2)
ii. 24. o>9 Xe76Tat ovv pro 0)9 Xeyovcriv
27. iroipavco pro iroipavei
Ibid. ovto>9 pro 0)9 sec ante Kaym
iii. 2. areipigcov pro o-rijpi^ov (o-rripifov fam 7)
4. ev aapBaicr pro ev aapBeaiv
Ibid, on pro a
1 4. tt/9 ev Tr) XaoBiKaimv eKKXria-iw; (Cf. Tert de alt. eccl.)
16. eXeyxo <re ex. rov o-roparo<; aov (pro peXXco ae epeaai eK rov
aroparo<; pov) (Cf. arm1'2-3 [invertentes]. Cf. 38, 178,
156. Cf.*)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 15
17. TreirrcoKa pro 7reTrXovT7]Ka
18. e' v"gpi)o-ai pro eyxpiaov (eyxpicrai aliq. evxpicrai ft)
1 9. (pTjXrjao) pro <piXa)
2 1 . Bcocrco avrov pro Booacc avrcp
Ibid. ei9 tov dpovov pov pro ev rco dpovm pov
iv. 3. 0)9 opao-it; pro opoio<; opaaei
4. arefpavoi xpvaoi pro arecpavov<; %pvo-oi>s (Cf verss.)
5. earal pro at elai (a eanv A)
9. eBa>Kav pro Smo-ovai (Cf. verss. : aeth lat syr et Prim)
Ibid, rco Kadrjpevcov sic
10. rreaovrea-ovv sic pro ireaovvrai (Statim cadebant Prim Fulg)
Ibid. TrpoaeKwrjaav pro irpocrKvvovai
11. eyeyovro pro eiai (Cf. Anon Fulg)
v. 2. aXXov pro eiBov ( + aXXov fam 34, syr S)
3. a@vcraov pro 7779 sec. (Cf. syrS alibi a/3, pro daXaaar]';)
6. eicriv Be (pro 01 eiai)
9. rjyeipaa pro r)yopr)aa<; (Obs. r]yiao~a<; 130)
13. ov pro o eo-nv primo loco (Cf. ft to)
vi. 1 . Xeyctfv pro Xeyovro<;
1 1 . aroXrjv XevKijv
1 2. Kai pro ore ( + Kai P al. et Prim)
16. KaXmfrare pro Kpvtyare
vii. 1 . yevrjrai pro Tvveri
2. Kal rjv e'%o)i> pro e-gpvra (Cf aeth)
Ibid, avepois pro ayyeXoi?
10. eKpaljav pro Kpafyvre?
13. rjXdav pro TiXdov
14. em pro ev
1 5. rov deov pro avrov (Cf. Prim)
viii. 13. eppeo~a> rov ovvov pro ev peaovpavr/pan
Ibid. rroXXcov pro Xoiircov (Om. syr S)
ix. 1 . KXelaia pro r) KXei? (Obs. boh plural)
10. Kai r)xav sic pro Kai eypvaiv (Obs. Kai eixov 3S-\78, fam 1 19, verss.)
Ibid, e^ovaiav exovaai rov aBiKrtaai ( — avrcov)
1 1 . exovai Be pro Kai e^oi/07.
13. <pcovr><; evos pro cpcovrjv piav ((jbowt/s fiias ft*, 56**, 59, fam 1 1 9)
x. 1 . t»o- etaroiXoi pro 0)9 arvXoi
2, 8, 9. fiifiXapiov
1 0. fivftXapiov

1 6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
8. Kai tpavrjv rjKovaa -jraXiv bk tov ovvov (pro Kai r> <f>o)vrj rrv
rjKovcra bk tov ovpavov rraXiv) (Cf. 121, 127 syr o)
xi. 5. Kareadeirr pro Kareadiei
6. /3pe%ei pro fipexv (Cf. \ 46 Hipp @pe%rj)
Ibid. o~rpe<pai pro arpefyeiv
Ibid, coadxia dv OeXmaiv
9. flXeTraaiv
15. eXaXr/aev pro eadXmaev
xiii. 1 . drrpa pro drjpiov drjpiav 36 Cf. verss.
Ibid, avafiaivovra pro avafiaivov
12. eireiroiei pro iroiei prim [eTrotet sec]
xiv. 2. o)9 cpavr] fipovri]? (ficovr)1; peyaXrjs rjv rjKovaa o>9 KidapoBcov
Krjdapi^ovrcov (pro 0)9 qbcovrjv fipovrr)*; peyaXrjs Kai <f>a>VT]v
rjKovaa Kid. Kid.)
4. rjKoXovdrjaav pro eiaiv oi aKoXovdovvre<; (Cf. verss.)
10. KeKpapfievov pro KeKepaapevov
16. eKadapiadrt pro edepicrdr)
xv. 6. Xivov pro Xivov (Cf. 36 Xrjvov)
xvi. 3. £<ocov pro tp>aa (= arm2'* vid.)
6. apa U^ioi elalv pro a^ioiyap eicri (Obs. + oirep ft ; + on 16,
36,39,69, 102 aeth Prim)
8. Tot9 avdpcoiroi<;pro rov; avdpanrov? (Cf. Prim : " ignem injicere
hominibus")
xvii. 2. oi KaroiKOwre<; avrrjv (sic) e/t rov oivov rrj<; wopveia^ avTTj<;
3. /3Xdo-(pi]pa
7. Tt v6n pro Biari (Cf. aeth int quid miraris ; copt Xe edfie)
xviii. 3. TreircoKav pro rreircoKe
13. ap,vpvov pro pvpov (apvpvav fam 21)
22. rexvewa pro rexvr]<;
Ibid, evpedrjaerai pro evpedrj
23. o)9 pro oi sec. ante fieyio-rave<;
xix. 12. exovra pro e^ow
13. a" pa pro aip,an
21. ev to) nnra> pro em rov iirrrov
xx. 4/5. o ol Xonroi sic init. tin. pro oi Be Xonroi
6. peravra sic
9. ayiav pro riyairrjpevriv ([= aeth^] ; cf. 100, 130, copt syr S;
cf. Anon 1/3 confl. " sanctam dilectam")
10. tov9 avdpeoirov; pro avrov;
1 1 . peya XevKOv (pro peyav XevKov vel XevKov peyav)
(Cf. XevKov peya 38, 1 1 4)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 17
12. Kai fiiftXia rjvoi^av • Kai aXXo fiifiXiov rivoiyei
xxi. 4. BaKpoiov
17. rrrjxaiwv pro mrx&v (= ft 65 Trrjxecov)
20. aapBLovoa sic pro o-dpBio?
Ibid. vaKvvdoa
24. (popecrcoaiv (sine ace.) pro (pepovcriv
xxii. 17. Kai deXcov epxeadco pro e\6er<o Kai o deXcov
(Cf. arm gig syr S ; cf. Anon)
21. p,era rcov ayicov erov pro pera rravrcov vpcov (Cf. Prim)
Now we reach the Unique Omissions.
i. 1 1 . ypayjrov fiiftXlov ( - eis)
1 9/20. fiera to pvarrjpiov • ( - ravra) pro pera ravra • to pvcrrrjpiov
(Cf. gloss, arab. in boh)
ii. 1 . — eKKXrjaia1;
2. — on
9. — avvaymyrj
1 7. — Kaivov
23. - vpw post Ba>aa>
iii. 4. - ev XevKoi<; (Cf. aeth " Et amb. tecum pure " tantum)
iv. 5. — Kaiopevai evwmov rov dpovov (— Kaiopevai copt)
v. 2. — eiBov
6. Kepara Kai ocpdaXpov; £" ( - 67TTa prim)
8. - yepovaas dvpiaparav
9/10. — ev tw aipari aov eK rrao-ry; <j>vXi]'; Kai 7X0)0-0-779 Kai Xaov
Kai edvov; Kai eiroirjaas 77/^09 to) dew rjpcov (Cf. 1 30) f
12. Kai irXovrov Kai Botjav Kai evXoyiav (- Kai aocpiav Kai laxvv
Kai nprjv)
13. — em rov dpovov
13/14. — Kai to Kparo<; eis rov; aimva<; rcov airnvrnv Kai ra reaaapa
£o>a eXeyov aprjv •
vi. 15 init. - Kai
vii. 3. - rriv yrjv prjre
4. /5ka pro ppB
1 2. - Xeyovre<; aprjv
viii 8. - peya
ix. 1. — 6/c tou ovpavov
f This probably indicates that in a very old copy this omission gave rise
to the rapid and wrong transition, involving all the future copies.

18 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
14. -rco ante <rrorap,co
xi. 18. - rov ante piadov
xii. 1 . - crrecpavos
xiii. 3. - tov davarov txt Suppl. marg ** ; cf. ft
17. - v ™Xi)o-ai (Cf. Anon: "mercari")
xiv. 15. qbcovrj peyaXrj (- ev)
xv. 3. — Bixaiai
7. — eirra prim ante ayyeXois
xvii. 1 . - Kai eXaXrjcre per epov ([ = aeth] ; cf. Cypr. : " et aggressus est
me" pro "et locutus est mecum")
9. 67TTa opt) eiaiv (- ai eirra KecpaXai)
11. — o rjv Kai ovk eaTl
xviii. 8. - Kai rrevdos Kai Xipo<; (- Kai Trevdos 19 solus)
Ibid. - ev ante irvpi
10. - Xeyovre<;
1 4. - erov prim
20. - Kai prim ante oi ayioi
xix. 11. - Kai aXrjdivo'i
15. - tov deov
21 init. -Kai
xx. 6. - o (ante excov)
xxi. 4. - ovre Kpavyrj (Obs. ord. ft ; obs. - ovre irevdos arm x A)
1 6. - Kai to vyfro<; avrr)<; (Cf. 92 et sah)
xxii. 19. - ravrr)<;
20/21 jungens, om. rj xaPl<> T0V Kvpiov rjpcov irjaov xpiarov (Cf.copt)
The following are the
Unique Additions.
i. 1 2. + Kai dvaiaarrjpiov post xpvo~a<s
ii. 23. + evi ante eKacrrco (Cf. aeth arm copt Vict Tun)
24. + roi<; ante Xonroi'i
Ibid. + rov deov aXXa inter /3a6r) et tov crarava
iii. 3. + Kai init.
iv. 3. + V inter Xidco et lacririBi
Ibid. + rjv (sine ace. velspir.) ante lepeia sic (pro tpi<;) (Cf. 56 post ipi<;)
5. + avrov post dpovov prim + avrcov Prim; contra syr S
rcov dpovcov
v. 13. «UTOt9 travra • rjKovaa Be Xeyovra<;
vi. 6. 0)9 cp<ovr)<; pro epeovryv
vii. 9. + ttoXXcov ante earcorei

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 19
11/12. Post deco 11 fin. + rjpcov tco Kadrjfievco em tco dpovco Kai rco
apvico (errore)
ix. 5. + e^ovaiav ante iva p,i) (Cf. arm aeth + mandatum)
x. 10. + avrov inter %et/309 et rov ayyeXov (Cf. aeth)
xi. 1 . + KaXa (absque ace.) ante rov vaov
xiii. 6. + Kai ante irpo'i rov deov
1 7. + eiri rov peronrov avrov (post o to xapaypa ex<ov invert?)
xiv. 3. + evcomov rov deov Kai ante evcomov rov dpovov
4. + iravrcov ante rcov avcov (Cf. lux. "ex omnibus")
7. + rco deco ante rco iroirjcravn (Cf. gig + Deum ; cf. arm *)
1 4. + Kai post avdpcoTTOv
xv. 3. Post rr)v coBrjv + rov dv aveiXrjcpoTcocr. Bta^jriXacpovvToa
4. [oo-iocr] + Kal BUaiocr ( = h prob. et arm)
7. + Tots post ayyeXoi<;
Ibid. + £post xpvcra<;
8. + rov deov post vaov
xvi. 1 8. + em r-qs 7779 inter eyevero (sic) et peya<;
xvii. 1 . + TOUT779 post iropvr)<; ( = aeth)
1 3. Kai Bvvapiv Kai e^ovcriav ( — rrjv bis) sed + Kai rrjv e^ovcriav
postea.
17. + ftovXrrv post eBcoKev
xviii. 3. + ecrrpr/viacrav Kai ante eirXovrrjcrav ( = arm)
4. + peyaXrjv post epeovyv
6. + ro ante BnrXovv
1 4. + Kai aircoXovro post airo erov sec.
xix. 7. +77 Bo%a Kai ante o yapo<;
10. + 7a/) inter aov et eipi
Ibid, iv + X& Pr0 T0V 1'ijcrov sec.
xx. 4. iv + %u
Ibid. + avrcov post xptarov
14. + T77i> Kaiopevi)v post Xipvqv
xxi. 2. + rjroipacrpevrjv post KeKocrprjpevrjv [Habet etiam dntea, ante
o)s vvpcpTjv] (Cf. Auct de prom et Iren 1/2)
12. [Kai em Tots irvXcocriv] + exovcra [ay7eXous] t/3
21. + rjv (sic) ante xp^aiov Kadapov
xxii. 8. [Kai ore rjKovaa Kai] e^Xeircov + Kal rjKOvcov ravra
And here are the Transpositions.
iv. 1 . per epov XaXovcra pro XaXouo-779 per epov
ix. 18. ex rov Karrvov Kai rov ttvjOos Kai tov diov

20 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xiii. 17. o to xaPaypa excov
18. 77 erocpia coBe ecrriv (Cf. boh)
xvi. 1 7. a7ro tou dpovov eK rov vaov ( - rov ovpavov) Xeyovaa
xix. 8. Kai Xapirpov Kadapov
These very few unique transpositions indicate no careless copying,
for careless copying always involves many transpositions.
It will be noticed that additions and omissions nearly balance one
another. The striking ones will easily meet the eye.
The substitutions can be weighed carefully as to their historical
connection. It is unnecessary to add a word more. But it is worth while to
have waded through so much material to reach this long-lost witness.
H. C. HOSKIER.
(To be continued?)
[After surveying 201, 202, we shall take up such MSS. as 18,
36, 38-178, 40, 56, 130, 143, 146, 170, and the agreement of these
with 200 should be already noted.]
P.S. — Let the reader observe that we have recovered practically
the full text of the uncial MS. E in the cursives 67- 1 20, and that of
F in the cursives 38- 1 78, so that wherever these cursives are involved
they carry with them E and F respectively.
As regards the above lists, note that 104 belongs to the large
Graeco- Latin family 7.
1 30 and 1 70 belong to the large family 2 1 -28, etc., which com
prises a composite Syriac and Egyptian base.
Family 34 is Coptic.
1 46 is the (Ecumenian MS. from Messina.

ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
APOCALYPSE-REGENT INVESTIGATIONS

PART II

BY
H. C. HOSKIER

Reprinted from " The Bulletin of the John Ry lands Library"
Vol. 7, No. 2, January, 1923
1923

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE — RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS. By H. C. HOSKIER.
II.
IN our last we dealt with Apoc. 200. Now we have to deal
with No. 201, a very different MS., with a commentary by
an unknown author.
The scholia are attributed to Origen by Diobouniotis and Harnack,
who published an edition in 1911.
This publication is not only faulty and inaccurate, but the pride of
the scholar has caused Harnack to print his suppositious emendations
in the text of the work and the real readings of the MS. are relegated
to the footnotes, an inverted and pernicious manner of editing a docu
ment, so far unique, to which the present writer seriously objects.
Apart from itacisms and some spelling in the text of the Apoc.
proper, which Harnack has changed, I would call attention to the
following errors : —
i. 1 . to) BovXco avrov is omitted before icoavvrj but is present in the MS.
ii. 1 . Read rcov ayyeXeov for rco ayyeXco
4 init. and 1 4, 20. Read aXXa instead of aXX'
8. MS. has eapvpvr) sic.
1 0. MS. has Xafieiv not fiaXeiv
21. Read avrr)v for avrfi
22. Read ftdXco not fiaXco
25. Read «%/3t ov av not axpK ov av
iii. 1/2. MS. has veKpbcr eyrjvov not veKpos el . yivov
2. Read rjpeXXov not epeXXov
7. MS. has (of course) BaB and not AaviB as printed. (So also in v. 5.)
9. Omit eyco before rjyatrrjcra
12. Add pov after deov prim.
Ibid. Read emavrov sic, not eVt avrov
J4. Read eKKXr)ariai<; for eKKXr]cria<;
Ibid. Read o 7rtCTos 6 dXr)divo<; not 6 mo-rb<; Kal dXr)divo<;

2 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
iv. 3/4. Harnack prints in his text " opoLcos tpaan crpapayBivcov Kal
KVKXodev rov dpovov" but this clause appears only in the
margin, and correctly thus : opoim 0)9 opacrei<; crpapaylrjvm
dpovov KVKXcodev tov dpovov
7. Dele ro before irpoacoirov
8. Read e'xovra for e%oi>
Ibid. Read 0.7409 ter not semel
Ibid. Supply o 0eo9 after ku/mos
1 0. Read elKocri reaapecr for e'lKoaiv recrcrape<i. (eiKoai also V. 8.)
v. 1 . Read eppecrco for ev fiecrco
2. Read Kai iBov ayyeXov, ayyeXov laxvpov for ayyeXov semel.
8. For " irpocrevxai ovrcov [covrcov] " read irpoo-evxaictv tcov ayuov
1 1 . For elBov read iBcov
1 3. For aliTois irdvra, rjKovcra read outoZs ' iravraa rjKOVcra
Ibid. For tou dpovov read rco dpovco ¦
vi. 4. Dele «at before h»o
7. Dele cpcovrjv
9. For " tw Xoyov [tjjv Xoyriv] " read t<uz/ Xoycov
1 1 . Add tfat before 01 peXXovre<;
1 2. For peXa<; eyevero read eyevero peXa<; •
16. For 67ri tou dpovov read eV* tm dpovco
vii. 1 and 9. For elBov read i'Sov
/fef. Add 0 before avepo<;
4. For rapdvra reacrapet; read crapdvra = reaaapecr
5/8. For BcoBeKa read i/3 passim.
6. For pavaacrr) read pavacrrj
7. For 'lacrdxap read icraxap
8. For eacppayicrpivoi read eo-<£  j«r, termination indeterminate
9. Add 7roXu9 after 0^X09
/fo'<£ For cpoiviKa? read cpvviKa1;
10 and 15. For eVt tou dpovov read 67rt tw dpovco
1 7. For oBrryrjcrei read oBrjyij
Ibid. For " i^aXei-yjrei [-Xrjtyei] " read e^aXei^rr)
viii. 3. Instead of ?}X#ez> codex has egrjXdev sic
6. „ ,, 60UTOU9 ,, „ OUTOU9
7. „ ,, KareKarj [-Kaei] „ „ KareKaei
1 1 . Codex lacks 7^6/309 which is printed in the text
ix. 2. Instead of " r\votf-ev [tjvigev] " codex has rivv^ev
4. „ „ " &rt tiSz/ percotrcov [-oircov] " codex has e7rt to) peroirm
6. „ „ ott' outow 6 ddvaro<; codex has o davaros air avrwv
8. „ ,, rpLxa<;yvvaiKcovcoe\ex\\BiSrpixa<;w<srpixa<;yvvaiKS)V

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 3
1 1 . Instead of /3ao~tXea eV avrcov codex has 6tt avrcov fiacriXea
17. For elBov read t'Bov
Ibid. For em avrcov read err avrcov
Ibid. For iaKivdivov; read vamvdvvov;
20. For XPv0~ta read xPV0~ea
Ibid. Supply ra before apyvpea
x. 1. For (.'Sop z#zV. read iBcov
Ibid. For " r) 2pi<; [lpei<s] " read r)p6ia sic
7. For tou9 BovXov; eavrov read tou9 eavrov BovXov<;
8. For fiifiXapiBiov read fipfiXapiBiov sic
1 1 . Supply 67rt before e#i>eo-t
xi. 1 7. For eiXrjcpas read riXicpas
1 8. Between tow veKpebv and Kpidrjvai codex has z'ta
xii. 3. For irvppb<; fieya<; read fieyaa irvpba
5. For pdfiBco read pdvBco
10. Dele 77 before /3aeriXeia
xiii. 1 . For fiXacrcprjpias read ftXaacprjpeiacr
2. For a>9 crropa codex has Scrropa
3. For »9 read oWet
4. Between Tt'9 op,oio<; and toj dtjpico supply o-ot i«/,
5. Dele i^ovcria
6. For flXacrcprifiiav read ftXacrcpTjpeiav
Ibid. For " o-Krjvr)v [-evrjv] " read <jkivt\v
7. For iroXepov iroifjcrai read iroirjcrai iroXepov
10. For diroKrevvei read diroKrivei
1 1 . For e'XaXet read e'XaX77
15. For irvevpa Bovvai read Bovvai irvevpa
Ibid. For iroirjo-rj read iroirjaei
Ibid. For e'oy read ai>
/#z'<£ For irpoo-Kwr)crcoGiv read rr poa Kwrjcrovcriv
All this is in addition to the notes at foot which claim to reproduce
the actual MS. readings where different from the text as printed.
We will now give some particulars of the readings of Apoc. 20 1 ,
which, according to Harnack, is bound up with the previous MS.
Both MSS. are of 1000 A.D. or earlier. This one is written partially
by the Scribe of 200 and partially by another, but has a commentary.
The inscription is airoKaXvvjis tov ayiov icoavvov tov OeoXoyov
and we have no subscription, as the MS. is mutilated and the text
ends ati xiv. 5,

4 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
It has considerable affinity with the small group 1 4-92 and with
the extraordinary MS. 1 30. Thus, at vi. 11, while substituting
avairaveraerdai for iva avairavercoVraL with 1 30 (avairaveraerde),
we have a new and very likely reading of piKpov (tantum) without
en xpovov, thus : " Kai eZcoOrj avTOts erroXrj XevKfj Kai eppeOtj
avTOis avairaveraerdai piKpov, eeos irXr/pcocrcveriv Kai 01 ervvoovXoi,
avrcov Kai ol aSeXcioi avrcov Kai ol peXXovres airoKTeveernai cos
Kai avToi.'
There is always something new to be learned in every MS.
examined, as only by the whole witness of our documents can we
hope to recover long lost original phrases.
Thus — for better or for worse — this MS. at last pretends to solve
the great difficulty at xii. 7. The impossible iroXeprjerai pera dis
appears, and pera (minus eiroXeprjerav or iroXeprjerai) becomes
intelligible, the whole hanging together thus : " Keu eyeveTO iroXepos
ev tco ovpaveo • O Mty^rnX /ecu ol ayyeXoi avrov peTa tov
SpaKovTO<;, Kai o SpaKCov eiroXeprjcxe Kai ol ayyeXoi avrov, Kai
ovk io~xyerev (rather than urxyerav) . . .
Hitherto we have had to read eiroXeprjerav Kara (or pera), or
TroXeprjerai (some " tou TroXeprjerai ") pera.
Notice also the strange e^ei, for eerTiv prim, in xiii. 18 : "o>Sei?
crocpia e^ei."
Amongst the new readings, besides the three above-mentioned.
are to be noted these : —
i. 6. + rjficov post deco
ii. 10. Xafteiv pro fiaXeiv
iii. 1. fin. - ei
18. cpavei pro (pavepcodrj
v. 1 . + Kai eppeaco post Begiav
8. irpocrevxaioav (sine ace.) pro ai irpocrevxai
vi. 9. Bia rcov Xoycov pro Bia rov Xoyov
17. - on
ix. 7. opoicopa pro opoia
Ibid. + opoicofia ante 0)9 arecpavoi
Ibid. + xpvaoi post arecpavoi
1 8. + Kai post avdpcoircov
20. to apyvpaia sic sine ace, (Cf. ft xpvcraia)
xi. 6. + Kai ante KXeicrai

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE
xii. 14. + iva ante oirov rpecperai
16. evefSaXev pro efiaXev
1 7. ev pro em ( = gigas)
xiii. 4. + aoi post opoio'i (Cf. + rovrco copt syr S Iren Prim)
5. iroXeprjerai pro el-ovcria iroirjcrai
Intimacy with 14-92 is shown below : —
iv. 5. Kai pro ai eicri So 1 4-92 (1 30)
viii. 3. efrXdevpro yXdev So 14-92 and 130
ix. 13. piav cpcovrjv So 14-92
1 7. iiririKovi pro iinrov<; So 1 4-92 and B.
xi. 5. eKiropevqerai So 14-92
13. ev cpoficopro epcpo/3oi So 14-92 and N 44-52-82 syr S
xiii. 2. Xeovrcov So 1 4-92 and N syr 5; Victorin
1 5. airoKravdrrvai (pro

}

So 14-92

iva airoKravdcocri)
Among other peculiarities we may notice : —
i. 7. oyjrovrai pro o^frerai with N 1 , 12,81, 114, fam 1 1 9 syr copt
ii. 17. - airo „ 19, 130
iii. 12

ovikcov iroirjaco avrco \
,. \ . ~ \ „ N*47,6 ,92[w«14],IOO*. 130
(/r<? outoz/) cttvXov J > > i j> >
iOt09 opacrei crpapayBivco
KVKXodev tov dpovov txt

iv. 3/4. — opoio<; opacrei crpapayBivco «at"l . , ..^ .

iv. 8.

exovra pro eixov

>»

P 23, 38, 50, 56

9.

Bcoacocriv

>»
N 67, 81,92
9/10.
+ aprjv post aicovcov
l»
N32, 95*, 121 syrS
v. 13.
oaa ecrriv pro a ecrri
»>
fam 34
vii. 1 init. - Kai
11
CA 127, 130, latt, sah
Ibid.
+ 6 ante avepo<;
11
C tf/z'^. et 200
3.
Kai pro prjre prim.
»»
A 38-178, 106
6.
- e/c cpvXr]<; acrrjp t/3 %tX * ecrcppay
J»
35-87, 91
8.
/3eviapeiv
11
AP al perpauc.
17.
oBrjyrj pro oBrjyijaei
»»
39, 109
viii. 5.
9 fin.
fipovrai Kai cpcovai Kai acrrpairai
Kai aeicrpoi
Biecpddpei
\
11»l
46, 57, 62-3, 69, 72, 80
7,45,81*
11.
coo-Uyfrivdov pro ei'9 ayjrivdov
11
(F 200) h Prim.
Ibid.
ttoXXv sic pro iroXXol
11
<69)
x. 7.
evqyyeXicraro
11
aliq. et 130
9.
airriXda
11
A aliq. et 200
/&V4
KapBiav pro KoiXiav
ft
A 63, 178
6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

10.

Karecpaya

with 35, 59, 67

Ibid,

KapBia * pro KoiXia

» »

59

xi. 6.

exovai rrjv pro exovcriv prim.

>»

CAP 127

11.

ev avroK pro eir avrovs;

»i

A al. 200

18.

— tov ante picrdov

» »

200. This would ap
pear to be deliberate

Ibid.

tou9 piKpov; Kai rov; peyaXov<;

ii

NCA200

xii. 18.

earadrj

»»

NCA pauc.

xiii. 4.

on pro 09

> »

NCAP al. et 200

18.

- Kai ante o apidpo<;

ii

(Cf. 109)

The Commentary.
The scholia in this MS. — not those of Andreas, Arethas, or
Oecumenius — have already been printed by Harnack. They are
printed separately apart from the text, and the edition is full of errors.
I would much prefer not to give a list of these, but feel bound to
mention the more important ones, since it is a new document and
cannot be referred to properly as long as the text is ambiguous.
Thus in the very first scholion beginning " ov /j,axerai tco Xexdevri
viro tov crpcr irpocr rover yveopipovcr. ovKeri KaXeb ipacr BovXovcr aXXa
cpiXova 
a subsequent clause is printed as : " ovre<; opoXoyovcriv eas rvyxdvovai
BovXoi, d^iov Kal jxeyicrrov r)yovp,evoi deov Becrirorrtv e^eti/," but the codex
has plainly " a^iofia fieyicrrov " and not " agiov Kal peyicrrov."
It continues " ev yov (sic) raicr eiriaroXaicr aicr ypdcpovcriv cocr aXXoi ra
dvrjrS>v a^icopara irporaryovcriv 1 (sic) tovto avro."
Again in Scholion 3 please read (fifth line) paKapioiroiei and not
paKapi^erai. This is perfectly plain. (The footnote suggests paKapiovariei).
In Scholion 5 Harnack has insisted on printing : dXX' o>9 irdvra ev evBev
Kal aXXo>9 irdvra ev • kvkXo<; ydp 6 aur6<;, but the codex reads : aXXoxr
iravra ev evdev Kai irav kvkXog ydp o avrocr • which Diobouniotis gave
him. Line four delete rb before o and before co.
In Scholion 6 delete (line five) tco before deep, the footnote is incorrect.
Line 16 for " paxaipa, yXcoacra? Be crocpiav icovra<;" read paxaipacr
yXcocrcrai Be aocpiav icovrai.
1 Double t is practically always written T7, not reproduced in the edition.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

Scholion vii.

Line 10.

Read veKpbcr for veKpbv

p. 24.

Line

2.

Delete pev

Scholion viii.

Line

1.

Read em rrjcr avrov £cor)v and not eV^
avrov £0)771/

Scholion ix.

Line

8.

Delete Kal before KaKeidev

Scholion x.

Line

3.

Read p-axdpeva for paxopevov text anc
paxdpevo as in the footnote

Line

4.

Read diro/3aXa>v for dirofiaXelv

Line

5.

Read dcprjKaaov for dcprJKas aov

Line

6.

Read yeyovei for eyeyovei

Scholion xi.

Line

3.

Footnote should read diroXecrdeicr

Line
4.
Read ireipadrjcrerai
p. 26.
Line
2.
Add rbv cpdeipovra after deov
Line
5.
Codex = yvovcracr irdcracr
Line
6.
Add Kal before raparyopevocr sic
Line
7.
Add rrjv before rapax^v
Scholion xiii.
Line
2.
Read diraraicovaa
Scholion xiv.
Line
7.
For XevK-rj read XevKr)
Line 1 1 .
Delete Se
Line
12.
Read rovrov for tovto
Line
13.
Footnote should be em rov Kpovirrov
Kpovcrrov
Line
15.
Read Kara dXXrjXcocr
7779
not
not
But it would be wearisome to continue. I will only add from the
remaining 25 scholia a few of the worst errors.
Scholion xx. Line 1 1 . Supply £cor) after irapovo-y
Scholion xxi. p. 30 Line 2. Delete tou before irpoacoirov
Delete 0 before dXr)divb<;
Add eivai before ev eavrco
Delete Kai before ra Knapara
Read ovxi' not oi>x
Delete rr)<; before cpvXr)<;
For rr)v dvdcrraaiv read avacrraeriv yap
Read Ka'ivov for Kaivr)v
Delete [on]
Text is correct irpocrdyerai but the footnote is
futile for the codex is plainly irpocrayerai,
written irp(o (fin tin) ayerai and never
irpioayerai. He was evidently not famil
iar with irp(o for irpoa.
Scholion xxii.
Line 9.
Line 18.
Scholion xxvi.
Line 7.
Scholion xxvii.
Line 23.
Scholion xxviii.
Line 2.
p. 34.
Line 1 .
Line 3.
Scholion xxix.
Line 21.
p. 35. Line 1
and note.
THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Scholion xxx. Line 2. Codex has virrjperrrriKai
Kal al iireXacrTiKai sic is correct. No question
"of " vult D."
Add T77i> before yi)v
ov to in footnote ovrco but codex ovrcocr
Add rovrov before BeopevoK
Never irodrjacocri. Codex plainly irodrterovo-iv
Last word 0/3777 not opyrjv
Footnote should be eireiacre not eireiocre
Read irapavrov for irapd avrov
Read apapnacr for dpMpriav
Read KoXacrei for KoXdcrrj
Footnote corrects text ry to rrjv but leaves
irpoarjyopia. Codex has rrjv yap eire-
aeicre, irpoarjyopeiav
Codex eirl Tr) (not T779) tov BiafioXov
Codex avrovcr. Not "fortasse" as footnote
Read civ ovv for ovv av
Read eK T779 irpcorrjcr for ev rfj irpcorrj
Read excopev for exop,ev
Line 26. Footnote "fortasse vorjaopev." Codex vorjaco-
pev
Line 30. Read irapacrrrjcracr compendio not irapacrrrio-ei
or irapaaT-qs
Read eavrcov for avrcov and diroheiKvvvrcov
Read avrovcr atriovcr for alriov;
Read irapaXeXoLirorcov for irapaXeiirbvrcov
Read Kara rbv rov dv for Kara rbv deov
Add cpeperai after erepaK
Read ecpovcr for ecp'ol<;
Read KoXa&pevoi not KaXa^opevoi
Read fj,erbirov
Read eBcoKaa for BiBcoKas
Read rolfov for to^ov
Read crapKa for aireppa
Printed text irepiovrcov, footnote irepiovres, but
codex has irepidvrocr
Read aKoXovdeiav
Read Birjpeicrdai not Biaipeicrdai
Codex has rovrov ovv rov irjX. Text and
footnote not clear

lion xxx. Line

2.

Line

3.

Line

4.

Line

5.

Line

7.

Line

8.

Line 10.

Line

11.

Line 14.

Line

16.

Line 19.

p. 36. Line

3.

Line

5.

Line

11.

Line

12.

Line

13.

Line

17.

p. 37. Line 2.

Line 3.

Line 4.

Line 5.

Scholion xxxi. Line 4.

Line 5.

Line 6.

Line 8.

Line 11/12.

Line 13.

Line 13.

Line 14.

Line 1 7.

Line 18/19.

Line 19.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

Line 19.
Line 22.
Scholion xxxii. Line 3.
Line 4.
Scholion xxxiv. Line 2.
Scholion xxxv. Line 1 .

Line 3.
Line 7.
Line 8.
Line 10.
Line 1 1 .
Scholion xxxvi. p. 40 Line
Line 14.
Line 16.

Line 16.
Line 18.
Scholion xxxvii. Line 3.
Line 7.
p. 41. Line 2.
Line 5.
Line 7.
Scholion xxxviii. Line 4.
Line 9/10.
p. 42. Line 1.
Line 14 and note.
Line 16.

P. 43.

Line 5.

Text Xeyovres. Footnote says " Xeycopev corr.
D." but Xeycopev is the true reading of
codex.
Text iroXXrjv, footnote iroXXr], but codex has
fin Un iroXXrf-
Read irapdeveiacr for irapdevias \irapdevov% is
already corrected in footnote]
Read evpicrKcopev
Bvvarai text is correct. Footnote Bvvarrj is
incorrect. Harnack has again misread
the ligature fin lin " Swots "
6 6eb<; of the text is correct. Codex = 6 da.
Footnote " dov" is a gross error thinking
the tr is «
Text oeroi, footnote bcrov, but codex ocrcb or icrco
Add pev after Baip,6via
Codex reads irvd (irvevpa errore) for irvevpara
Read XaXr)aovaiv for XaXrfkovcri
Delete Tots before -tyaXpoK
I . First word crou is correct. Footnote rov is
wrong
Read fiovXrire for /3ovXr]
Supply eirrd before fipovrcov (Codex as in
dicated in footnote has epbvrcov but
Harnack forgot the preceding 67tto.)
Supply oip.ai before rbv Kocrfiov
Delete rcov before XaXovcrcov
Read eKaarocr not eKaarov
Supply rbv between ovv and piadbv
Supply ST/XoiWat after cpofiovpevoi
Footnote should have rov before irpocprjrov as
the true reading of codex
Supply ydp before ayioi
Footnote queries an omission of a>9. Codex
has it
Read iva yvcb • pr) rr)v not Kal yvcbprj rr)v
Read yfrevBt]
touto B' icrrl should be tovto Be ecrri
Text " ev Be [add ef]." See footnote. Codex
is without it
Add rr)v before irpb<; deov

10 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Line 7 and note. Codex (difficult to read in photo), appears to be
XeTTTOTUj/^eWeo-
Line 1 1 . Read et'77 for elpi
Line 1 5. Read dvdpcoirov not dvdpcoirov
Line \6fin. Add tou deov after virorayr)v
Line 1 8. Between eKKXrjcria<; and Xapr%avopevij<t a word
is missing, va is found in the MS. begin
ning a line before Xapfiavopevr)? but the
commencement after eKKXrjaia<;, end of
previous line, is illegible
Line 19. Read ovB'ovprj for ovBe pr)
p. 44. Nothing which is not indicated
Scholion xxxix. „ „ „
Be it understood that the above are all in addition to the manu
script readings given in the footnotes. Not a very creditable showing
for the editors.
As it would be quite outside my province to go into the matter of
authorship of the Commentary, I must refer readers to Harnack's
publication, in which he takes up many important points, such as the
references to the Epistle to the Hebrews in seven separate scholia,
where the author of the epistle is referred to as "the apostle"
( = Paul) in the same breath as the author of the Apocalypse is called
" 6 deoXoyos 'lcodvvrj<;."
His general conclusions are for authorship preceding the fourth
century, and almost a certainty that Origen is responsible ; and
valuable references are made not only to Origen's general style and
trend of thought, but to unusual words in his vocabulary which find a
counterpart here. The last two scholia 38 and 39 are from Irenaeus.
I will give an example of a scholion, and copy No. xx occurring
after Apoc. iii. 11, where reference is made to Cleopas (not naming
the " other " disciple) and the journey to Emmaus. The great
unsolved question, however, of what scriptures the Lord referred to
in the Old Testament concerning Himself, remains open.
I neglect Harnack's punctuation and errors, and give the text of
the MS. :
Kyioa dXrjdivbcr • 5 fj,rj perovcria dXXd cfvcria wv
romvrocr • avrocr ecrrlv 0 dc Xoyocr "excop rr)v KXiBa tov
SdB ¦ oiriviKa crapl; yap yeyovev 6 Xoyoa • iv ravrv tt]

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 1 1
kXiBi dvoiyei racr ypacf>acr irpo rr)a eiriBripiatrcrbvcracr (sic)
KeKXeicrpevao- • acr KXelcrai ovBelcr Bvvarai cpdcrKov
avrdcr pr) ireirXrjpcocrdai. ovrcocr rjvoi^ev avrdcr rola
apcpi KXeoirav crvv f3a8i£cov iv Tr) oBco • cbcr Br) ravraa
ijveco^ev irXrjpcbcracr dvrdcr BieK^daecocr . eKKXicrev
rrjv rov vopov crKidv. e%co rrjcr 'iXijp, iroirjaacr rover
lovBaiova • Bib ovBelcr dvoigei to Kara rb ypdppa
tov vopov dvKen cpv • ijepegeter (sic) rd Xoiird Xaxdfjvai
Xcopav exovra dvoiyei p,ev rd Bvvard dvoicr vofjcrai
KXeiov Be ocra p,r) Bvvarai ev rrj irapovat] £0)77
yvcovai.
Neither the text of this MS. [unlike No. 200] nor the commentary
know anything beyond the conventional " peXXco ere epeerai e/c tou
o-to/aotos pov " clause in iii. 1 6. The com. occurs in the middle of
iii. 14 and runs as follows (I copy the MS., not Harnack's emenda
tions) : Notice the paucity of accents. It is undoubtedly a direct
copy from an old uncial : —
o iricrrocr Kai A.Xrjdivocr o crcorrjp (sic plend) virapxei ' ov Bia to
mo-Tecocr Kal aXrjdeiacr perexeiv • aXXa Bia to fiefiaiocr
Kai ovcria (sic) eivai • aXrjdivocr yap rbv avrov eiravrov ro
aXrjdeia Kal aXrjdivbcr (sic) eivai • on Be to irierrbcr • avri
fieftaiov Kai arpeirrov Keirai cprjcriv o airocrroXoa • ri
airicrTov/j,ev avrocr mcrroa pevrj • apvrjcraadai yap
eavrov ovBvvarai Kal peoarjer dc iricrrba Kal ovKeariv
aBiKia eicrrovro Xei^jrei Kal to ypacpopevov npodeco.
mo~rbo~ 6 Xoybcr • avri rov pevcov aei. Kal ov Biamincov
eiprjrai Be 6 paprvcr o irierrbcr Kal dXridivbcr irpocr
irapdcrTacriv /3e/3aioTi}Toa • coo avrocr ecrnv to afirjv '
apxw Be tho- KTicrecoa eiirev avrov ' ovxeocr Kncrp.a
irpcorov KTicrecoa apx?) ecrnv avrijcr ' aXXcocr eria (sic)
rov virapx^v avrtrv oia Bijpiovpyba dpxv yaP
iroirjpdrcov o iroiiyrrjcr • rovreerriv rrjcr KTicrecoa o
kt'icttijc ecrnv avrrjcr Kal apxcov ¦ to [here two letters (illeg.)
scratched out and cancelled] auTo Beanv Xeyeiv peXXcoae
efiecre. Kal ro eyevrjdryre fioi e cr irXrjcr povrjv ¦ oiovei Tap
eiriiroXegerai (sic) ev epol • orav yap rrjv irepi nvocr pvirptiv
airoKaXei depeavrov oicc ¦ tov toiovtov rjpecrev yevop,evov
avrco eler irXircr povtjv ' Kal Bia rrrv airoTrjcrKaKiaa (sic)
iraxvrrjra pr\ x<opovvra eivai (sic, om. Harnack) ev eavrco.

12 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
These two specimens must suffice as examples of the scholia.
Readers are referred for the remainder to Harnack's publication, for
they are all of considerable interest when contrasted with the corre
sponding remarks of Andreas, Oecumenius and Arethas.

Apoc. 202 = Meteora 237. [xi]
This the third early cursive of the Apoc. at Meteora, can be
dismissed in a few words, as it is a member of the well-known Com
plutensian group, consisting of

E
to
V00
72 1
u
•c
VS o
o o0
Vo c
<ueo
Parham,
fro Caracalla
V 1
o
u
COo
<
£V
"73 GQ3uI)
Jerusalem Meteora
10-
-17-
-37-
-49-
-77-
-91-
-96-
110-
-160-
-187-
-190—202
Apoc.
The inscription is : airoKaXvxpis tov ayiov icoavvov tov airo-
erroXov Kai evayyeXierTov deoXoyov.
There is no subscription.
A short chain commentary is found here and there throughout,
apparently extracts from Andreas.
Collated in 1 92 1 from photographs made in 1912.
Of the stereotyped Compl. family it retains such things of the
textus receptus as povovs (ix. 4), and the clause at viii. 1 2 verbatim
with the t.r., even epaivrj and not epavr/.
It is very correctly copied with but the most trifling slips, and
virtually no unique readings.
Opposite kXlvtjv in ii. 22 is the marginal note kXlvtjv acrdeveias.
At ix. 4 we find x°VT0V for x°PT0V (against the family traditions),
with 25 and 78. ttAh $ a
At ix. 5 we have irai cth the superimposed irXr/grj by the
Commentary hand. irXrjgi) is the reading of most of the Compl.
MSS.
But at xii. 4 we have TLKreiv for reKelv (see the photograph
in the previous issue of the Bulletin) which is also read by E 59,
1 20, 1 30, and Hipp as well as Compl.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 13
In xv. 6 the reading ovpavov for uaou is supported by 56 as well
as by this Compl. group.
Note at xvii. 5 our MS. reads iropvcov (for iropvcov) by a few,
and 77-96 of the Compl. family.
At xviii. 22-23 there is confusion and it is not true to type.
Our next article will deal with the Spanish MS. 143 and we can
promise that it will be of much greater interest than the foregoing.
H. C. HOSKIER.

ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
APOCALYPSE-RECENT INVESTIGATIONS

PART III

WITH FACSIMILE

BY
H. C. HOSKIER

Reprinted from "The Bulletin of the John Ry lands Library,"
Vol. 7., No. 3, August, 1923 „"' ¦
1923 '

REPRINTS OF ARTICLES WHICH APPEARED ORIGINALLY
IN THE " BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY."
With scarcely an exception these monographs embody the results' of new and original investiga-.t
tions by scholars of the highest eminence, who have thereby imparted a fresh stimulus to study in
their respective fields of research.
Demy 8vo. One shilling net each, unless otherwise stated.
Classical.
CALDER (W. M.), M.A. Philadelphia and Montanism. 1923. Pp. 46. With illustrations.
I s. 6d.
CONWAY (R. S.), Litt.D., F.B.A. The Youth of Vergil. 1915. Pp. 28.
 The Philosophy of Vergil. 1922. Pp.18.
—  The Venetian Point of View in Roman History. 1917-18. Pp. 22.
— — - Where was Vergil's Farm ? 1923. Pp.27. 10 illustrations. Is, 6d.
 The Portrait of a Roman Gentleman from Livy. 1922. Pp. 16.
GRENFELL (B. P.), D.Litt., F.B.A. The Present Position of Papyrology. Pp.21.
HARRIS (J. RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. The Origin of the Cult of Aphrodite.
1916. Pp. 30. With 9 illustrations.
 The Origin of the Cult of Apollo. 1916 Pp. 40. With frontispiece and illustrations.
— .— The Origin of the Cult of Artemis. 1916. Pp. 39. With illustrations.
 The Origin of the Cult of Dionysos. 1 91 5. Pp. 1 7. With illustrations.
 The Origin and Meaning of Apple Cults. 1919. Pp.52. With illustrations. 2s/
LAISTNER (M. L. W.), M.A. Notes on Greek from the Lectures of a Ninth Century }
Monastery Teacher. 1923. Pp.36.
SOUTER (ALEXANDER), M.A., D.Litt. List of Abbreviations and Contractions, etc.,
in the John Rylands Library Latin Manuscript, No. 15. 1919. Pp. 7.
Historical.
BRUTON (F, A.), M;A;, Litt.D. The Story of Peterloo. Written for the centenary, 16th
August, 1919. Pp.45. With plates. 2s.
HARRIS 0- RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. Three Letters of John Eliot and a Bill of
Lading of the "Mayflower". 1919. Pp.11. With frontispiece.
JOHNSTONE (HILDA), M.A. The Wardrobe and Household of Henry, Son of Edward 1.
1923. Pp.37.
PERRY (W. J.), B.A. War and Civilisation. 1917-18. Pp.27. With 9 Sketch Maps.
POWICKE (FREDERICK J.), M.A., Ph.D. Eleven Letters of John, Second Earl ol
Lauderdale (and First Duke), 1616-82, to the Rev. Richard Baxter (1615-91). 1922.
Pp. 33.
SHARP (MARGARET), M.A. A Jodrell Deed and the Seals of the Black Prince. 1922.
Pp. 12. With 3 illustrations.

II

~1^<-^K<uh^3 parte*
Hua-w-rrv-rrm EpTm iipjajrl
e-su ' pXTcauneT&uAKc K»t
y?\«'T^ko- . Ka^a/o'Tyt-Gy'oy .
J^eu fiiroi H ffaJJ airrovJTOo 5»;
VyLoo y CL3JT) A^af/j; V t p<f «r •
^atu^urV^eupBraunrtji'oialrniB' ¦e a .5^ ao jj h y <^*^a»y 7roaj» y
y,u kX" Toir&p o pov nat-roof;
^«»p K*"4T«y7rp<^u/T6-J
«o>y ' ¦ \ X (** Hy o a-f iHrtuVeni
1*11 \wp\aS& vlu ft \.aj>**syi •
^ XI AtaJ<6;3Cl>,'. a-i5 «jy7\<^>y
<Tmy8l<>5yMyj^a/-X ' i/Jroy
«&r1 y *ro ctp y i op nro *£rfVa^
jtiry o y \eurtfp th y >? t> y aj
uiV Katnc^ouTop. kmos
K<£i iJV * ay- k«4 (£i>y<>^ *}i> ^
^£ irtiy x -rt o-yai « ¦ eon V t y*I»
ovp«4jS.jC'U'&n1"rHO'Y'*'Tv':>
"otrt th o -^tyLii/arx a. aj . Jerri y
K*rrtu tyiirrovo ¦nroifi'riii •
H K'PJO c™u^6^oy«ti«jr*r» K.OJ
•tbt ydfeip ee'&clTJO'Apopai^T'O
dpyfaj- H*67\*vi«UK««Hrr1.
»lAC K<M ivJ^J J tt-' K«*TO KP WTPt
^jttouj ii-«o-ycuVT«oy<M,»y«jy
. ifTaiTWOTJLpojQScMjtA^y ajyLkuj • J^cuonTpOTTAiTtp0!

,.-TtuunpoyT«ifelCT''<'0WJO'J •
" «^e y tou tx ~i> KiNfC THir "-"" e-

orou KauayUtaly yj^oy_Hy6^
•my jr<f pq^ityreu . k« e kp ^
TH atyTO|i tfpaJlcay-nMToyo
8n y Toy «fcp,«^*ioy . o tori Ko v
t*'<uxxi\e.e • ifatttHBtvi.axfiS
TWy aiiuojD y . Kai 6 K A"f °6y
Kou&tb p cjl trty'oxray oo«urot»
•fyaiy^TrA^u M'roj't"6l,M ¦
%y\e *y,'rt AflVfrxT^tAt ««*•'
orx- ^¦y^roJTtsji'fnLN^tfA1'
-6ilyou.airroy5(^>ey«ytMKpey "
l^iy A>y4po y our icm t Ka/6n
cra^ffccrutrroi a- . xaiKfl y-au f
e\» -ft* surra 0^ X «t ^"" V
Tni TVX»°r!T1"> y ""^"tW K ""
pi-ussy St*rrvy yuxpTupiaf^
l^wci TlyoTO<Brpoo-t K«-'yti o*y
-Tu-frHpfoy eui^fji cf/cey/t-
tubnj.5. . ,$ o v K t ;\oiao >V T° V"
p a/^aj'65Bl to> y y^P"* W"*y K«i
"VftrtTHyjpfpou i^airnoy * <>\p
• 6nt^ Vcuat^otTrainraTpy £
KP*>t|-ou x'«>)K«rai« a^e;Tt
^oiairrvrAt^'oTH ' oume
Hquua>rQLeiaHtirp«TH' <p^
P *". t y TM-ay ajrr«JnJ'TTiTrp»
T* ' **»t'6s'tT»U',n»y a B^'
"* -*'i **J~* fWl '*P «j>TT»U

Eacoruil

Apoc. 143 (Reduced)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE— RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS. By H. C. HOSKIER.
III.
Apoc. 143 = Escurial X . 1 1 1 . 6 (or 1 1 1 . PC. 6) = Greg. 143
[a. 1107]
THIS is to be found referred to in E. Miller's catalogue of the
Spanish MSS. (Paris, 1 848), p. 397, where, in a volume of
292 pages, it is described as forming part (at fo. 235) of a
volume of Miscellanies, being immediately preceded by a life of
St. Elias, and succeeded by a life of St. Gregory the Armenian.
The MS. is dated 1 1 07, as per the subscription on folio 292 (at the
end of the volume) :
ereXicodij r) /3ij3Xo<; avrri prjvl iovXico k<; : erov<; ;?%«£ :.: Tpacprjo-a
oia xeipb<> Xeovriov povaxov irpeafivrepov ¦ apadov^ s iBicbrov ' elf
rrjv povrjv rod dyiov epiXiirirov rov peXirvpov. Oi evrvyxdvovre<;
9 dvcvyivmcrKOvre<; • ev^aadai virep avrov Bid rbv kv : ev
The dear old scribe was weary at the close of his labours, for
he subjoins this couplet :
'(JO'crirep £evoi xa*'P0VO~i rrarpiBa fiXeireiv.
Ovrco Kal ol ypdcpovre<; j3ij3TXiov reXo<; _ ¦£
Photographed for me by F. E. Manero, of Madrid, in 1913, and
collated in 1 92 1 . In a rough but clear early hand, the forms of psi
and chi being quite ancient, v iepeXK is of constant occurrence ; iota
postscript entirely absent. It is written in double columns of 35 lines
each. There is no catena, and there are no marginal remarks, nor
divisions. There is no subscription, and the inscription is one of the
" iv II<£t pep " ones, differing slightly from others. Occupies pp. 235
verso to 24 1 recto in the volume. Note the exact library mark, which
is often given wrongly.

2 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
It has lain " perdu " for many years, but is none the less important
for that. This MS. was entirely unknown to the critics, and is, perhaps,
one of the most important in the list.
It stands quite apart from any traditional family groups, and is
worthy of our most attentive consideration. I commend it to you very
specially. The text runs to V. 1 4, and then, without the slightest sign of an
omission, continues with chapter XX. 1 to the end. This "saltus"
occurs on fo. 239 recto col. i., three lines from the bottom (see the
accompanying photograph) . At first sight it would appear to impair
all confidence in the scribe, and nullify any value in the MS. But
sufficient remains to interest us very greatly, and possibly to explain
the circumstances which led to such unobservant copying, or extraction.
The reading /cap^tSwv in XXI. 19 gives away the provenance of
the original as Coptic (KapxtjScov is read by 35-68, 146 and Coptic).
Other readings prove that the original was a bilingual graeco-coptic
MS. In olden days, the African monks carried about with them
single books of the N.T., and in this case a worn copy, from which
the middle portion had possibly dropped out, may have formed the
basis for transmission ; perhaps one leaf happening to terminate at the
end of the fifth chapter, and the next to have on it the beginning of
the twentieth chapter.
I rise from collating these eight chapters with a profound sense of
having been in the atmosphere and in the presence of the elements of
a very ancient text, notwithstanding, the frailty of a scribe who is
somewhat crude, but evidently quite honest.1 And I reach this con
clusion without having (as it happens) been able to refer to a single
collateral document during the collation.
Upon consulting my ledger of grouped readings, however, my
conclusion is abundantly proven, and I find that we are face to face
with a situation of deepest interest.
It had struck me, as I collated, that the startling additions,
omissions, and substitutions were not mediaeval, and had a plausibility
which pointed to a possible early edition, before all our stereotyped
factors had become recognised as a kind of traditional text.
1 He describes himself as unlearned and unskilful : " duadov<; Kal
idicorov.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 3
Further examination confirms me in this view. For instance, when
the MS. suppresses ipa.Tioi<; in IV. 4, and writes that the four and
twenty elders around the throne "were clothed about with white,"
we pause to wonder whether the original may not have been worded
thus, and whether an officious redactor did not very early insert
Ipa.TLOL'i, thinking en XevKols an insufficient description ; whereas
the writer of the Apocalypse,1 describing heavenly things, would
be at liberty to chronicle his impressions of the vision in terms not
strictly mundane, and the " robes " would be unlike any earthly thing
he had ever seen (see III. 4 ev Xeu/cots tantum). But the reader may
say, " you are taking us into a region, foggy with the mists of anti
quity, and you are again ' subjective,' whereas we of the modern school
claim that we must be ' objective,' and surely some collateral evidence
would remain that there is probability as well as plausibility in your
conjecture that the omission is well-founded and approaches the long-
lost basic text." Very well, I accept your challenge, and remark
that, in this first example, chosen at random, our MS. has the very
respectable support of the great MS. 1^, of the extraordinary cursive
1 30, and of the Patmos codex 1 78, and now of our wonderful 200.
Thus <?¦? 1 30, 1 43, 1 78 and 200 stand alone in suggesting this plausible
reading !
And ^ 1 43 are again quite alone with aeth at XXI. 1 4 in omitting
expv in the description of the wall and the twelve gates. Already,
in verse 1 2, we have been informed that the great and high wall had
twelve gates. In verse 1 4 exov can ^e suppressed if we assume that
the gates just described in verse 13 formed five principal part of the
wall. The prominence given in verse 1 3 to each set of the three great
gates on the N., S., E. and W. shows that they were of immense size.
However, plausible or not, &? and 1 43 conspire again together alone
to omit expv. I call attention to it here because a very subtle but a
very important point is involved. I have noticed that when fr? writes
comparative nonsense, other MSS. and versions had difficulties in
those same places ; this merely means that the common papyrus
original, lying far back in the limbo of forgotten times, was faint and
difficult to read in those same places. Thus, here at XXI. 14, our
1 The inscription, quite exceptionally, declares the work to have been
that of the apostle John, as does the opening verse of chap. I.

4 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
MS. 1 43 writes apparent nonsense of : TpeipeXiovcr rpeier for
OepeXiov<s Sw8e/ca, after suppressing ^ov. (It is to be noted that in
a somewhat similar construction at IV. 7, we again omit exov with
gigas. And observe that, without Greek support, at IV. 2, we omit
e/ceiro with Coptic.)
So again at XXI. 4 our MS. 1 43 has a unique reading of otl ravra
for otl to. irpcoTa. It makes perfect sense, but has no backing.
Observe, however, that N had difficulty here, reading otl ra irpofiara,
Syr S em ra irpoercoira, and 59 (which is several times with us alone
elsewhere) reads otl ra a/j^aia. And even Oecumenius (Apoc. 1 46)
mixes it up, writing something I cannot read. It looks like to eirpeora.
for otl ra irpeora.
Again, as to this faintness in the original parent copy lying back
of all, note : —
xx. 4. - Kai etyjcrav 1 43, supported only by Aug, and immediately
follows ou? 'tXevaav for Kai efiacriXevcrav, as if something
there were illegible in the exemplar. Also at :
ii. 24. roif ev tov; dvarr/pois Xoiirois. Changed order. Consult N,
and ii. 26. ra epya pov axpeneXovi a unique order for axpi reXov; ra
epya pov, the words axpi reXov; are dropped by Syr S,
also iv. 3. we write : op,oia opacrei /iiayBivco. Cf. 1 20. Probably also
a faint spot in the original.
Again this faintness may be responsible for our reading at : —
xxi. 27 fin. ftifiXiov for apviov where fc? reads ovpavov,
Again xxii. 3. avadepa for Karadepa or Karavadepa where ^ reads
Karaypa. 2. Omissions.
Continuing, however, with omissions but slightly supported, or
new, we observe : —
i. 3/4. o yap icoavvr]<; rats eirra bkkX. ( - Kaipo<; eyyvi) with (102)
i. 16. - o^eia with 46-88-101 (of the 1 family) only
ii. 5. - Taxei „ NCAP 56, 1 30, 200 and versions Oec txt et
com 1 46), a notably strong conjunction for a
very early tradition
ii. 13. - ra epya erov Kai with NCAP 38, 130 Oec (146 txt),
another notable Greek conjunction, plus gig harl vg Prim
Syr S.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

IV.

i. 10.
iii.

7. - KM init. Alone with 40 (quite a notable MS.) plus Syr S.
and Prim. [Even Irenaeu^- has enim]
v. 6. - Kai ocpdaXpow; eirra with 1 44 61 121 130 (always
rather a redundant expression)
xx. 11. - 6 ante ovpavov with 21 39 73 98 copt.
xh. 1 . - r) ante daXacrera " And there was not any more sea," not
" the sea," with 51-90 and cop tic
xxi. 4. - 6 ante davaro, with « 18, 22, 23, 38, 47, all signi
ficant MSS.
xxi. 12. - Kai em toi<; irvXcoo-iv ayyeXov; BcoBeKa with AE* 62-
63,65,67, 100, 120, 136, 147 arm
xxi. 18. - avrrfi with 20, 32, 59, 136 copt.
xxi. 19. - KeKoo-firjp^voi „ P 92, 111 arm gig Prim
xxii. 16. - ravra „ Prim only
All this is anything but modern, so we cannot lightly put aside,
although unsupported, such further omissions as the following :—
l. 8. - Xeyei 6 Kvpios [Cf. Hipp : " ovrcos yap Kai icoavvrjf
eiirev "( — Xeyei o Kvpiof)]
— ev irvevfxan
1 0. - rri<; copa<; tov ireipaapov ( - tt;? copa<; copt. Syr S.)
iv. 8.-0 #605
iv. 9. - Kai evxapicrnav
xx. 2. — Kai crarava<;
xx. 4. - Kai Kpipa eBodi) avrot<;
xxi. 3. - ex rov ovpavov
xxi. 5. — o Kadrjp,evo<; em rov dpovov.1
A rather pretty distinction is drawn by an omission of the article
as between XXI. 22 fin and XXI. 23 fin.
In the earlier verse our writer says (alone with 1 00 and 1 30) :
" And I saw no temple in her for the Lord God Omnipotent is her
temple and a lamb."
In the consequent verse he remarks : " and the city had no need
of the sun, nor of the moon, that they should give light to her, for the
glory of God shines for her, and her light (is) the Iamb."
A careful study of the foregoing will pave the way towards our
further acquaintance with this recension. There is nothing particularly
1 This is probably an omission due to the Coptic column, two clauses
ending in THpOY there, and, therefore, an error of homoioteleuton, of which
there are two or three others, due to the Greek.

6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
careless or offensive about these omissions, nor do they in any way
interfere with the flow of the narrative, and they include practically
all of the rarer omissions, and may indeed be basic.
3.
Now let us take a couple of changes of case : —
At ii. 9 we read tovBaicov instead of tovBaiov;, which is supported so
far by no other cursive before our 143, but is read by N and
by C, and is so understood by aeth from its parent version.
Now attested also by 200 [see article 1]. Read then:
" And the blasphemy of those who say that they are of the
Jews," instead of " those who call themselves Jews."
It is a fine distinction but a distinction all the same, and witnessed
to by our oldest uncials. In a version this can be lost, but is, never
theless, distinctly found impressed in the aethiopic.
At xxi. 1 5 we read : eix^v per pov KaXapov xPvaovv instead of
KaXap,ov. This also has the support of Ha 31-106.
The fact that Ka corrects is rather significant.
And then let us look at a change of number : —
At ii. 22 we read : fieravorjo-ei for peravorracocriv. This singular for
plural is only to be found in 56 (a most noteworthy MS.)
and Prim [obs. Zahn against Sabatier], Cf. copt.
It makes perfect sense : ' Unless she repent.'
And then, note this change of tense : —
At. iv. 8. exovra for eixov with P 23, 38, 50, and 56, to which add :
xxi. 3. ea Kryvcocrev for o-Krjvcocrei with fc?* Ill; but compare Syr S.
Again perfect sense, but someone may have thought that
it did not accord with ecrovrai and earai following. The
Latins are all recorded for habitant. An easy change
to habitant would be possible, but the reading is not so
far given for the Latin. The reason, however, in 143
is obvious. The Coptic does not say " will tabernacle
with," but " is being with," and the word is €C^H.
The forerunner of our scribe, while copying his bi-
columnar graeco-coptic, saw CC^H in the Coptic column,
and voluntarily or involuntarily wrote the Greek aorist
eoKrjycocrev. This sight of the Coptic is visible also at
xxi. 4 where 1 43 (alone) writes ovBe ter (pro ovre).

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 7
A few changes of order have curious and notable support : —
iii. 3. rjKovaai; Kai eiXrjcpa<; only Syr S, and now 1 43 and 1 56
xxi. 1 6. ro irXaro<s avrrj<s Kai ro mjro? laa ecrnv where + avrijt post
7r\aTo? sec. has support from 18, 39 Syr S. and copt, and
the omission of aim;? after vyjro? is supported by 46 gig etc.
Together it forms an unique reading yet perfectly legitimate.
4. Additions.
All this will prepare us better to consider the additions, if we
take note of the character of the foregoing perfectly natural and legiti
mate changes : —
Of additions then observe : —
i. 4. + ovaai<; ante ev rij acria with 36 and latt.
i. 14. + Kai ante &>? Xlmv- 8-24, 36, 53 and thus exactly the
sahidic (extant here) &YW3 «©e tt OY^ICJUIt
retaining Kai and »?, and boh with ItEJU.
i. 20. + ai xpvcrai post Xvxviai with 36 (notable MS. of graeco-
syriac parentage) and Syr S.
ii. 10. + yap post iBov with 59
ii. 13. + pov post qpepais ,, 95
Ibid. + pov post iriarof „ CA 14-92, 146
ii. 27. + Kai avvrpiyjrei avrov; ante oj? ra crKevr) with 36 again
iii. 3. + peravorjerrj<; fjirjBe (ante yprjyoprjcrrji;). This is read by
no Greeks but by Prim and the Coptic
iv. 8. + ro ante ayio<; So 12 and Coptic
v. 3. + ovre post ijBvvaro with 36 and sah latt (exc. gig).
v. 5. + yap post iBov „ 36
xx. 4. + i'Bcov inter Kai tert et ra<; yfrvxa1; with 56, 95, 127 (a
notable combination) and sah.
xx. 6. + o ante ayio<; with 32
xx. 1 0. rrjv Kaio/j,evi)v irvpi pro Kai deiov Cf. 32 copt. Note also :
xxi. 8. rov irvpo<s pro rrj Kaiopevrj irvpi Kai deico and cf. copt Tert
Hipp.
xx. 10. + e/3\rjdrjcrav post o ylrevBoirpoepr)rij<; with 32
11. + tou ante irpoercoirov with «SAP 95, 127, copt Syr S.
xxi. 19. 4- opoico ante iravri „ 32 (opoioi)
xxii. 16. + Kai o Xoyospost Bah „ 32 and 65
xxii. 18. + ieoavvrj<; post paprvpco
eyco (-yap) „ Prim
xxii. 19. + avrov post iroXecos „ Syr S.

8 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
The above will not seem so extraordinary if weighed in the at
mosphere of the early stages of transmission and not attributed too late.
5. Substitutions.
As to substitution or the equivalent, observe : —
i. 9. ev iv pro iv xv primo loco with fc^CP 38, 1 1 1 copt gig
Dion.
Ibid. fin. iii ( - xpiarov) „ SCAP pauc. and Dion.
ii. 1 fin. xpvericov pro xpvcrebv So C A only with xPvaeav
iii. 3. irola copa pro iroiav copav Cf. copt
iii. 9. yvcoerovrai pro yvcoaiv with 35 (49), 56, 67-120 vg
Syr S.
iii. 19. appro eav with N16, 36, 104, 146 (Oec.)
iv. 8. Kadeavrcov pro ev Kadeavro Cf. 80 et gig.
Ibid. Kai ev KVKXcodev pro KvKXodev Cf. 18 et 56
xx. 3. axpier av pro axpi Cf\\9
xx. 11. peya Kai XevKov Cf. 50 Prim
xxi. 2. Trs. iBovin loc ante Kaivrjv, non post Kaivrjv (Cf. 100)
xxi. 8. ecrnv pro ev rrj ante Xipvj = Hipp (ecrrai ev rrj copt).
[Here with Hipp, we precede the composite Coptic
Latin and Prim = "pars erit," Tert = " particula " ?]
xxi. 10. em pro eir (ante opos) with N A 35, 56, 59, 87, 127
xxi. 1 1 . rrjv cpcon^ovaav avrijv pro expvcrav rrjv Boljav rov deov. So
32. Cf sah boh Prim. (Omit A 30,
35, 98, 104. Original indistinct?)
xxi. 12. evyey papp,eva with 18
Ibid, a eicriv (pro a ecrri) ,, gig
xxi- 27. eyyey papevoi „ 31,47(84)
xxii. 2. eppeaeo „ A alone.
xxii. 3. eerrai ev avrrj ,, 18 copt
xxii. 5. en pro eKei „ NAP 35, 56, 65, 68, 108**,
127, 146 Copt Prim
Ibid, eir avrov; pro avrov; „ NA 18, 35, 68, 127, gig Prim
Anon Ambr.
xxii- 12. earai avrco „ 23
xxii. 14. oi irXvvavre<; ra<; cnoXa<; avrcov with 7-45-104 (NA 38,
146, 127)
After weighing the above (especially when we are more closely
acquainted with 18, 32, 36 and 56) we shall not be so startled to
find at : —
xxi. 1 7. ovpavov (in full) for avdpcoirov with 1 1 4 alone

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 9
This is no late change and may indeed be basic. The additional
witness of such a MS. as 143 is most important. The ordinary text
says that he measured the wall of the new Jerusalem, 1 44 irrjx&v,
"the measure of a man, that is of an angel." This seems strange,
and the more likely reading, " a heavenly measure, the measure of an
angel," in contrast to the earthly number 666 at XIII. \Sfin. " for it
is human numeration, and his number is 666."
In early script ovvov may have been misread avou, and perpetu
ated . At any rate this witness of ours is no xi, or xiith century fakir,
as the previous lists have shown, and this reading is co-ceval with the
regular reading avdpcoirov. That is all we are concerned to show.
6. Unique Readings.
We can now proceed to consider the few remaining unique
readings with the greater confidence of not attributing them to vicious
or late handling : —
1. 3. + ei post paKapios
i. 5. paprv; pro apxcov
(i. 9. eiriKaXovpevrj pro KaXovpevrj (Lat. " appellatur ')
ii. 14. epfiaXeiv pro fiaXelv
xxi. 10. rjvey Kev pro airrjveyKe
i. 1 1 . irepKapov pro irepyapov (Interchange of kappa and gamma is
Coptic)
i. 1 5. irXrjdovcr XaXov pro vBarcov iroXXcov
ii. 10. + /j.eyaXrjv post dXiifriv
ii. 15. o Kparcov pro crv Kparowra<; [Cf. 36 - Kai av.
Cf. 62-63 et Oec (1 46)
KpaTOvvra]
ii. 16. pera erov pro p,eravrcov cum Prim solo
ii. 22. avrrjv pro per avrrj<;. A rather notable reading :
Kai tov; poixevovTa<; avrrjv for p.er avrrjv
The latter (and the usual) reading would be a more probable change
from an avrrjv of the original draft than the inverse alteration.
iv. 8. aXXa iravrore pro rjpepas Kai vvkto<;. There is no trace of
this in others except in Tertullian orat.
" non cesset "...
v. 5. + aireKpidrj post Kai prim [sed Xeyei poi, non Xeycov poi].
Cf. Coptic et Hier. These say " He came
to me."

10 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
v. 9. yXebryrji; pro yXcoacrrj^ [Thus throughout the Meteora
MSS. 200 and 201 double r
is always written T7]
xx. 4. eir avroi1; pro eir avrov;
xx. 1 0. + BKei post ^aaaviadrjerovrai
xxi. 12. + ra ovop,ara post laparjX (pleno)
xxi. 1 8. evBcocri<; pro evBoprjcri<;
xxi. 19. ao-fxapayBo^ (copt OYCJUA.pAK^-OC). Cf. Syr
[In this connection observe Coptic interchange of K for I", which throws
light on our scribe's unique irepKapov for irepyapov above.]
xxii. 1 . Kpvo-raXXocr Not Greek but sah and many boh MSS.
xxii. 3. dvddepa pro Karavade/xa
7 init. + Xeyei Kvpio<; post raxv
8. aKOVcov Kai jSXeircov ravra + paprvpco
9. rovrov; pro tov fiiflXiov rovrov
14. + ov py ante eicreXdcoaiv
17. + T17? ante £oj?7?
1 9. rov Xoyov pro airo rcov Xoycov. New thus with 72 but not
an unlikely reading. Prim omits alto
gether. Possibly another faint place.
20. + o deo<; post Xeyei
2 1 . rjpxov pro vpcov 1 . Conclusions.
We can now approach the crux of the problem, which we have
reserved to the last, for the opening verse of chapter I. is quite unique
and different from the common texts, including all our uncials and the
versions. After the inscription proper, which runs as follows :
diroKaXyifric toy dnoY XcodifNoY toy dirocroXov /£
eYarreXiCTOY toy deoXoroY- hn i'detr iff irdrMco th .Yf/ceo' Ke eV\»'
the MS. has AiroKaXvyjrv; iv xv rrj<; yevafievrj<; ei<; epe icoavvrjv rov airocrro-
Xov (eliminating completely rjv eBcoKev avrco o deo<; rov; BovXov; avrov a Sei
yeveadai ev raxei Kai ecrijpavev airocrreiXa<; Bia tov ayyeXov avrov rco
SovXm avrov icoavvrj), and continues verse 2 : rov Krjpvgai (substitute for
.0? epaprvprjae) rov Xoyop rov deov Kai rrjv paprvpiav iv xv ocra iBcov
¦" MaKapio? ei k.t.X. . . . with the ordinary text.
[Note that Methodius' third century quotation omits o deo<; and a Bei
yevecrdai.] But for the previous studied exhibition of the very old text which

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 1 1
underlies 143, we might pass this over as some mediaeval play of
change for change* sake. But it cannot be. Are we in presence of
a text underlying all ? Of a first or early draft ?
It has often been remarked, and Swete calls attention to it, that
the closing chapter (XXII. 6, 14, 1 6) reproduces the wording of the
opening verses of chapter I. But then I. 1, 2 might have been "ac
commodated " later to chapter XXII., which would explain the situation.
At any rate, we cannot dismiss this opening of 1 43 as beneath
our notice, given the extremely ancient atmosphere which pervades
the whole document. We have established : —
1 . That 1 43 reproduces two readings so far absolutely particular
toN(IV. 4, XXI. 14).
2. It reproduces a form only used by A (XXII. 2) and another by
CA (II. 1).
3. It agrees in a peculiar case with W C only.
4. It has unique agreement with Syr S.
5. It has constant and deep sympathy with the text of Prim.
(e.g. alone at II. 16).
6. It is well acquainted with some of the base oigig.
7. It has large sympathy with some of our most important cur
sives as 56, 1 14, 36, 40, 18, 95, 127.
8. It agrees alone with the small group NCAP 56 Oec,
NCAP 38 Syr gig Prim. Oec, a very formidable
conjunction for early forms.
9. It agrees alone with Hippol. (XXI. 8) and with Prim. (II.
16).
10. It has some special agreement with sah where extant
together.
I do not emphasize the special agreement with boh, because I am
in entire disagreement with Guidi and Burkitt as to the date of the
bohairic version. But the conjunction of third and fourth century
readings in our MS., coupled with the certainty that it was copied
from a bilingual graeco-coptic MS., does not help their case at all for
a late date of the bohairic version.
We are therefore compelled to ask the question as to whether in
the dim past, a standardized version of the opening verse of the book
was substituted for the original, and whether that original may be

12 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
represented in whole or in part by our version, which, immediately
after this opening, runs with the ordinary fourth century traditions.
We are forced to ask this question most seriously, because through
out our eight chapters available for comparison (and how much more
would there be if all were extant in the MS. 1 43) a steady stream of
the most ancient readings is present, together with unfailing indications
of the faint spots in an original, which stands at the source not only of N
but of other important documents such as Syr S. In fact, it begins to
appear as if we were on the footprints of the precious papyrus docu
ment of the Apocalypse which was extant for the whole world at one
time in but one exemplar, far back of W.
We have touched on these " faint spots " already, as being the
source of trouble and perplexity to the forerunners of N.
The famous passage at XXII. 1 4 is another case in point. The
ordinary text runs : paKapioi ol iroiovvTe<; ras evroXas avrov,
whereas these important documents : NA 38, 127, 143, 7-45, 104,
146 sah aeth Fulg Oec and Haymo, read : paKapioi ol nXwovres
(irXvvavres, 7, 45, 1 04, 1 43) Tas aroXas avrcov, and that valuable
check- MS. for ancient traditions, 56, conflates the two readings.
The source of this variation is doubtless due to the difficulty of
reading the original.
We will close by touching on another point, not yet referred to,
which enables us to go to very high antiquity for light on the subject.
Probably on the same page of the old archetype occurred XXII.
11. In this verse, with its present fourfold clause :
1 . 6 aBiKcov aBiKr/erarco en,
2. o pvircov pvircocrarco en,
3. o BiKaios BiKaicodrjrco en (or Bik. BiKaiocrvvrjv iroirjaarco en),
4. 6 ayios ayiacrdrjTco en,
there are several variations as to the form of No. 2, N reading (with
1 8 and 32) o pvirapos pviravdr/roj en, while others have o pvwapos
pvirapevOr/Tco ert, but the fourfold clause is made into a threefold
one by A 34, 35, 65, 67, 68, 97, 121, 122, who omit No. 2 en
tirely. They are now joined by 143.
In order to check this, we go as far back as we can into the
records of antiquity, and we find the passage extant and quoted in the
letter of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons, concerning the martyr-

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 13
dom of Pothinus and others, in the beginning of the last quarter of the
second century.
There it takes the form of : " Iva r) ypaeprj rrXrjpcoOfj : 6 ctvopos
dvoprjcrciTco en, /cat 6 Sucaios Sikcuoj^'toj en," and nothing is said
of a " filthy " or " sordid " one, pvncov or pvirapos, but of a " law
less " one.
I take it that in this passage also the basic document was faint, and
6 aVo/ios dvoprjo-aTco en may be the true reading, and the full
clauses be : — I . o aBiKcov aBiKijcrarco en,
2. o avopo<; avoprjo-arco en,
3. 6 BiKaio<; BiKaicodrjTco en,
4. 6 ayio<; ayiacrdrjrco en.
At any rate, 1 43, with A and others, had difficulty, and cut out
the second clause altogether.
As a matter of fact, our textus receptus ought to read only two
clauses (as Vienna and Lyons), because Apoc. 1 , upon which it was
founded, reads only : —1 . 6 aBiKcov aBiKrjaarco en,
2. Kai o ayios ayiacrdrjrco en,
Erasmus having retranslated and being responsible for 6 pvireov
pvircaeraTco en.
A few other cursives (59, 104, 120, 153) make this a threefold
clause, by omitting Kai o Si/ccuos hiKaicoOrjTco en in the third
place, and two of them (104 and 153) adjust the matter by pre
viously changing aSiK^o-aYoj to SiKrjeraToj, thus : —
6 aBiKcov BiKijcrdrco en
Kal 6 pvirapb<; pvirapevdrjrco en
Kal 6 dyio<; dryiaadrjrco en.
So much for this passage at the present time.
Whence, I wonder, did the old monk Leontius draw this long
excerpt, including the special inscription ? It would be interesting to
find another copy. Meanwhile, we must pass on to consider other
MSS. in our next article.
This MS. 143 has been used by Charles (Crit. and Exeg. Com.

14 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
on the Rev. of St. John, 1920), who is the first one to give some of
its readings, but my readers will see from the foregoing that nobody
has so far realised its full importance in these studies.
Postscript. Since writing the above article, photographs of a document have
reached me from Greece, which are of the highest importance in these
studies. They are photographs of a bicolumnar codex of the eleventh
century, which was written by a very careful scribe. For instance,
every single breathing is perfectly square from beginning to end of the
Apocalypse. Never a lapse anywhere to a rounded form. And the
breathings are wonderfully accurate. But one rough breathing for a
smooth one throughout. Let the reader try and accomplish this feat
for only three or four consecutive verses ! I mention this merely in
passing. At once the scribe of 200 is justified as to his reading of ord/iai-os
for dpovov in XXII. 1 , which so far was only found in 92 and 200, for
our new MS. adopts this reading without question, although not of the
200 type elsewhere.
The MS. falls into none of our known classes, yet has many ele
ments of them all, or rather of the rarer family types. As showing
basic age, it connects alone with the Sinai tic {&) and the Alexandrine
(A) many times. But it does the same with Gwynn's Crawford
Syriac, and with the Aethiopic version, and also with some of the
MSS. of the Armenian. Again, we will find it alone with Gigas
and often with Primasius, although sometimes with slight differences
pointing to a common earlier Greek foundation base.
We are often alone with the very eclectic MS. 36, and others of
that sort, and there is a polyglot element, partly near-basic no doubt,
but also of a later date, as I will now try and illustrate.
Gwynn has probably established to the satisfaction of scholars that
Syr S is an older type than the three or four MSS. extant of Syr 2.
Now, while we are often with Syr S alone, or in small and weighty
combinations, we have found a peculiar case where we are able to ex
hibit a long lost Greek reading, which appears only in Syriac dress in
2, unless it is an integral part of Syr 2 as an independent, but then
this would offer proof of Greek retranslation from Syriac at a certain
indeterminate date, which my critics usually combine to disallow com
pletely for any date !

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 15
I will now place them on the horns of a dilemma, and invite their
attention to the following : —
Whereas Schaaf, in his edition of the Syriac N.T., translates the
Syriac words 1^1? 1'hOU yA in XXI. 11 by " tanquam lucem
splendidam" a reference to Walton's Polyglot gives us "tanquam
splendorem RADII. This must represent in Greek : —
ft>s epcocrTr)p avyrjs, instead of
(/ecu 6) cpcoerTrjp avrrjv read by all MSS.
Now turn to Gwynn, page 44 note : —
"11. *cai 6 epcoerrrjp avTrjs. So some MSS. and pr. and most
versions, but the MSS. and most MSS. (versions ?) omit Kai as also
g and vg [am, arm, etc. not cl] and 2 (which, however, reads these
words differently from all else : avyrjs for avTrjs).
Remains to find this reading in a Greek document of any import
ance. And, behold, we produce it in the present MS. under discus
sion, the photographs of which we now have in our hands.
The reading is there quite certainly. And there is no chance
about it, for other things link it up indubitably to the text underlying
Syr 2, or force on us accommodation to the Syriac text of Syr 2.
Observe, then, at XVIII. 7, that we substitute KaTao-Tprjvidcrai for
Kal iarrprjVLaere quite alone among Greek documents, but this is duly
presented in the Latin translation of Syr 2 as lascivire against the
' et in deliciis fuit,' or ' et deliciarum habuit* or 'et delicias exercuit.'
In the same verse, the word /3aeravLerp6v is missing, owing to a
lower corner of the page of the MS. being cut away, but the first three
letters remain, and they are not /3acr but depa. . . . The problem is
to find the right word. We could not do it alone without the help of
Syr 2, for it might be : —
depdvierpov, ' disappearance by destruction,'
or depaaiav, ' dumbness,'
or dcpavpoTrjv, ' weakness,'
or dcpdveiav, ' ruin by obscurity,'
or depdpcoTov, ' nakedness ' (absence of cloak),
or even depaipifjiv, ' blood-letting.
How shall we decide ? Turn to Schaaf's Syriac N.T. and you

16 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
find ]k>cu* . but tne Latin text is the usual one, " cruciatum."
Walton's translator, however, comes to the rescue and correctly informs
us that the meaning is " vastationem"
in other words, nothing else but dcpdvicrpov in Greek. So we restore
the text with confidence, and add this to our collection of unique Greek
readings supported by Syr.
It is impossible, in recording such matters, to give full force to the
striking character of the evidence, because a complete collation and
comparison with other documents can alone impress upon the student
the intensely interesting character of the problems involved, and of
their solution.
Gwynn forecast the reading of avyij? and is on record to this
effect, but no one has happened to forecast dcpdvicrpov as far as I am
aware. 'Aepdvierpov, in the setting of Apoc. XVIII. 7, is far stronger
than fiacravicrpov, although our scribe perpetuates
fiaeravicrpov in verse 10, and
/3aeravierpov in verse 1 5, just as the Syriac there uses
the other word iojo* :
And what a flood of light avyyjs throws on the grand passage in
XXI. I 1 :—
cpcocrrrjp avyi}<; opoio<; Xidco npicorarcp,
a>? Xidco idcrmBi KpverraXXi^ovri.
The gleaming of her rays !
I have no space to deal with this MS. fully here, which must be
written up at greater length when we go to press with the body of our
collations. The word avyrj occurs but once in the N.T., at Act XX. 1 1 :
until ' break of day,' meaning until the first rays of the sun cast their
light or beams, and avya£a> once at 2 Cor. IV. 4 : ' shine,' and
Siavya£eo once 2 Pet. I. 19 : 'dawn.'
It is related in origin to our word eighe, eye (pi. eyen), through
Gothic augo l and German auge, Icelandic auga, Swedish oga, Sanskrit
aksha (Latin originally ocus, now oculus. Hence Russian oko).
1 " Window " in Gothic is auga-dauro : ' eye-door ' !

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 17
Avyrj is very freely used by all the Greek poets in many interesting
connections, thus : —
Aeschylus : /3iov SiWos avyai, " life's setting sun."
or irupos avyrj, and fipovrds avyai.
It is a "sheen," as translated in the Apocalyptic passage by
Conybeare for his Armenian MSS., and as applied to gold— Pindar :
X/avo-os auya.9 e8ei£ev.
It is not the eye proper, but the quality of the eye — its rays ;
thus Sophocles : oppdrcov avyai the " rays," the " shining " of the
eyes ; or of the soul ; Plato : r) 7-775 t/n^s av7V, and then gradually
of the eyes alone — avyai, like the latin lumina.
Probably the basic reading included both avyrjs and avTrjs and

was

" exovcrav rr)v B6%av rov deov
03? (so our MS.) cpcocrrrip avyrj<; avrrj<; ..."
" Having the glory of God as the Light-source of her radiance," that
is : the origin and source of her rays.
Somebody may have cancelled avrr]<; in one copy, and someone
avyrjs in another. As regards ' her ' radiance, the missing ttjs before
avyijs (if we read ttjs aiyrjs avrrjs) can be found by reading cpcos
ttJs for epcocrTrjp. In fact our MS. may have cpcoer as it is rather
indistinct at the end of a line.
We have here probably the antithesis of conflation, a veritable de-
conflation. If the Syriac did not get it from an original Greek, the only other
explanation would be that our Greek MS. retranslated from a late
Syriac, which had mistaken cu/rijs for avyr)<;, which is not likely.
There are other curious passages like XXII. 2, where we read
Ik peerov for ev peerco, with 92. This, coupled with erroparos for
Qpovov in the previous verse (also with 92), shows affiliation of source,
and no error. Now the Syriac here lends itself better to 4k than to iv.
Again, at XX. 6, we add avrov after xPl0~r°v quite alone among
Greek MSS., after the Syriac manner, and with the Syriac alone
(and Fulgentius).
At XIX. 16 we have the plural ovopara yeypappeva ( — to)
with the later Syriac, and elsewhere o-aXTnyyoV for tijs eraXiriyyos

18 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
with Syr S. and X, but there against note at XVI. 7 the singular
(against plural of all others) —
" dXrjOivr) Kal BiKetia r) /c/aicns erov
with Syr 2 (a trace remains in the Greek uncials with Kpieris),
which points in the other direction. While Xeovrcov in XIII. 2 is
countenanced by '<& 14-92 Victorin, as well as Syr. We have a
novelty among Greek MSS. twice over of rcov lerparjXiTcov for
tcov vlcov 'lerpdijX, VII. 4 and XXI. 1 2. In the first case agreed
to by Syr X.
As regards the age of these things, compare III. 5 epirpoerdev for
ivcomov (prim.) alone with N, and III. 8 + /ecu before IBov alone
with Syr S, X.
Finally, note the double base of Syr S and 2 coming in at XIV.
1 5, where we omit the clause on e^rjpdvOrj 6 depierpbs ttjs yrjs with
both of them, and with them alone.
And as regards the "true" reading in XV. 3 fin.
" The King of the Ages"
as against the two variations supported by most, viz. : —
tcov dyicov or tcov edvcov
note that we hold "6 /3acnA.evs tcov alcovcov" with H* C 18, 56,
95, 127, 159 Syr S and 2, some latt and vg., the Greek cursives
being among the most important of our documents, (arm with 1 1 2 Gr.
[against its family] conflates alcovcov and edvcov, amiatimts = caelorum).
H. C. HOSKIER.
[In Souter's notes to his edition of the Greek Testament, he gives 94
and 2040 as the cursives supporting rcov alcovcov. 94 is an error for 95.
Scrivener quotes \i\sg, not b, for this. And Gregory's number of 2040 is none
other than 95 ! Thus does the use of complicated and changing numeration
affect the correct setting forth of evidence. It would have been better to quote
' 94, 95,' and then the student could more readily have detected the error.
Souter leaves out 1 8 (an important MS.) which Tischendorf had mentioned,
and which certainly reads thus. On the other hand, in von Soden's notes,
while quoting his 1682 (= our 1 12 and Gregory's old 182) for the con
flation of arm (although this Greek MS. is very late and differs here from
its elder brothers' reading of twi» edvcov), he quotes his Ia 22 and 503 for
rcov alcovcov. His 503 is our 159, and 22 is probably his Av22 or Athos

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 19
Stawron 48, which I have not yet collated. Soden's system in the Apoc.
is very annoying for he has two similar numbers in several cases ; thus 3 1
occurs twice ; it can be either Av81 or Oec31. The same applies to his
numbers 10 and 1 1, to his 51, 52, 53, to his 400 and to his 501. He did
not use our 56, one of the most important of the MSS., nor our 1 27.
( To be continued. A rticle 4 will deal with Apoc. 1 30 first used
by Dr. Swete.)
Correction of Misprints in Article 2.
Page 258 : read «*©« sic instead of ita.
On p. 266, line 4, last word, ravrcra is an impossible word due to in
version by compositor. It should be ravracr.
Same page last line but 5 eV. Iota has dropped out, should be eiar.
H. C. HOSKIER.

ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

THUMB (A,). The Modern Greek and his Ancestry. 1914. Pp. 27.
TOUT (T. F.), M.A., Litt.D.. F.B.A. The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon,
^ 1920, Pp.49. 2s.
— — The English Civil Service in the Fourteenth Century. 1916. Pp.32.
sT^-r- Medi«eval and Modern Warfare. 1919. 8vo, pp. 28.
 A Mediaeval Burglary. 1915. Pp.24. With illustrations.
 Mediaeval Forgers and Forgeries. 1920. 8vo, pp.. 31.
 Mediaeval Town Planning^ 1917. Pp.35. With 1.1' illustrations. 2s.
 The Place of St. Thomas of Canterbury in History. 1921. Pp. 32. Is, 6d.
 The Study of Mediaeval Chronicles. 1 922. Pp. 32. I s. 6d.
SMITH (G. ELLIOT), M.A., M.D., E.R.S., etc. The Influence of Ancient Egyptian Civili-
l_ sation in the East and in America. 1916. Pp.32. With 7 illustrations.
WILLARD (JAMES F.), M.A. An Early Exchequer Tally. Pp. 10. With Illustrations.
Literary.
HERFORD (C. H.), M.A., Litt.D., etc. Gabriele d'Annunzio. 1920. Pp.27.
 Lessing. 1923. Pp.22.
 National and International Ideals in the English Poets. 1916. Pp. 24.
 Norse Myth in English Poetry. 1919. Pp.31.
- ¦>' — t-. — The Poetry of Lucretius. 1918. Pp.26.
,  Recent Tendencies iii European Poetry. (921. Pp. 27. " «-'
— —Some Approaches to Religion through Poetry during the past Two Generations." 1922.
Pp.33.
~ GUPPY (HENRY), M.A., D.Phil. A Brief Sketch of the Life and Times of Shakespeare.
With a Chronological Table of the principal Events. 1916. Pp. 30 With frontispiece.
—- — A Brief Summary of the History of the" First- Folio " Edition of Shakespeare's Dramas.
1923. Pp. 24. 5 illustrations;. ' r'-.
i  -Dante Alighieri, 1321-1921. An appreciation, in commemoration of the Six-hundredth
Anniversary of the Poet's Death. Pp.13. With 3, facsimiles.
POEL (WILLIAM).' Prominent Points in the Life and Writings of Shakespeare. Arranged,
in four tables. 191,9. Pp. 12.
 Some Notes on Shakespeare's Stage and Plays. 1916. Pp.16, With 3 illustrations.
' ROBERTS (W. WRIGHT), B.A. Music in Shakespeare, 1923: Pp.14. "
. THEOLOGICAL. ,
, :\ BUCKLE (D. P.), M.A. The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. A Study of Hagiographic Develop
ment. 1921. Pp.9. With 4 facsimiles.
CALQER (W. M.), M.A. Philadelphia and Montanism. 1923. Pp. 46. With 3 illus
tration^. I s. 6d,

HARRIS 0- RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. Metrical Fragments in iii. Maccabees*"
1920. Pp. 13. A
 Athena, Sophia, and the Logos. 1922: Pp.17.
 Celsus and Aristides, 1921. Pp.13.
 Marcion's Book of Contradictions. 1921. Pp.21.
 A New Christian Apology.; |923. Pp. 36. Is. 6d.
 Stoic Origins of the Fourth Gospel. 1922. Pp.13. -. .
HOSKIER (H, C,). Manuscripts of the Apocalypse : Recent Investigations. Part 1. 1922.
Pp. 20, With 5 facsimiles. Part II. 1923, Part HI. 1923. j;
MINGANA (A.), D.D. Synopsis of Christian Doctrine in the Fourth Century according to
Theodore of Mopsuestia. 1920. Pp.21.
PEAKE (A. S.), M.A., D.D : etc. The Quintessence of Paulinism. 1917-18. Pp.31.
 The Roots of Hebrew Prophecy and Jewish Apocalyptic. 1923. Pp.22.
 The Movement of Old Testament Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century. Synopsis of a
Lecture in the John Rylands Library on Nov. 11, 1903. With some leading Dates in
Pentateuch Criticism. 1903. Pp. 8.
 Bibliographical Notes for the Study of the Old Testament. 1913. Pp. 7.
 Bibliographical Notesfor Students of the New Testament. 1914. Pp. 10.
POWJCKE (FREDERICK J.), M.A., Ph.D. A Puritan Idyll ; or, Richard Baxter's Love
Story. 1917. Pp.35.
 The Story and Significance of the Rev. Richard Baxter's " Saints' everlasting rest ". 1920;
Pp. 35. With frontispiece. ,"

Miscellaneous.
JAMES HOPE MOULTON, 1863-1917. _ 1. A Biographical Sketch, with some Account of
his Literary Legacies. By -W. Fiddian Moulton, M.A. 2. A Record of Professor J. H.
Moulton's Work, with some explanation of its significance. By A. S. Peake, M.A.. D.D.
3. Letter from Dr. Rendel Harris, to the Rev. W. Fiddian Moulton. 1917. Pp. 18.
With portrait.
CHARLTON (H. B.), M.A. A List of the Writings of Prof. C E. Vaughan. Portrait.
1923. Pp. 12.
ESSEN (L. VAN DER). La Bibliotheque de 1' University de Louvain. . . . Steps towards
the reconstruction of the Library of the University of Louvain. [By H. Guppy.] o 1915. .
Pp. 16.
HARRIS (J. RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. The Woodpecker in Human Form. 1920.
Pp. 17;.
RIVERS (W. H. R.). Dreams and Primitive Culture. 1917-18. Pp. 28.
 Mind and Medicine. . Second edition. 1920. Pp. .23.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
A P OG A L Y P S E- R E GENT
INVESTIGATIONS

PART IV

WITH FACSIMILES'

BY
H. C. HOSKIER

Reprinted from " The Bulletin ofJhe John Rylands Library,"
Vol. 8, No. i, January,, 1924 .

/REPRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION
!924 ,

REPRINTS OF ARTICLES WHICH APPEARED ORIGINALLY
IN THE "BULLETIN OF THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY."
With scarcely an exception these monographs embody the results of new and original investiga^
tions by scholars of thei highest eminence, who have thereby imparted a fresh stimulus to study io;
their respective fields of research.
Demy 8vo. One shilling net each, unless otherwise stated. _.
. / CLASSICAL.
CALDER (W. M.), M.A. Philadelphia and Montanism. 1923. Pp.46. With illustrations, ,
Is. 6d.
CONWAY (R. S.), Litt.D., F.B:A. The Youth of Vergil. 1915. Pp.28.
 The Philosophy of Vergil. 1922. Pp. 18.
 : The Venetian Point of View in Roman History. 1917-18. Pp; 22.
 Where was Vergil's Farm ? 1923. Pp.27. 1 0 illustrations. Is. 6d.'
— — The Portrait of a Roman Gentleman from Livy. 1922. Pp. 16.
GRENFELL (B. P.), D.Litt., F.B.A. The Present Position of Papyrology. Pp. 21.
HARRIS (J. RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. The Origin of the Cult of Aphrodite. ¦'
1916.' Pp. .30. With 9 illustrations.
 The Origin of the Cult of Apollo. 1916 Pp.40. With frontispiece and illustrations.
—— The Origin of the Cult of Artemis. 1916. Pp.39. With illustrations.
— — The Origin of the Cult of Dionysos. 1915. -Pp.' 1 7. With illustrations.
¦  The Origin and Meaning of Apple Cults. 1919. Pp.- 52. With illustrations. 2s.
LAISTNER (M. L. W.), M.A. Notes on Greek from the Lectures of a Ninth Century
Monastery Teacher. • 1923. Pp.36. .'
SOUTER (ALEXANDER), M.A., D.Litt. List of Abbreviations and Contractions, etc,,
in the John Rylands Library Latin Manuscript, No. 15. 1919. Pp. 7.
Historical.
BRUTON (F. A.), M.A.,. Litt.D. Thev Story of Peterloo. Written for the centenary, 16th
August, 1919. • 8vo, pp. 45. With plates. 2s.
CRUMP (C G.). A Note on the Criticism of Records. 1924. Pp. 10. •
HARRIS 0- RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. Three Letters of John Eliot and a Bill of
Lading of the "Mayflower". 1919. 8vo, pp. 11. With frontispiece.
JOHNSTONE (HILDA). M.A. The Wardrobe and Household of Henry.Sonof Edward I.
1923. Pp.37.
MINGANA (A.), D.D. A Page of Indian History in 1707-1720. 1924. Pp.16.
PERRY (W. J.), B.A. War and Civilisation, 1917-18. 8vo, pp. 27. With 9 Sketch Maps,
POW1CKE (FREDERICK J.). M.A., Ph.D. Eleven Letters of John, Second Earl of
Lauderdale (and First Duke), 1616-82, to the Rev. Richard Baxter (1615-91). 1922. .
8vq, pp. 33.
 New Light on an. Old English Presbyterian and Bookman: Thomas Hall, 1610-1665.
1924. fp. 25.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE— RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS. By H. C. HOSKIER.
IV.
Apoc 130.
SO far from exhausting the subject in our last, we now approach
another problem of deepest interest in the history of the trans
mission of the text, and have to consider another early cursive,
this time at Mount Athos.
APOC. 130 (Ac. 359, P. 452) = Athos Iberorum 25 = Greg.
130 (Ac. 359, P. 452) [S. XI]
(Collated in 1921 from photographs made in 1913).
This very exceptional MS. has a magnificent foundation text, most
unfortunately spoiled by some over-eager seventh-century rehandling.
Its original polyglot base is veneered with a much later strain of
eclectic polyglot readings and re-renderings. In other words, what
we had hoped, when we first ran through it, might prove to be a
mine of wealth to check our existing material, proves, upon deeper
examination, to be a source contaminated — not by the scribe — but by
his forerunners. In nearly every other verse we have a new reading, frequently,
however, supported by the oldest MSS. of the Versions — Syriac,
Sahidic, Bohairic, Latin, and we even run sometimes to the most
ancient Greek underlying the Aethiopic}
1 As at IX. 4 dXXa for el p,r) absolutely alone with aeth, which is very
striking ; further, at : XIV. 1 4 - opoios 1 30 and aeth alone ; XVI. 7 - o deo<;
43, 1 30 and aeth alone ; XXII. 7 + Kai ante paKapios 30, 1 30 and aeth alone,
besides conjunction of aeth and syr S, as at VI. 6 the special order : Kai rov
owov Kai ro eXaiov by (36) 130 aeth lat, syr S only ; XIII. 2 - erropa sec
38, 59, 69, 114, 130 syr S aeth arm ; XIV. 14 -Kai eiBov N 129 syr S
(aeth); and the substitution of opeo<; for opoim at II. \5 fin, by joining o/tto?
to peravorjcrov verse 16, corresponds exactly to aeth: " Et nunc resipisce
sinminus ..."

2 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
These changes, are, some of them, probably basic ; many others
are the product of a later age, and represent later undesirable reflex
action on the Greek.
All, however, with exceedingly few exceptions, make perfectly;:
good sense. Thus, the omission at IX. 9 of tcov irrepvycov (quite
alone, so far) makes sense enough : " And their sound was as the
sound of many-horsed war-chariots rushing to battle."
We do not get a line on the original sources of corruption until
we reach chapter VII., verse 1 , where the scribe gives us lerparjXplen^
(he writes nearly everything in full, especially ovpavov, as against
other scribes) instead of Iva. This at last gives it away. The scribe
must have misread INA as IHA, which shows that his copy was
faint and old, the H being taken for N, made like H, the bar not
being visible in the A, which was read as A.
In X. 1 0 we find Na (and 200) dating the last revision of our MS.,
which reads : Kal ore eepayov rxvro eyep,ierdrj t) KoiXia pov iriKpias
(instead of eiriKpdvdrj, without iriKpias). Now while *A* reads
eyepierdrj with us, it was Sa who added iriKpias. W* and Prim
agree together (alone) to read " Repletus est venter meus," without
amaritudine, whereas the reading of our MS. is that of the group
N<» f gig Beatus.
This MS. puts a quietus on many readings attested by iS*B and
a comparatively large group of cursives, to the exclusion of CAP
and another large groups of cursives.
The intense sympathy of our MS. with the base of N* causes us
to believe the testimony of 1 30 rather than that of N*B when such
readings are not reproduced by 1 30.
The fact remains that numerous hitherto unique readings in syr S
and boh and sah are being picked up by me in each important Greek
document which I examine.
Of course many unique readings remain still in syr S unaccounted
for, and unaccounted for by the exigencies of any translation from the
Greek. As we reduce these, it may become advisable to list some of them,
with a view to their bearing upon the general problem of an original
Syro-Greek recension, bom which possibly sprang all the rest of the
syriacising Greek MSS,

Apoc. 130 (Reduced)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 3
In this latest MS. under examination, No. 1 30, observe that it is
the first one to leave out efipa'io-ri (as to the name Abaddon) in IX. 1 1 .
This is one opportunity out of two l in the Apocalypse for it to act as
Evan 28 or 157 did in leaving out "which being interpreted is "
after local Aramaic expressions in the Gospels, and Apoc. 130
promptly avails of it, thus explaining some of its sympathy with syr S,
if deriving from a Graeco-Syriac MS., as seems quite possible. Thus,
at the other place, XVI. 1 6, please to notice that another strange thing
happens. Our MS. suppresses tov KaXovpevov efipaierTi ap
payeBcov altogether after tov tottov, and substitutes tcov coBcov.
Swete gives this reading without comment. It certainly is a very ex
traordinary reading, and a still more extraordinary substitution. The
commentaries are silent about any such thing, and tcov coBivcav would
seem to be more to the point (cf. Matt. XXIV. 8, Mark XIII. 8,
Acts II. 24) ; yet a slight clue offers, and the connection is not so far
to seek, for some of the commentators comment immediately after re
garding what they have to say on XVI. 14 seq. by a schole beginning
" 'H dyyeXiKr) epcovr) ovpavodev eprjcri ' yeyove ' . . . " So this
place of dp MayeBcov was " the place of songs, or of minstrels," in a
sense of "the song of the Heavenly Voice." The voice saying
yeyove or yeyova is followed by an awful tumult : " derTpairai Kai
fipovrai Kai epcovai Kai ereierpo'S peya<> oios ovk eyevero acp' ov
eyevovTO oi avOpcoiroi em ttj<> yrjs t^Ax/coutos ereicrpos ovtco peya<;
and tcov eoBcov remains a most curious expression, yet not as wholly
illogical as at first sight appears. (See accompanying photograph of
XVI. 11/12-17).
Apoc. 1 30 does not generally run to such extremes. Only in
two other places, once at IX. 20 he qualifies the idols as ra Kcocpa, and
again at XVI. 20 he substitutes iras avrjp for iracra vrjcros. (See
accompanying photograph of XVI. 1 7-XVII. 2).
He is, however, such a terrible eclectic that it is hard to pin the
problem down within threshing distance. Thus, at VI. 1 5 we read
oircto- for ireTpa<;, 1 30 being the first Greek MS. to make any change
here. Swete quotes oira? for bohairic, but erroneously oirrj<; for
1 At XVI. 16, that other most valuable and important MS, Apoc. 56, is
the only one to omit efipaian there, with Apoc. 106.

4 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Apoc. 1 30. Our MS. reads distinctly birder.1 As to boh, it has :
rtl^O^s KTe mneTpA really "the holes of the rocks" (as most
arm MSS.) not using the word for " mountains " employed above.
The expression " irerpas tcov opecov " has always seemed a rough
expression, although no Greeks so far examined have turned it. Trans
lators must have had difficulty, yet the Latins, including Prim, Anon,
and Auct de Prom, who quote, render literally : " in petris montium,"
only Auct I. ad Nov at. saying : " in cavernis montium." Aeth turns
eis ra. erirrjXaia Kai cis ras irerpas tcov opeeav into : " in montibus
et in recessibus."
The word ftl^O^S 2 in Coptic, corresponding to 07ras, seen by our
scribe's forerunner, may, indeed, have suggested the Greek synonym
for opyrj<i in the succeeding verse, where he writes : rrjs x0^5 f°r
ttJs opyfjq, our English word " choler ").
This is the first occurrence of the word in the Apoc., and the
scribe does not use it again in XI. 1 8, XIV. 1 0, XVI. 1 9, XIX. 1 5,
showing that some special cause operated in VI. 16 as to x°^? there.
[Swete misquotes : rrys o-xoXtjs].
Now when you expect a strange reading in 1 30, you do not meet
one, and the text flows smoothly on, to the very order sometimes of
the textus receptus, opposed by the " middle Greeks," those without
special traditions. The stranger readings of our MS. occur generally
in most unexpected places.
It is a fact, and a very strange fact, that all these exceptional
cursives — disagreeing in so large degree, as well as agreeing among
themselves — have a perfectly easy and seemingly unartificial flow of
text. This proves that the type of text which they represent was not
elaborated in any tenth or eleventh-century scriptorium, but is the
product of a much earlier age. This much we can establish with
certainty.3 But how comes it that these MSS., while individually reproducing
1 oirrj is used in Heb. XI. 38 and James III. 1 1 .
2 Itl^COSs is also the word used in Hebr. XI. 38.
8 Thus we have in the same monastery at Meteora three very different
types of text in the MSS. 200, 201, 202 all executed between A.D. 950
and 1075. The same of course applies to the great variety of texts on Mount
Athos.

¦». ..?•,..••: :*'

* : v o "" v , . '' -v. \ . ^ v >. ..

:.*r&i"* 6-f

•rxxrj a p "-{•

s*p &-*¦

&^rr<A.'*

/Lau^ a-' r-^yi*y-^<*i<r

^^^/^^'•^•Kf^7
ffflt to /cf ' i
l+Aih'i
Apoc. 130 (Reduced)
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 5
part of the traditions and idiosyncracies of particular early authorities,
yet fail to agree among themselves to reproduce more, and seem to
be so eclectic ? It must be for the reason that a variety of recensions
— all old — were current in different parts of the then limited Christian
world, with no opportunity of comparing them.
One thing is beyond cavil. In a certain very ancient exemplar,
perhaps underlying them all, there were certain faint or illegible
places, for we notice that in all cursives with ancient collateral lines
converging back to primal days, the same difficulties occur in the self
same places, many of which had already bothered the ancestor of N.
But, beyond this, we cannot yet understand when, how, and why
the lines went apart. Fortunately, the mediaeval MSS. became, or
remained, standardized along certain lines, and no great changes have
been wrought in the text in more modern times ; by that I mean be
tween A.D. 850 and 1 200.
The changes are all very ancient.
The Polyglot Character of them All.
Now comes a feature, most difficult to deal with. Of reflex
polyglot action there is plenty. This also dates from very early days,
but undoubtedly increased during the copying from A.D. 350 to 850.
It also occurred immediately after the very first translations were made,
and changes re-impressed themselves upon the Greek from the mere
sight of a concurrent version and this in quite the earliest days. This
is to be observed as to Syriac, Latin, and Coptic reaction all through
our existing Greek MSS. of A.D. 850 to 1 200, besides those copied
in 375 to 500. But how to differentiate between the earliest and the
later ones is the problem. The relative importance of certain cursive
testimony, now rendered available, will, I am sure, contribute to an
understanding and elucidation of this baffling problem.
Partial examination heretofore has led nowhere. What I have
done for the Apocalypse can be done for the other books by anyone
who is accurate, painstaking, and patient. The record, as we have it
preserved, is now spread before us. Let us digest it intelligently.
The collection of this material to me has been most instructive.
Where Soden failed — for failed he has — was in the attempt to collect
material through others, and digest it for himself without the collator's

6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY ,
illuminating experiences. The actual collator must also be the one to
present the full table of results. He alone can assess at their true
value the testimonies of his various scribes. He alone, who has lived
with them in the past in their old Scriptoria, can assess at their just
value the relative positions to be established for individual members
of large groups, and decide which shall govern the group.
Our MS. has the short heading :
Icoannov airoKaXxifric
but the .Ascription is : diroKaXynjric Icoajvjvov
which agrees with the Ascriptions of S and C.
Professor Lake, during a visit to Athos, was attracted to this MS.,
and with good reason ; and he provided Dr. Swete with photographs
of the MS. or readings of its text, which were used in the textual
footnotes to the edition of 1911 of his book on the Apocalypse, under
the same number by which we designate it, viz. Apoc. 1 30.
The date attributed by Gregory of XI. seems full high at first sight,
but is probably correct. There is very little in the way of abbrevia
tion, no numerals, no iota post, plenty of v icpeXK, and iBov is con
stant. Accents are wonderfully correct. The scribe writes a nice,
easy, flowing hand, but not that of one of the schoolmen or professional
penmen of the period.
Dates, however, mean but little in a matter of this kind, except as
to the probable accuracy of the copying men in the Scriptoria. Thus,
between 950 and 1 1 75, the ratio of accuracy among scribes is far
higher than before or later. It reached its highest point concurrently
with what Dr. Cram would call the " Gothic " period, thus substan
tiating many of his contentions.
The text starts off with an innovation among Greek MSS. at I. I
by omitting tco BovXco avrov and this prepares us for the strange but
highly interesting recension which follows.
Towards the close it has three readings (XXI. 5, 6, 8) close together,
agreeing alone with 65, a manuscript which is wanting from chap. L
XVI., and this shows what a loss this lacuna is in No. 65.
Apoc. 1 30 is the first one of our cursives to explain the reading of
N, who writes in XII. 13 eBcoKev for eBicoge. Apoc. 130 says

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 7
eBieoKe, which I have already reported as the Oecumenian reading
(both text and commentary) in the Messina MS. of our No. 146, to
follow. This clearly explains the text which lay behind N, whose
reading can be meant for nothing else but the imperfect tense iBieoKev,
and have nothing to do with BiBcapi.
Dr. Swete does not seem to see the point, as he quotes 1 30, but
does not mention W.
There is no getting away from the compelling interest of this MS,
and Dr. Swete has overlooked a very large number of important key-
readings, even when quoting other MSS. or versions for them.
Thus, although he reports the new reading in II. 27 of ko.1
iroipaiveiv for the usual /cat iroipavel or Kal noipaivei, he misses
the connection with Syr S, as he reports Gwynn's translation for
Iva iroipavel. It is true that Gwynn placed this in his text, but his
footnote anticipated our reading in 1 30 by saying that he ought rather
to read iroipaiveiv for the Syriac. So Swete fails to connect Apoc.
1 30 and Syr S here. (200 reads iroipavco exceptionally.)
Now this particular connection would be slight enough, and perhaps
negligible, if there were not other sympathy with Syr S, but of this
there is plenty. Notice then, and very carefully — (for Dr. Swete has
not reported it at all) — that Apoc. 1 30 in the immediate vicinity of
the previous passage cited, viz. at II. 23 fin. in its text has —
+ Kai iraiBeverco vpder Kara rd epya vpcZv.
This reading is found in the margin of Syr S, and is translated
into Greek by Dr. Gwynn, word for word with the Greek reading of
Apoc. 130.
Yet, curiously enough, we find no trace in Apoc. 130 of the
strange reading which occurs at IV. 8 in the text of Syr S of : dirb
tcov ovvxeov avrov /cat eirdvco for dvd before irTepvyev? e£ this
" claws " clause being duly reported by Swete, and which is about the
equivalent of the Coptic text. Of course, our MS. elsewhere is close
to Coptic, and in this very place, while avoiding all about the " claws,"
has coptic order (in those Coptic MSS. which have it) of e£ irrepvya<5
against all Greeks but 1 4-92.
Now all this and more occurs in the smoothest possible manner in
Apoc. 1 30, without tremor in the scribe's pen, and in the midst of
considerable spells of conventional text. Explain it if you can,

8 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Whatever we may think of the scribe, his text (the lines double-
spaced, which is quite unusual and somewhat extravagant as regards
the vellum) flows steadily along, and the stranger readings show no
sign whatever of manipulation by him, but owe their origin exclusively
to the uncommon exemplar used. And this again, we may fairly
judge by inference, contained those rare lections in a straightforward
fashion ; otherwise, if there had been heavy corrections in that MS.,
the present copy would show some sign of hesitation in those places,
which it does not do.
Therefore, the origin of the various readings goes back at least two
generations of manuscripts and possibly more.
Swete has omitted to notice or to record a large number of
variants, which must be placed before the student ere he can form any
judgment as to the value of the text as a whole.
Indeed, this is most difficult to assess, because, while our MS. will
be in accord alone with a limited but authoritative group like N CAP
56 copt Syr S alone, and that on many occasions, it goes apart and
often apparently " wild " on so many other occasions, that to consider
it a balancing factor in the former series gives it undue importance in
the latter ; and if we accord it no importance in the latter, it does
away with its value as a supporter of the oldest MSS. and versions.
At any rate, we may rest assured, first, that there are effective
reasons for the "wild" readings, which we cannot at present under
stand, as these occur in the midst of the strictest agreement with a
conventional text, and, secondly, that all these variations trace to quite
ancient sources, and have no relation to mediaeval ecclesiastical bias.
Thus, in the very first chapter we read at :• —
i. 9. [Neglected by Swete.] + ev ante virojwvrj with Dionys alone
(59, quite a sympathetic MS. is the only other to read ev t»/.)
ii. 15. bpco<; (for opoicos or o picrco) being an ancient form of opoico; not
given by M C or A, but strictly it should be opcix; unless the fine
distinction of 6'/i,o>? is intentional, meaning " notwithstanding "
instead of " likewise," but in the earliest uncials there would
be no accent to differentiate the word. But the scribe of
Apoc. 130 means opco;, for he joins opco<; to peTavorjcrov
verse 1 6. " Nevertheless remember " exactly as aeth.
[opco<; occurs elsewhere in the N.T. at John XII. 42, Gal.
III. 15 and 1 Cor. XIV. 7. Note that is a Johannine
word, and manuscripts seem to concur at John xii. 42

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 9
to read opw; (whether opco<; or opebs) and not opoieos.
In Codex B it is accented opcoc, in Codex N there is
no accent. Dr. Swete does not give the accent for
130.]
But at :
iii. 16. x^teP00' f°r X^taP0? wi'h N* alone (the Ionic form).
vi. 4. - aXXo<; alone with syr S copt and Anon.
vii. 4. - ecrcppayicrpevoi with 18, 146 and syr S.
viii. 10. - Kai eirecrev sec with h and Prim [non sah boh arm aeth syr].
Neglected by Swete, who quotes Prim.
ix. 3. - eijovcriav ante oi aKopirioi with 40, 121 syr S. Cf h earn
pro potestatem. Cf. arm. Our MS. has many of these
avoidances of redundancy. Either revision or a return to
the original purer draft. Neglected by Swete.
xi. 2. eKei /3dXei (pro eKfiaXe). This is new. Cf. N* KM eK@aXe.
Again due probably to a faint exemplar. (Obs. Prim
- eK/SaXe egco.)
xiii. 8. ov ov yey pairrai pro mv oi yeyp. This with C 19, 146 and Iren
only. As A has ouai for cov ov, and N leaves out ov, the
original was again not clear ; the double ov coming together
in uncial writing is confusing, and 130 maintains the right
reading, keeping to ovopa following. Swete's text gives ov
oi without giving C 1 30 credit for this in his notes.
xiv. i 1 3. %a> pro Kvpieo with CP 1 1 3 only.
xv. 4. - Kvpie with 14-92, 18, 121 arm aeth Cypr Prim.
xvi. 19. - ro ante irorrjpiov with ^ 39, 95, 127, 146, 154 only [non
copt]. Negl. Swete.
xvii. 15. ravra pro ra vBara with N 200 (contra Cypr). Again possibly
due to the faint common original. (Compare the reverse in
syr S at XI. 6 ra vBara pro avra.)
1 7. rrjv\KapBiav pro ra<i KapBia<; with Hippolytus only. This surely
takes our text into high antiquity, but Swete overlooks it.
xviii. 3. - rov dvpov alone with 1 13 syr S and Prim. (Cf. AC - rov
oivov ; cf. aeth veneno pro vino irae).
4. /3Xa/3rjre a prima manu ex emend. The scribe inserts the /3.
With E 67-120 and Anon (laedamini).
13. iirirov; pro iirircov with 56, 95, 127, 200 (again that strong old
cursive combination) and (syr).
xxi. 1. - irpcorrj with 13, 29, 65 boh arm Iren Prim Aug [non Tert
vid].
2. + Kai ante KeKoaprjpevrjv with 100 only and arm Anon
AuctProm (Ireniai "ut").

10 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xxi. 6. ex tov vBaro; rrj<; irrjyr)'; rrj; £corj<; Bcopeav alone with 65,
reversing the order of vBaro? and irrjyij<;, and giving us the
prettiest phrase : " I give to him who is athirst water from
the spring of life," bringing this together. (Note that A
omits tit; irrjyrj^.)
xxii. 1 1. The form Kai o pvirapos pviravdrjrco en agrees alone with ^ 18
and 32. [Neglected as to 1 30 by Swete, who quotes the
others.] 2.
The nature of other innovations is clear to me. They bear the
imprint once more of "bilingual" tradition; or rather, not so much
of tradition, as of positive error oculi and error mentis in copying
from or referring to bilingual bicolumnar MSS. in early times.
Let us list some of them : —
i. \6init. - Kai. No Greeks but with sah and boh.
ii. 10. o Bia^oXoi acp' vpcov eva (pro ftaXeiv e£ vpcov o BiafioXo;).
eva agrees with arm*. Observe change of preposition.
[Swete records acp for e£ but neglects eva and - (SaXsiv].
1 4. eiBcoXodvrov alone. Cf. Coptic termination.
23. KapBiai Kai vecppov;. This order [negl. Swete] is confirmed by
51-90, 113, 114, 127, 200 and arm boh [non sah]
Vict Tun.
iii. 2. crrrjcrov sic (pro o-rrjpi^ov vel o-Tijpio-ov vet rijpr\crov). Alone.
Cf. arm ; cf. Prim + " et stabilis." [Negl. Swete.]
v. 10. fiaaiXeiav pro fiacriXei<; with (H) A 56, 143, 200 only of
Greeks, but so copt latt and arm (one MS.). Syr S says
" ftacriXeiav Kai lepeK Kai fiacriXeK " and N " fiaoikeiav
Kai lepareiav." Tert and Cypr also use regnum.
vi. 6. Order : Kai rov oivov Kai ro eXaiov syr S aeth latt [non gig]
and only Greek (36). [Negl. Swete omnino.]
12. -co; ante aipa. Alone with sah\ boh arm gig. [Swete
neglects, quoting arm.]
13. em pro «? with N 22, 23, 47, 55**, 56, 81, 102, 200 copt syr S
arm uno. [Negl. Swete, quoting N 47 syr S.]
1 5. oira<; pro irerpa-;. New with boh and arm Plur. [Cf. Hebr.
XI. 38.]
vii. 1 init. - Kai. Thus CA 127, 146 latt sah.
1 2. Order : rj Bo%a Kai r) evXoyia. Alone with syr S.
viii. 8. Order : Kai to rpirov tij? daXacro-rj1; eyevero aipa with copt
only. [Negl. Swete.]
ix. 12 init. + iBov with sah and arm absolutely alone. [Negl. Swete.]

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 1 1
x. 4. + aird post ypacpeiv with copt arm ali(i. [Negl. Swete.]
Ibid. + eftBopov ante ovpavov. New thus, but syr S = ovpavov rov
efiBofiov.
x. 8. to fiifiXtov ro (- rjvecoypevov). fiifiXiov by CA 14-92, 127,
but rjvecoypevov omitted only by syr S and 1 30. [Neglected
entirely by Swete, who merely quotes AC 6, 1 4 for /3i/SXiov,
and 6 is wrong.] Curiously enough 1 30 is the only MS. to
use /3t/3\toi> consistently throughout this section, and yet
indulges in the " seventh Heaven."
xi. 6. Kiii exovcriv egovaiav. New Greek order with versions only.
[Negl. Swete.]
19. - aarpairai Kai with one arm MS.
xii. 2. - Kai sec. ante fHaeravitypevrj. New (but quite natural), alone
with boh, which suppresses all copulas here.
9. - Kai post Bia^oXo<; with M boh only [contra sah]. Swete
neglects, quoting M and boh.
1 1 . ra<; yfrvxa; with 23 and the Egyptian fam 34 only as well as boh
latt^ arm un° Prim. [Negl. Swete, quoting 35, 87 arm.]
1 4. - tou ante aerov with M only and boh and arm ? [Negl.
Swete, quoting M arm.]
Ibid. - Kai sec. ante Kaipov; with 41, 42, 53, 69, 75, 77, 81, 90, 122
syr S. [Negl. Swete.]
xiii. 2. - crropa sec with 38, 59, 69, 114 syr S aeth arm a,1<J.
5. + Kai ante Bvo with A 1 6, 39, 69, 95, 1 27 gig syr Iren. [Negl.
Swete, quoting others.]
6. - tou?. So 35 and gig only (rb aeth).
xiv. 13. + pjeyaXijv. Alone with copt.
1 4. - koi eiBov with N 1 29 syr S (aeth).
17. 6« tou ovpavov pro ex rov vaov tov ev tco ovpavco. Alone
with copt. [Negl. Swete.]
20. Bicrxt^'lC0V egaKOcricov pro j^tX-tow egaKOcricov. Alone, yet not
alone, for this can only trace to a Latin column in a bilingual,
which agreed with the reading of gig as (and therefore is
most ancient), for while the other Latins, including even
Anon, have " per stadia," and h " per istadio," gigas has
"a stadiis mille quingentis," this STADIISMILLE being
confused with Bis Mille and transferred to Greek as
AICXIAICON. For further proof of such things compare XVIII. 18
opoioi (alone) for opoia = similis the same for masculine
or feminine gender. Or comp. %'tXtot? ereeri at XX. 4 fin
alone with mille annis. of the Latins, against the %tXm errj
of all Greeks.

12 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xv. 2. Kidapav pro Kidapa<;. Alone with aeth and arm uno.
3. - rrjv coBrjv sec. So arm unus, and boh inverting the clause.
xvi. 6. eBcoKev pro eBcoKai [meiv]. Alone with two arm MSS.
xvii. 1 . Aeupo Kai Bei^co. So arm. No others.
xviii. 9. + iravres ante oi f3acriXei<;. New with boh only.
xix. 20. Order : Kai efiXrjdrjcrav oi Svo %eovre<; [«?]. New with copt and
aeth only. [Male Swete, negl. ord.)
This is a good example of polyglot handling. The
usual text is : £covre<; epXrjdrjcrav oi Bvo ei<; rrjv Xtpvrjv.
Syr S begins Kai (with us) and eliminates £covre<;. It
appears confused. The redactor of our recension refers to
copt and finds t,covre<; later, so adopts that order. Later on
he opposes copt.
xx. 12. - tt?5 ante ^corj;. With 74 and copt, and of course lat. Comp.
other such omissions alone XI. 19 - rrj<;, XII. 10 - r).
3.
Others more difficult to trace or to assess are : —
vi. 11. avairavcraade pro iva avairavcrcovrai. Alone with 1 46 com.
and arm uno.
vii. 5. Bavpro TaB With 9, 13, 16, 23 (39, 69), 75 and arm.
viii. 2. d povov pro deov „ 39, 69, 1 02 arm uno.
6. [exovre; absque oi] „ few. [Swete neglects to notice for 1 30
although quoting ^ 36 arm]
10. - Kai euecrev sec „ h and Prim only [non sah boh arm
aeth]. [Negl. Swete, quoting
Prim but not h.]
12. Order : to reraprov (sic) ri]<; aeXijvrjs Kai to rpirov rov rjXiov.
This is a new order, and of course reraprov (referring to
the " quarters " of the moon) is new. Observe h, which
agreed just above, leaves out Kai to rpirov rrj<; aeXrjvrj;.
Hence our new order, as the common parentage is the
same. [Swete quotes reraprov all right, but not the new
order, so that his quotation applies reraprov to the sun !]
ix. 13. - epcovrjv piav. This is new. But cpcovrjv is omitted by gig
Prim Cypr arm »'"), piav by 38, and the clause by N* !
- ev rrj opacrei. New, but syr S omits more. [Negl. Swete.]
+ Kai ante epeXXov. With 41, 102 and aeth. [Negl. Swete.]
+ Kai ante airrjXdev. New. The versions have Kai after
airrjXdev, but against the Greek. [Negl. Swete.]
- acrrpairai Kai. New with one arm MS. [Negl. Swete.]
oKraKoaiai (pro BiaKocriai). So only 14-92 with oaf

17.

x. 4.

xi. 14.

19.

xii. 6.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 13
xu. 17. iroXepov iroiTjaai. With S and Anon only. [Negl. Swete.]
Ibid. - rcov Xoiireov. Alone with arm and boh B. Notice another
faint place in the original, for M says " eiri Xoiireov " and
Hipp " ayicov."
xiii. 1 . em rai<; KecpaXai<;. Alone with gig [" in capitibus," the rest
have " super capita" but 114 em tcov KecpaXcov],
xiv. 3. - Teero-ape?. With C alone. [Negl. Swete.]

Dr. Swete's actual errors in reporting (besides those touched on
above) are at : —
iii. 16. Where he quotes - ovrcov. The MS. omits on not ovrcov.
iv. 1. MS. has Xeyovcra per epov for XaXovarji; per epov Xeyovcra.
v. 2. MS. has Kai iBov ayyeXov ( - io~xvpov) Kr\pvaerovra icrxvpa
cpcovrj ( - peyaXrj). Swete quotes with M for Krjpvererovra
laxvpov.
v. 13. MS. has Xeyovro^. He quotes Xeyovra<;.
vi. 1 1 . Neglecting the construction, he misquotes auoKrevveadai for the
manuscript's airoKrevvecrde. The MS. has a new reading
here, omitting a>?. He should have noticed dmoKrevvecrde,
as he quotes in the same verse avairavcraade for iva
avairavcrcovrai.
The MS. is clear for birder. He quotes 077-179.
Male Swete. + laparjX ante iva. The codex substitutes
10-parjX for iva.
Male Swete povfieiv. MS. has povfirjp.
iBecr pro elBov. This is new. Swete brackets 1 30 as for iBov !
MS. has [w? evrjyyeXicre] rov<; eavrov BovXov; tov; irpoeprjra<;.
Swete quotes as if MS. read 0.
xai rj o-corrjpia. (" De novo in versu " pro Kai rj ftaaiXeia).
Swete is not clear.
MS. has irpocrKvvrjcrcoaiv. Swete errs, quoting irpoaKwrjerovaiv
with S, etc.
xvi. 1 4. MS. has eKiropeverai (-a) with N a 88 alone. Swete notes
- d, but apparently makes the MS. read eKiropevovrai.
xix. 18. Male Swete rcov ir avrcov. MS. has [it avrcov],
xxii. 6. Swete quotes 130 alone for the omission of Beigai tow BovXoi<;
avrov, but a good many others omit also.
17. MS. has Xeyovaai. Male Swete Xeyovaa,

15.

vii. 1.

5.

y

:. 5.

7.

xii.

10.

xiii.

15.

14 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
5.
His omissions are manifold, not so much, I think, from design as
from carelessness, as he reports similar variations in other places.
He neglects altogether some 2 1 5 readings, of which not less than half
are of very considerable importance. For instance, besides some
already mentioned, the following variations are not recorded at all : —
i. 3. rov Xoyov pro tou? \070u9, although he quotes WQ 100 aeth.
6. Kai iroirjaavn rjpiv (pro Kai eiroirjcrev rjpai), although he quotes
others.
ii. 1. eKKXrjaicov pro xpvcrcov. (New.)
3. Kai vrropovryv + rjv (ante e^e*?). (New.)
3/4. Kal ovk eKoiraaaa sic + Bia ro ovopa jwv (pro aXX e^a> Kara
erov). New.
24. 01 pro oo-oi. So W and 130, 200 alone.
25. ov av rjgco ( - axpv;). (New.)
26. Kparcov pro rrjpcov. With 13-55* only.
28. - rov ante acrrepa. So 200.
iii. 7. - tou ante BaB ; although supporting his text with CA 38 syr S.
9. tou? Xeyovra<; pro rcov Xeyovrcov.
10. rjyairrjcrai; pro errjpr)cra<;.
Ibid. eK pro em prim. None of these
Ibid. - oXrj<; et + KarcoiKovv sic ante ireipdcrai. J recorded.
Ibid, rov; Xrjcrra; pro rov; KaroiKovvra<;. J
1 1 . oera pro b. (New.)
Ibid.fin. - erov. (New.)
12. air 5s pro avrov prim with N* 47, 61, 92 txt, 100*. Neglected
although N is cited.
Ibid. - ro ovopa tov deov pov Kai. 130 with B only. Swete quotes
B (his Q) but not 130.
17. ovBe pro ovBevos. Neglected, while others are cited.
iv. 6. - Kai kvkXco tov dpovov. Neglected, while others are cited.
7. + w? ante aerco. (New.)
9. tco dpovco. Neglected, quoting SA.
v. 4. Om. vers. Neglected, quoting A 98.
6. - Kai ocpdaXpov; eirra. With 1, 44, 61, 121.
9. OTt r)yiaaaa (sic) rco deco ( - eercpayri<; Kai). (New.)
13. - Kai viroKareo tt;? 777?. Neglected, quoting others.
vi. 5. epxov Xeyovro<; sic ( - Kai fiXeire). (New order.)
8 ev Xtpco Kai ev popcpaia Kai ev davarco. (New order.)
9. rrjv acppayiBa rriv ireptrrrjv. Neglected, quoting others.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 15
vi. 1 1 . - Kai oi crvvBovXoi avrcov. Alone with 36.
Ibid, oi eXeyov pro oi p,eXXovre<;. (New.)
[This whole verse is curiously reconstructed. Instead
of : Kai eBodijcrav eKaerroi<; crroXai XevKai Kai eppedrj
avrov; iva avairavcrcovrai en XP0V0V piKpov eco<; ov
irXijpcocrovrai Kai oi crvvBovXoi avrcov Kai oi aBeXcpcov
avrcov oi peXXovre; airoKreiveadai to? Kai avroi of
the textus receptus, we are treated to the following (which
is useless for anyone to report only partially) : " koX eBodrj
avroli aroXrj XevKrj • Kal epprjdrj airoii ¦ dvairavcracrde
Xpbvov piKpov ecoi irXrjpcbcrcocriv Kal ol dBeXcpoi avrcov
ot eXeyov dironrevveerde Kal avroi • ". Notice the punctu
ation before dvairavcracrde, and the substitution of ol eXeyov
for ol peXXovre<; before airoKrevvecrde with the suppression
of &>? before Kal avroi •.]
vi. 12. - to? ante aipa. New among Greeks, but with sah boh gig
arm. Neglected, although arm quoted.
1 3. - tou ovpavov. New among Greeks with 1 1 3 only, but with
Novat Anon AuctPTom.
vii. 1. + Kai ante Kparovvra<; with syr S and over a dozen cursives.
Swete neglects, quoting others. [For his 97 doubtless
read 79.]
Ibid, prjirore pro firjre bis. (New.)
2. - avrov;. Neglected, although others quoted.
ix. 3 init. - Kai. (New.)
4. dXXd pro ei prj. New with aeth.
11. - efipaicrn. New. Surely Swete should have noted this.
12 init. + iBov. New with sah and arm alone.
1 4. 'T(S pro o? eixe. New thus. Swete brackets 1 30 with others for
rco expvri, which is not accurate.
17. - ev rco opacrei. New thus, but syr S omits more.
20. - ra before apyvpa, xaXKa, Xidiva, and %vXiva. New thus as
a whole among Greeks with 200.
Ibid. + a ante ovre sec. ante (3\eireiv. New. [Swete quotes the
new " ra Kcocpa Kai xpvcra," but omits the above in this
verse.]
x_ 4_ + Kai ante epeXXov. With two other of my cursives and aeth.
Ibid. + avra post ypacpeiv. New with copt and arm all<5. Swete
neglects, although quoting efiBopov ovpavov in same verse.
xi. 6. - et? aipa. Completely overlooked by Swete. Now syr S
leaves out em rcov vBarcov, and 1,12, etc., omit avra, so
probably a marginal notice to leave out avra was misapplied
by the others, and our omission must be noted.

16 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xi. 11. ev avrov; pro eir avrov;. Neglected, although others quoted.
19. - t»7? ante Biadr)Kt)(;, (New.)
xii. 4. riKreiv. Overlooked by Swete, although quoting others.
8. Order: ev rco ovpavco en. (New, against sah boh order).
- en N<= aliq.
Ibid. - per' avrov.
17. iroXepov rroirjcrai with Hso' and Anon.
xiii. 1 . - Kai eiBov e/c T17? daXacrcrrj;, joining XII. 1 8 / XIII. 1 with stop
after drjpiov avafiaivov. Prim omits XII. 18, but has
XIII. 1 as usual.
3. eereppayierpevrjv pro eerepaypsvrjv. Swete neglects this substitution
not only for 130 but for other cursives. (So far I record
eighteen MSS. for this.)
1 6. Bcoaiv pro Bcbcrrj. Neglected, although others quoted.
1 7. Bvvarai. „ „ eleven others quoted.
18. + ecrnv post avrov. „ ' ,, thirteen „ „
xiv. 3. - recraape;. With C alone. Swete quotes neither, although he
notices - Kai quart.
6. - em ri)<; 7779. (New.)
7. - ev cpcovq peyaXrj. (New.)
11. rb x^picrpa pro to xdpaypa. New reading (a Pauline and
Petrine expression). Prim is colourless with "notam."
But surely Swete should have noticed this. No MS. or
Version agrees, but at XIX. 20 arm 4 has what Coneybeare
renders tt^ xaPLV f°r T0 XaPa'i'l''a there, and which
Swete sees fit to mention at that place.
1 3. Xeyovaav pro Xeyovcrrj;. Neglected, although epcovrjv for cpcovij;
and + peyaXrjv, both in the accusative, are recorded.
Ibid, yap pro Be with NC AP, etc. Swete records twelve others, but
neglects 130.
14. MS. reads Kadijpevo? vio; avdpcoirov (- opoio;). New thus
with aeth. Swete reports - ojwio<; but neglects to notice
wo? for 130, although quoting 1 for it, and noting Kadrj/ievo;
for 130.
18. Order: ck tov dvcriaarrjpiov egrjXdev with E. Swete neglects
this order of E and 130 (with 17, 67-120) although noung
- egrjXdev for A, and - ex rov dvcr. for Prim, so the
inverted order is important.
Ibid. - Xeycov irepyjrov erov to Bpeiravov ro o%v Kai. Swete quotes
- Xeycov for 130 alone but not the rest of the omission,
which is most misleading as syr S also omits Xeycov (besides
14-92, 16, 72, 100), and irepyjrov erov to Bpeiravov ro o%v
is omitted by arm and the cursives 12*. 16, 72, 100, and

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 17
finally Kai tert by 100^ and arm. Thus 100 and 130
agree.
xv. 2. The unique exovcrav (pro e^oi^e?) is neglected, although Swete
records Kidapav following (with aeth and arm uno). Apoc.
1 30 would apparently apply exovaav to daXacrerav.
6/7. The MS. omits e/e rov vaov to rcov reererapcov %cocov. Swete
says, as to Xivov or Xidov verse 6 " hiat 1 30," but does not
indicate what this hiatus amounts to. In reality I suppose
the MS. should be quoted as - e« tou vaov with many
others, as well as for the longer omission, which may be an
error, or deliberate, but it adds d<; post rrXrjya; (ver. 6)
and . before eBcoKe (ver. 7), completing the sense, which
Swete quite overlooks.
xvi. 9. + rrjv ante etjovcriav. Neglected, quoting others.
1 7. - tou vaov. This is not properly indicated for 1 30 or others.
20. 7ra9 avrjp ecpvyev pro iraera vrjero1; ecpvye. Swete absolutely
passes by this curious substitution, the most extraordinary in
the whole MS. ! The MS. does not often indulge in such
things, but when it does, the business of the critic is to
report it, as there is no knowing when collateral agreement
may be found in other documents, leading to identification
of families, type, and common sources.
xvii. 5. - v ante pyrrjp. (New. Cf. copt.)
15. -a. Alone with 98. Not noticed, although TauTa for ra
vBara is cited with M alone.
18. sort 7roXt9 pro ecrnv r\ itoXk;. New, but neglected, as is - r)
above before pvTVP, but these things all tend to show a
polyglot mind, and must be recorded ; else our labour is
vain (cf. XII. 10 below).
xviii. 2. - K,ai epvXaKij iravro<; irvevparo; aKadaprov. So six of my
cursives. Swete is silent, although referring to pepiappevov
of 130 in the same verse.
4. - Kai sec. Omitted by 1 30 as well as by P 1 , six other cursives,
syr S and boh. Swete is silent as to all of them.
7 init. on pro ocra. (New.)
Ibid, aireo pro avrrj. (New.) ( - auT?7 gig, - Sore avrrj syr S.)
12. [iropepvpa<; with text rec] Swete is silent as to 130, but quotes
NCP 7, 35, 95 Hipp., evidently overlooking it.
13. + xai apcopov not apeopov. New thus. Swete has + Kai
apcopov in his text, but neglects the genitive of 130,
although quoting Kivvapeo/iov for many others.
Ibid. dvpia/xaro<; instead of dvpiapara, following Kivvapcopov and

18 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
apcopov, with another genitive. Swete neglects, although
quoting Q 1 4, 92 for this, and 94 vg for dvpiaparcov.
, \ Kapivov for Xipvrjv. (New in both places.)
xx. 10J
xx. 6. aXXa Xeyovrai pro aXX' ecrovrai. New. Swete quotes N for
aXXa without mentioning 130. Carelessness can go no
further. Such a new reading (making good sense) calls for
mention.
8. - cov ante o apidpos. New. This, with + avrcov post apidpo;
with NAB mult, should be noticed, for the reading of 130
without cov appears to be the best of all : "o apidpo<;
avrcov &)9 rj appa<; T179 daXaaaij<;," instead of cov 0
apidpo<; avrcov k.t.X.
9. " [eKVKXevcrav] rrjv iroXiv Kai rrjv irapep/3oXijv rcov ayicov [Kai
tt\v iroXiv rrjv rjyamjpevrjv]." This reduplication of rrjv
iroXiv is to be noticed (cf. syr. S only; cf. B 97-122).
Swete passes it over, although referring to Q and 97.
10. + e/3Xrjdrj post drjpiov. New. Cf. 32 + efiXrjdrjcrav post
¦^revBoirpocp.
11. eir airb • (pro eir' airov). This is new. Others (81, 104, 114,
1 19-123 all notable cursives) read eir' aireo, but 130 is best,
and should be quoted, because elsewhere most MSS. read
eir avrov and not the dative after Kadrjpevo1;. Swete quotes
33 and 35 for eir avrco (33 is wanting here), and is silent as
to 130.
12. iBov pro eiBov. Notwithstanding above neglect, Swete has been
careful to record 130 for iBov, but overlooks it here and in
four or five other places.
xxi. 10. - Kai post peya. 130 reads: "eir 0009 pueya vyfnjXov." Swete
neglects this altogether, although a dozen cursives read thus,
and Cypr omits Kai vtyriXov, which is also not mentioned.
13. The MS. reads Kai airo rov vorov which is a new reading.
Swete will not notice it.
16. Nor is BeKaBvo mentioned for BcoBeKa, although much smaller
things are often recorded.
19. %a\/«oW is also neglected, although he cites Q I, 29, 98 for it.
21. - ava. New (with one of my cursives 107*).
xxii. 7. + Kai ante paKapioi. So 30 and aeth besides 1 30. Swete is
silent.
8. MS. reads aKovcov ( - 6) Kai fiXeircov ravra. So four other of
my cursives.
Ibid. SeiKvvvros. Swete quotes others, but not 130.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 19
Some of the above omissions bear on our problems, as he has
omitted to notice much basic agreement or collateral sympathy with
the elder authorities.
Sporadic agreement with such MSS. as 36, 56, or 114, points to
critical emendation (always at a remote date) with possible survival of
some genuine " lost" readings, even among our unique series.
We can connect 1 30 with most of our important MSS., uncial
and cursive, but with no one sufficiently to establish a firm " class " or
" group " relationship in the way we can do it for others. It must,
therefore, take its place singly alongside such MSS. as 18, 36,
40, 47, 95, 114 (143, 146, 200 to follow), which all reproduce
separate lines of transmission, converging, it is true, as we remount the
centuries, but being bounded by the " blinkers " which envelop their
separate and several transmission from remote ages.
The large omissions due to homoioteleuton are doubtless due in
whole or in part to similar lacunae in the parent copy, but which are
due to the scribe's own infirmity, and which are not it remains most
difficult to establish, as we have no sister- MS. with which to com
pare it.
In a general way, there appears rather more sympathy with the
two Coptic versions than with Syriac or Latin.
It is refreshing to find such a MS. still available among the un
equal treasures of Mt. Athos, and as I have been unable, so far, to
complete the examination of quite a score of recently catalogued MSS.
in the different monasteries of the Promontory, more helpful material
may possibly be brought to light after my day.
I flatter myself, however, that the picture which I have painted in
my table of grouped readings will make the path of the future investi
gator more plain, and enable him more readily to assess at its true
value any new evidence which may be forthcoming from the discovery
of any other such interesting survivals as the present MS. under review.
6.
Remain the other unique readings not yet tabulated. We ought
really to have given a sequent running list of all principal variations,
instead of separating them. It would have been fairer to the MS.
However, we will close with the other readings not yet dealt with,
which are so far unique, or nearly so.

20

9.
11.
Ibid. 12.

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
- rco BovXco avrov (So 170.)
- eyevopijv rrj vrjcrco rrj KaX. irarpco Bia rov Xoyov rov deov
xai Bia rrjv paprvpiav vqerov xPl(T'rov-
+ poi post Xeyovarj; So 1 1 1 , 1 46 h copt arm alitl [non
Gr.].
d pro b Minn ali(» sah boh syr S.
I For em cf. some + e/eet, but
none so far omit ISXeireiv.
-, ror the source ot eiri consider

{ - pxeireiv)

a Coptic column, 6 TGCJUtH
i. sah, cf-CJUH boh.

13.

opotos [via avov] evSeBvpevo;

Alone.

Ibid.

irepie^coa pevo;

Alone.

17.

— 0)9

With114, 146 only.

Ibid.

Ti7i> XeLPa avT0V Pro TVV

fNo other omits Segiav.

Begiav avrov XelPa

18.

- aprjv

HCAPpauc.

20.

ov; pro cov

NCAP al. [om. Swete].

ii. 1.

rco ev eepeaco ckkX.

CA36.

liii. 3.

pvrjpbvevcrov (sic) ovv

38,81, 178,200.1
Alone. J

p,vi)pbveverov (sic)

ii. 5.

- raxei

NCAP56, 143, 146,200^
copt syr S.

9.

— ra epya Kai

CAP 47, 111, 146, 200^
harl copt syr S.

Ibid.

eivai lovBaiov; eavrov;

(100.) [Negl. Swete.]

10.

exvre

AP36, 81, 121.

11.

— rov Bevrepov

Alone.

13.

— ra epya erov Kai

NCAP38, 143, 146,178,200
syr S copt latt arm all<i

14.

- on

C111, 143, 146.

Ibid.

rco fiaXadx ( — ev)

CA syr. [Negl. Swete.]

17.

- airo [ret. cum t. r.]

19 and 111 

18.

ev dvareipa

14-92 only. „

Ibid.

XapiraSa; pro cpXoya

Alone (no versions).

iii. 2 init.

yevov pro yivov.

Alone with 200.

4.

aXXa exeii oXiya ovopara

NCA 38-178.

5.

irepi fiaXeireo

Alone. [Negl. Swete.]

8.

+ croi post BeBcoxa

87 only.

9.

rov; Xeyovrai [e. iovB. eivai]

Alone.

16.

ipecreiv

Alone. [Negl. Swete.]

17.

dXrjdivba pro eXeeivos.

Alone.

Ibid.

[Kai TvepXoi Kai yvpvos]

Contra copt, contra syr S.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

21

iii. 18. KoXovpiov

iv. 3.
Ibid.fin.

Ibid.Ibid. 5.
6. 8.
9/10.
jv. 3.
1 13. 6.
Ibid. 8.
9/10.
Wfin. 14.

erpapdyBco pro crapBivco
crpapayBivcov

Alone with the Complutensian
edition! [We have still to
find the MS. from which it
was set up.]
Alone. ( + crpapayBco B al.) ,
So 98 only. (Cf. 14 syr
erpapayBcov.)

Kai em tou? eiKoanecrerapai \ » ,
a r s \ rAalone-
apovov; irp. \ - eioov) )
- irepifiefiXrjpevov; 63, \\9 txt only.
- ipanov; N only and arm uno. (Also 1 43,
178,200.)

rov dpovov avrov ¦ Kai eicri tiro) ,-... i a m
a « F \Cf. 14-92 syr.
rov dpovov a i eicri )

dpovo
ippeaeo A 114,200.
ber r)v Alone.
- tow aicovcov (f)fin.) usque ad\S alius, sedom. rcov aicovcov bis,
Kai ftaXXovai (ver. 10) J solus.

— ovBe viroKarco T179 7179
- Kai viroKarco rrji 7179
eppeerco prim, [non sec]
aireerraXpeva ( — ra)
eiXrjcpev pro eXa/3e
- rjpa<; usque ad rco deco
- Kai xiXiaSes ^tXtaoW

With N and nearly a dozen j
cursives. r
WithM \2al. etcopt. J
A only, but A does it twice.
[Negl. Swete.]
So N 9, 26, 38, 67.
Alone.(Error ex homoiotel.)
81 only.

f Alone thus, many leaving out the
- Kai irpoae/evvrjcrav "covn et9 „ , , ,
-! "covn clause, but none so tar
TOU9 aicovai rcov aicovcov I the Kai irpoerenvvrjerav.
vi. 1 . a>9 cpcovrjv fipovTrj<; Xeyovros New thus with arm. (Cf. A.)

5.

err avrov pro eir avrco

Alone.

i.fin.

— avrov

Alone. (Cf aeth.)

6.

KpidSm

MCAP and some important
cursives.

8.

eir avrov pro eiravco avrov

Alone. (eir pro eiravco 56,
avrov new.)

Ibid.

- 0 ante davaro;

NC and the Compl. group.

Ibid.

em reraprov ( - ro) T17?

hNew without ro.

airoKreivai

9.

- Bia sec.

Alone with A of Greeks and gig
tol Cypr Prim (copt).

22

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

vi. 10.

- o Beairorrj;

Alone. (Domine pro o Beer.
iron); gig)

Ibid.

Kpiveia pro Kpiveti

So 80, 81 and boh*. [Negl.
Swete.]

Ibid.

eKBiKieicr sic

New thus. [Negl. Swete.]

17.

avrcov pro avrov

WithMC 18,38, 111,146, 178,
200 of Greeks, syr S and 2,
and gig (ipsorum) A uct de Prom
(illorum).

vii. 1.

ev; pro em prim

Alone with gig (viro by 29 is
the only Greek variation).

Ibid.

irveverrj pro irver/

With N and certain cursives.

3.

pr) Be bis pro firjre bis

With N 16, 39, 81, 102, 114,
121.

5.

Bdv pro TdB

With 9, 13, 16, 23 (39, 69), 75
and arm.

8 fin.

eereppayiapevco v

With 104, 151 only.

13.

- eK

With N 91, 111 only.

viii. 2.

dpovov pro deov

So only 39-69-102 and one
arm MS.

3.

egrjXdev pro rjXde

14-92 only.

Ibid. II.12.13.

IX.

2.

7.
Ibid. 10.
16.19.
Ibid.

[em to dveriaerrrjpiov] primo\vnth fourteen cursives, against
loco J NBF plur.
airo pro eK Alone with 29 (em A). [Negl.
Swete, quoting A.]
cpavrj pro epaivrj With N AF and seven cursives.
aerov [irercopevov] Agrees thus with 56.
(Observe Kairvov of 39-69-102.
( + Kaiopevrj'; post peyaXrj;
-5/1 o\
do gig syr b).
178, 200, while 80 has pv&
prim.
Alone. (Cf. 67.)
Alone.

secund.
p,)j Be sic pro ovBe bis

iirircov rjToipacrpevcov
[opoioi] xpverico
[/cat] ai e^ovaiai avrcov
Krjaai k.t.X.
co; pro Bvo

aSt-1

Alone.

Alone. (Cf perhaps cup (and
tun) sah for " numerare")
bpoiacr (ex emend. Inprimo) A ¦
.... r fAlone.
opoicocr t) pro opoia J
bepecocr sic New. Cf. arm ""l in the
singular. No others.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

23

ix. 19.

ravrai; pro avrai;

Alone.

x. 8 init.

Kai ttjv epcovriv ( — r)v) rjKovaa
iraXiv tov XaXovvros



Alone.

per epov eK rov ovpavov

Xeyovaav ...
9.
fiifiXiov
N127, 146 only.
xi. 6.
av pro eav
C 23, 38, 67-120, 56-108, 106
and these only. (Cf M 16,
36, 104, iii. 19.)
7.
eavrcov pro avrcov prim
Alone. [Negl. Swete.]
9.
acpicocriv pro acprjerovcri
So 200. (acpiovaiv MCAP
12.) [Negl. Swete.]
10.
[ireptyovcriv cum t. r.]
[Negl. Swete.]
13.
avBpcov pro avdpcoircov
Alone with 200.
16.
[Kadrjpevoi cum t. r]
[Negl. Swete.]
10.
1 2 init. 14.
Ibid. 18.
xiii. 3. 4.5.
6.
Ibid. 8.
Ibid. 10.
13.
Ibid.
- eKeipost iva ante [rpecpcoaiv)^ ^ ^^ ^ h and syr g
sic] J
[e7ei>6To] ercoTijpia (- rj) /eat^New thus (while 67-120, 121
Bvvapn (- rj) 1 only omit r) prim).
- Bia rovro Alone.
- et9 prim ante rrjv eprjpov Alone. (Cf. copt " towards. )
iva pro oirov Alone [non copt].
ierrddrj So MCA al pauc.
[Abest eK cum t.r. et B al Pauc\[j\fe^ Swete.]
boh arm] )
on pro 09
+ r) ante e%ovaia
[en] p\aerc\trjp,iaer
— rov;
ro ovopa + avrov
- rij ante [fiifiXco]
with NCAP al.
Alone [non sah boh].
With MCA 1, 18,34,67,87,
95, 127. (Cf latt qui vari
ant inter se.)
With 35 and gig. (rb aeth.)
(+ avrov CA 124, 146, 178
soli.)
SoN*36, 59, 114(C).
et Tt9 et9 aixpaXcocriav airayei- tantum.
peyaXa crrjpeia (pro arjp. pey.) With the 34 family only. (Obs.
- peyaXa copt Prim.)
[iva Kai irvp] eK rov ovpavov)
iroirjerrj et? rrjv yrjv Kara- 0 .
at \[Non accurate Swete. J
prjvai [evcomov rcov av- l
15.
dpcoircov]
iva Kai XaXVaV V eiKcov tou W^ certain cursives
drjpiov )
24

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

xni. 16. rroirjerr) (pro iroiei).

17.
18.

xiv. 2. 3.5.
8.
Ibid.Ibid. 10.
Ibid. II. 13.15.18.
20.
XV. 3.
Ibid.

prjBeii pro prjTv;
egaKocria e^rjKovra e|? • sic

- KidapcoBcov
- Kai quart, ante ovBei;
apcopoi eiaiv ( — yap)
Bevrepoi PRO ayyeXoi
rj peyaXrj iroXi;
ireiTTCOKe
eK tov dv pov pro ev tco irorrjpico Alone. (Cf. arm.)
- Kai evcomov rov apviov Alone.
et9 TOU9 aicovai rcov aicovcov) .
avaftaivei
ano pro eK (rcov koitcov)
[rov depiaai]
egovcriav excov (pro e%o>r el-ovcr.) Alone. [Negl. Swete.]

Alone (faciet Victorin, vg).
iroirjerei Na 59, syr arm boh
sah aeth Hipp 1 \2 (sed fecit
Prim!)
With the 34 family only, 200
and sah boh.
With P, etc. [Opposite, in the
margin, XaTeivoc , but not in
the scribe's hand. No other
marginal remarks.]
Alone. " Nee quisquam " Prim.
So CAPE 12, 59, 67, 81, 100,
114, 120, 121.
«**» 95-127 syrS.
So 178. (Cfiaeth.)
So 1 2. (Na copt arm)

>(+ rov: 69, non fam.)
So 102 only.

BiaxiXicov [e^aKocricov]
pcoverrj sic
ftacriXev pro o ftacriXev;

4. n; ere pr) epofirjdr)

Ibid, davpacrr) pro Bo^acrrj
Ibid. + Kvpie post erov sec.
7. +a?
xvi. 1 . e^eTe pro eKxeare

Alone. (Cf. gig.)
H* 18,47,56, 119-23 and ten
others.
Alone, but close to N 95-127.
(Cf. this combination supra
at XIV. 8.)
Alone so far.
With A 46-88-101, 59-121, 95-
1 27 aeth arm uno.

Alone. One of the very rare
places where the changes
make nonsense.
3. - avrov Alone.
4. eyevovro A 36, 56, 95, 100, 127, 200
_ copt syr latt aeth Prim.
7. Ke 6 iravro Kparcop ( - o deoi) So aeth, and (43 - o deo? o).

XVU

.4.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 25
xvi. 11. + Kai post ovpavov Alone.
14. ervvayeiv pro ervvayayeiv So only 67.
Kai ra aKadapra ri); irovrjpia;) *, r^f 17 fn \
t?7? 777? J
5. + auTi7? post ovopa [Habet] a ion_
anted] i .
6. — ck rov aiparoi rcov ayieov\So 156. (Cf 146, 154, 155
Kai eK J bohP)
Ibid. - irjaov With 1, 12, 36, 59, 67, 81, 1 14,
119-23, 120, 121 and arm™°.
8. [/S\e7roi'Te? to drjpiov] on r^v]
Kal oiK ecrnv Kal on j-New thus.
rrdpeanv • coBe ... J
10. birov pro ovirco Alone with 1 04.
12. ^aaiXelai sic pro fiaaiXel; Alone. [Contra Iren.]
\&fin. avTi)i pro rrji 7779 Alone. (Om. altogether aeth ;
terrarum Prim)
xviii. 2. pepiappevov Alone. (Cf. 51-90 Anon)
3. ireirrcoKe With 63, 91 , 1 1 4, 1 46.
4. — ck rcov irXrjy cov avrr)<; With \lP pauc.
6. — vp.iv NCAP, etc.
Ibid. [Kai BiirXcoerare avrrj BiirXa ( — ra)]
6/7. Conjungit With 1 20 and syr S.
1 2. — irav prim Alone. (Cf. sah)
13. [Kai oivov.] [Kai Krrjvr) Kai irpofiara.]
14. erov Tr); emdvpia; rrj; yfrvxV1^ With MCAP 95-127. [Negl.
Swete.]
22. eraXmyycov With M the 35 family, 90, 200.
N.B. The text now becomes conventional until we near the end
of the XlXth Chapter.
xx. 3. pera Be ravra ( — Kai) So 29, 30, 1 29 (98).
4. ireireXeKr,peveov So (20), 25, 58, 70, 78, 84, 94.
Ibid, avrov pro rov deov Alone. Only clue is in sah
with AtnrtOVTe, involving
T.
1 2. Kai fiifiXia rjvoi^av • Kai aXXo)™,. . jq j aq
/3f/S\toi/ rjvoixdr) I
xxi. 5. \e7et pro eiirev Alone with 65 and Anon (dicit).
7. avrcov pro avrco With A al et arm. Cf. Cypr
(Tert: illis).
8. + ev ante irvpi Alone with 65.

26 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
7.
To sum up. The only "monstra" in reality in all this ancient
medley are but : —
ii. 1. eKKXrjericov for XPV<TWV
iii. 17. aXrjdivo; for eXeeivo;
vii. 1 . taparjX for iva
ix. 20. to eiBeoXa ra Kcocpa Kai xpvera for eiBcoXa ra xpvaa
x. 4. eftBopov ovpavov
xvi. 1. e%eT6 for eKxeare
and, compared to other MSS., especially to the uncials, and A
(which has many more), these monstra are well-balanced by the
other remarkable features of the text, which we have already noticed.
In closing I cannot forbear to emphasise once more the polyglot
character of the variations to be observed by a study of the readings
shared by other MSS.

P.S.
Before proceeding with our investigation, I would like to call your
attention to a tiny non-commentary MS. in Greece, which throws
much light on our polyglot or Version problem.
I have had to collate it out of order, having only recendy received
the photographs of it. Notwithstanding its diminutive size (4 inches
by 3), and its execution with a quill or a stub pen, and its many
itacisms, and its numerous omissions, it is of great importance. This
document also occurs in a volume of Miscellanies. Owing to its re
ception so late, I have had to attribute to it the number 1 1 3, instead
of its former number in the catalogues.
I am inclined to think that it is copied direct from a rather late
uncial, which in turn had already been somewhat reworked to the B
or Q base, but contained very many ancient readings. This late uncial
had been guilty of many errors of omission, due to homoioteleuton, which
our scribe never tries to remedy. This alone shows that he did not
revise his copy or consult other documents. And, as a rule, these
manifold omissions do not injure the sense, and, therefore, he would
not notice that anything was missing.
Now, to plunge at once into the heart of the matter. I have long
waited for a Greek MS. which would give me the daXaererrp; of

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 27
syr S for the afivercrov of the current text in XI. 8. Until now (and
we are up to No. 200), I had found none. But this little MS. has
it ! And not only this, but many another rare lection, tucked away
so deep in the small writing that it takes a good pair of eyes and
much watchfulness to avoid missing important detail.
Besides this reading, here are a few more of the sympathetic
readings with syr S.
i. 1 3. The very unusual + avrov after irpoi tou? pacrrov; with syr
aeth and copt, but not Latin nor any other Greek MS.
ii. 1. xei'Pl-pro Begia. So syr S alone.
13. — oirov KaroiKei o aaravai. So syr S and only 38 [non 178],
iii. 12. — eK rov ovpavov. So syr S, quite alone with us.
v. 3. Kai Xvaai rai crcppayiBai avrov (pro ovBe fiXeireiv avro). So
syr S, alone with us and only 108 (sister of the important
56).
vi. 4. - aXXoi. Our MS, 130, syr S and copt.
ix. 20. - Bvvarai. So syr S alone with us.
Ibid. In this same verse we have the very unusual order of : Kai ra
f-vXiva Kai ra Xidiva with syr S, boh [non sah] Greek
M and fam 1 1 9, the latter being the most ancient source
ok fam 1.
x. 1 . - laxvpov. With syr S only and 1 46 com.
8. - to rjvecoypevov. So syr S and 130, 146 com. only, but these
retain to or its equivalent.
xviii. 3. - rov dvpov. So syr S, 130 and Primasius.
1 1. Kai pro on. So syr S alone.
14. evBeBvpevon (agreeing with iirirov; XevKoi;). So syr S and
N 152, 178 only.
Now comes a curious composition of syr S and 2, at
xx. 6. We read rco dew Kai rco xPL0"ra> + avrov for the usual " tou
deov Kai rov %oto-Tou." Observe that : 38 and syr S
give us the dative, while 1 1 1 and syr 2 give us + avrov ;
and at :
xxi. 18 syr S and syr 2 both agree with us, alone, to read: xPval0v
Kadapov instead of XPVO~IOV Kadapov.
If you turn to the Armenian, you find a score of striking coin
cidences, among them : —
II. 24 - Xoiiroi; ; VI. 1 1 airodvrjaKeiv pro airoKreweadai without
a single other Greek MS., or another version ; IX. 7 avdpcoircov pro

28 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
avd peon cov fin ; IX. 21 - avrcov post iropveia; ; XIV. 9 + irp
Be%iav post vet/Jt avrov ; XV. 3 - BiKaiai and 200 only ; XXII.
9 - /3i@Xov primo loco, arm, our MS. and 59 only.
If you turn to the Coptic, you find at XI. 1 0 + Xeyovres with the
Coptic quite alone ; XI. 1 5 /3acriXevcrovcriv for /3aeriXevcrei alone
among Greeks, with three MSS. of boh; at XIX. 7 we have
Bo^aZfopev rrjv Bo£av avrov with 81 only of the Greeks. Compare
the Coptic. At XIX. 1 3, we omit to ovopa avrov. So only the
bohairic. At XXI. 1 4, omit BeoBeKa before a7roo-roXojf , and thus
only, among the whole range of our documents, do sah and 'arm
likewise omit.
.We must dwell a moment on the passage at XX. 1 0. This is a
most peculiar place. Of all MSS. and Versions, only our MS. and
boh add "burning in"(r>7f Kaiopevr/v ev) before " fire and brim
stone." But our MS. adds ep\vdrjcrav (sic) after 6 \\ievBoirpocprjTrj<;,
and boh does not. The only other MS. to add anything is 1 30,
which adds efSXrjdij earlier after to dr/piov, repeating the " casting in."
Now sah apparently does this, and at first sight it looked as if
it did after o \jjevBoirpocprjTrj<s also, but while boh transliterates '
\\ievBoirpoeprjTyj<;, sah uses irpocprjTrjs and the Coptic word for
" mendax " rtOV2C„ having previously used the same word before
ro drjpiov. Now ft62£ or ff02C or WOY3C6 in sabidic means to
cast down, so that some confusion has arisen here, as between sahidic
and the Greek MSS. 113 and 130 as to this additional efiXrjBrj.
The thing seems indubitable. The bohairic word used (earlier in the
verse) for ef3Xr)6rj is different : A-YglTcj.
If we turn to the Aethiopic, we find similar points of contact, in
at least a score of places. Observe : —
i. 4/5. evcoiriov rov dpovov avrov Kai rov irjaov XP1(TT0V> this tou
replacing amo, and completely changing the sense.
5. vpa; instead of rjpa; after both ayarrovn and Xvcravri, quite
alone with aeth.
v. 2. + Xeycov after Tt?. Our MS., aeth, and boh 1 /2.
8. eirecrov + Kai irpocreKvvrjcrav. Here is composition, alone
among Greek MSS., but aeth has " adoraverunt" simply.
[See below on XXI. 27 for a similar thing.]
xi. 8. - 7rXaTeta? (legens : " em T179 7ro\e<»9 "). So our MS. and
aeth alone.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 29
xi: 9. - Kai edvcov. Our MS., two others (81, 121) and aeth.
xii. 4. - t»79 peXXoverrji reKeiv. A most probable omission, yet no
Greek MSS. omit, and no Versions but aeth.
XV. 5. rj o-Kiivrj pro o vaoi rrji erKrjvr];. So aeth with us alone.
We ought, perhaps, to have started this exhibition by saying that
at the outset we find agreement between our MS. and the Fleury
palimpsest, our oldest Latin MS. h (unfortunately extant for only a
small portion of the Apocalypse), and, indeed, immediately at : —
i. 3 we find our MS. saying aKovcov for aKovovrei, alone with 40 (a
graeco-syriac MS.) and 1 46 (the Oecumenian MS.) and aeth,
which corresponds to the " qui legit et audit " of h. If this
be considered indeterminate, the matter is clinched at :
7 by o-tyovrai avrov pro Koyfrovrai eir avrov by our MS. with 102,
copt and h. [As to M here, the first hand lacks eir, but
retains Koifrovrai.] Further, at :
1 7 edrjKe eir'epe rrjv Beljiav avrov ( - xelPa eir'efie) is the equivalent
order of h : " imposuit super me desteram suam "
Prim: "posuit „ „ „ „
as against the usual : " posuit dexteram suam super me," as
Gigas writes here. [The difference between Prim and h
being only as between eiredrjKe and edrjKe, while the strange
order agrees with us alone.]
It must not be thought from this that Gigas does not
also have its points of contact with us, for in another anti-
Greek matter of order, close by, at
iii. 10 em oXrji rrj; oiKovpevrj; we agree with Gigas alone. And at :
16 we read cOC on pro ovrco; on alone with gig ;
Ibid. - Kai ovre tyvxpo; ovre ^ecrro;. So gig.
xii. 1 0. Gigas and syr S support our order of : e/c tou ovvov Xey.
xvi. 13. - rpia. So Gigas.
xix. 10. + iroirjaa; post opa pr/. So Gigas, supported by Prim, but
among Greeks by 32, 95- 1 27 and 1 59 only, besides our MS.
xxii. 9. + iroirjarji post opa pr), again with the same group 32, 1 27 (hiat
95 hoc loco), plus 56, another important Greek document,
and gig Prim.
We have no space to take up the intense agreement, but only in
very occasional places, with Greek MSS. like 18, 40, 56, 59, 81,
100, 102, 104, 111, 114 or 122 (note here specially 113-122 to
gether at : III. 20 Kpovcov pro Kpovca, and V. 4 emiroXv pro rroXXa.
suddenly occurring out of a clear sky), or with 32 specially towards

30 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
the close, in half a dozen places. It would be interesting to follow
this out in our search for the bases, for the respective agreements are
thoroughly scattered ; and while we have a little sympathy with the
Oecumenian MS. 1 46 in a few places, we are treated to complete
agreement in III. 1 7 with 6 raireivos (for 6 Takaiircopos of all other
MSS.). And at XI. 13, while Oec. omits ovopara avdpcorrcov alone,
we omit avOpcoucov, and 1 30 and 200 substitute avBpeov, showing
something was wrong at this place far back in the history of trans
mission ; as shown by omission of ovopara in sah, numero pro
ovopara Prim, irvevpara pro ovopara avOpcoircov aeth, ovoparcov
avOpcoucov boh, ovopara avOpeotroi syr S.
Add xi. 9. + Kai ante aef>r)aovcriv both 1 1 3 and 1 46, omitting the previous
clause.
xxii. 1 7. Xeyovcra 1 1 3 and 1 46 but 1 46 omits Kai ro irvevpa., which
justifies it completely in using Xeyovcra instead of Xeyoveriv.
How far back many of these things go is to be seen by our unique
agreement elsewhere with Primasius, as at : —
xvi. 8. ev irvpi Kavparrjcrai tov; avdpcoirov;.
xvii. 8. 4- rov apviov post ^corj;.
xxi. 11. + rrjv cpconfovcrav avrrjv.
Or, pushing the enquiry further back still to Jfippolytus, we agree
alone with him at : —
xvii. 8. davpacrovcriv for davfiaerovrai.
xviii. 1 2. XPV<J10V V apyvpiov. Our MS., while Hippol apparently gives
Xpvaiov Kai apyvpiov, but agrees alone to abandon the
Xpvcrov and apyvpqv of other Greek documents.
xix. 1 3. eppavricrpevov. Ourselves and Hippol, only supported by 35-87-
132, 95-127 and the graeco-armenian MS. 109.
There are, of course, clear survivals of the text of M, A, C, P,
sometimes in combination, as at : —
xviii. 21. - icrxvpoi NA, but no cursives but the present one under
discussion.
xiv. 1 3. xPia"Ta} Pro Kvpico by CP 1 30 and ourselves only,
but what is the situation when we abandon the oldest Greek uncials
as a body, and flock with the Versions combined ?
Now, as to agreement with the Versions in combination, ex
clusive of other Greek evidence, notice this : —

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 31
xiii. 4. Post rco BpaKovn rco BeBcoKon + avrco. Thus we find +tout&>
by syr, copt, aeth in combination, together with Iren and
Prim, but no other Greek MSS.
xiv. 4. yvvaiKoi pro yvvaiKcov. Generic, confirmed by 164 aeth, boh
and sah in combination.
8. rjKoXovdrjcrev + avrco, and so syr S and 2, copt, aeth, arm plur
and Prim.
15. + Xeycov ante rco Kadr)p£vco, and so copt,\arm, aeth collectively.
xvi. 6. Order : irpoeprjrcov Kai ayicov. So also syr S, sah combined,
and 32 and 109 gr and arm.
xxii. 2 init. + Kai. 143, 200 Gig, aeth, arm, syr S [non copt].
8 init. - Kai. Sah, boh, syr S, vg, aliq.
1 2. - eo-Tat. Gig, sah, boh, syr S, and a few Greeks.
The proof of retranslation from the Versions is now apparent and
is almost openly avowed at : —
v. 8. eirecrov + Kai irpoereKwrjcrav. Our MS. alone, with aeth " adora-
verunt," and
xxi. 27. koivov + i) aKadaprov by our MS. alone, where we find
Primasius rendering koivov by inmundum (against the
" commune " of gig vg and other Fathers), while sah boh
aeth syr 2 all translate koivov with words signifying
pollutum or inmundum. Hence the secret methods of the
recension, spread so long indirectly before our eyes, seem
now to be clearly acknowledged.
Some well-disposed doubters, nevertheless, may say — however
improbable the connection — that the redactor had in mind the " kolvov
r) aKadaprov " of St. Peter's vision in Acts X. 1 4, but then why does
no other Greek MS. have the addition ? Beyond this, we need only
look at the other evidence collaterally submitted above, in order to
rest assured that the whole performance of our MS. is of a piece, and
I resume the evidence thus : —
Upon an exceedingly ancient base, some reviser adapted his text,
after consulting the various Versions, and probably other Greek docu
ments. Another came along and revised very sparingly and moder
ately to the B type, this type originating in the seventh or eighth
century. We are thus left with remarkable vestigia of the process, from
before Hippolytus' time onwards.

32 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
If we consult Primasius himself, we will see that he indulged in
the self-same process. The Aethiopic bears the same testimony.
The Armenian ditto.
They all, with our MS. 1 1 3, builded upon an ancient base, but,
with an " improving " tendency, consulted the various available author
ities, and spoiled what for us would have been an invaluable fount, if
they had left well alone.
Remember that this MS. of ours is in a small volume of Mis
cellanies, and thus escaped revising hands of another kind.
But you will say, " What has all this to do with the basic Greek
text, of which we are in search ? " That is precisely the point at
issue. First, we have to show this variety of Version influence on the
Greek MSS. as we have done above, and which may be resumed
thus : With arm alone vi. 1 1 . airodvrjo-Keiv pro arroKreiveerdai.
r) aKTjvrj pro o vao; rrj; aKijvi);.
daXacrr); pro ajSvcrerov.
+ Xeyovre; post a\Xi7\ot9.
+ rriv Kaiopt£VT)v ev.
+ e/3Xvdr)crav.
+ Koiracrdrjaovrai (see beyond).
Secondly, we have to decide what of all this goes back to the
underlying Greek. Now we know that much of it does not, for
there still exist many other interesting readings in the Syriac, the
Coptics, the Latin, the Aethiopic, and the Armenian, with which the
Greek MSS. have nothing to do.
These readings are so bound up with the others, which some of
the Greek MSS. do adopt, that we know these Greek MSS. picked
and chose from the Versions, turning phrases back into Greek, while
some slight element may well be basic, but not by any means all.
It is perhaps difficult to explain this to the outsider.
Will you do me a favour ? Come and look over my shoulder as I
enter a MS. in my Ledger of Collected Readings, and follow the
play of these matters.
We are in the middle of the xith chapter. We have just picked
up daXaerrjs (sic) for afivcrerov in the 7th verse, remember, and
you want to know whether this reading, opposed by all other Greek

„ aeth

, xv. 5

„ syr S

, xi. 7

„ coptic

, xi. 10.

„ boh

, XX. 10.

„ sah

, xx. 10.

.. gigas

, xi. 8.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 33
MSS. but the one we are looking at, takes us back to the underlying
Greek base, common to syr S. and our MS.
Look well then at the very next verse, verse 8, where the ordinary
text runs as follows : —
kcxl to. TTTcopara avrcov iirl rr/s irXareias iroXecos rrjs
peyaXr/'s, titls KaXelrai irvevpariKcos "ZoBopa Kal *Aiyu7TTos,
07701; /cat 6 Kvpios rjpcov ierTavpcodrj.
Recent editors have changed rd irTcopara to to irrcopa, and as
no verb follows, we need not discuss the justice of the change. They
have added tt)s before iroXeeos which is doubtless right, and they have
changed rjpcov to avrcov, for which there is very good and very
numerous authority, strange as the innovation may seem to you.
[Oecumenius in his commentary explains it : " oirov kclI 6 Kvpioi
etvTiov, TovrecTTL rcov Bvo paprvpeov ierTavpcodrj "].
But that is jhe beginning of the problem, and not the end of it, if
we are honestly in search of the basic text.
Because, in the first place, all the Latins, old and young, conspire
with the sahidic and the bohairic versions against the reading rd
TTTcopaTa to read rd ereopetTa at the outset, which our MS. here
adopts, against both Syriacs, and the Armenian, and the Aethiopic.
We proceed to enter from our collation of this new Greek MS.,
and suddenly we are astounded to find the addition of KoiTacrdrjcrovTai
— (not extant in our New Testament vocabulary) — occurring after
/cat ra ereopara avrcov and before the word eiri. What does this
mean ? Well, we find that the andent witness Gigas also has the
addition otjacebunt, alone among the Latins, and therefore agrees
with us. This is no recent reading then, for you remember that the
Gigas codex, so important in the Acts and Apocalypse, reproduces
word for word and at great length Lucifer's fourth- century testimony.
We are back in the fourth century then. (The Armenian as well as
the Vulgate confirm this.) Has Primasius anything to say on the
subject ? Yes, he has an addition also, but a different one. He
adds " ponet " (the MSS. of his writings vary between ponit, ponat,
and ponet, according to Dr. Vogels* latest edition). In his commen
tary, as Sabatier and Zahn point out, he says : " Alia translatio,
corpus, posuit " (agreeing with the Aethiopic) : " duorum dixit corpus
unum, aliquando in subsequentibus corpora . . . projicietur (al.
proicitur) id est spernetur . . ." So also Tichonius and Beatus.

34 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
This ponit or posuit we do not yet find among the Greek wit
nesses [but see Oec. below], but our No. 59 (a somewhat remarkable
witness) adds ireerovvrai after the mention of the city, which is a kind
of half-way house between ponere and projicere. The Anonymous
commentator on the Apoc. uses projicietur, the word mentioned by
Primasius. Have we finished with the Greek witnesses ? Not by any means.
We have a document, No. 1 8, which is evidently of Graeco-Syriac
origin (like 40), and 1 8 adds pi\pei in the same place as 59 adds
rreerovvrai. Now pirjjei equates not jacebat hut jaclabat. We are
here closer to Gigas than to the projicietur of Prim, and Anon.
The Armenian has an addition slightly differing, and translated by
Coneybeare " shall remain lying."
Well, what have the Syriacs to say to all this ? They know
nothing of it. The MSS. of both versions S and 2 have no addition.
What about bohairic and sahidic ? In this case, while quite
independent of the other versions, they have an addition, and
a different one. They have expressions corresponding to ro
crcopa avrcov or ra crcopara avrcov, eerrai or ecrovrai, " will be."
Is there any Greek support ? Yes, my ledger tells me that a corrector
of the fourth-century Greek MS. M, viz. the corrector Mc, adds eerrai
in the same place, and certain MSS. of Erasmus family 1 , viz. 62, 63,
72, 1 36, etc., add ecrovrai after troXecoi. So they are all involved.
But we are looking for the basic text ; and in addition to the Syriac,
and the Greek Uncials, most of my important cursive documents with
a very old text, like 40, 56, 38-178, 111, 130, 170, 200, are
perfectly silent here.
We turn to Oecumenius in our MS. 1 46, and there we find in his
text : to irrcopa and + drjerei after 7r\areia9, thus in a sense Graeds-
ing for us the expression of Primasius, and giving us yet another
Greek variant addition.
In his (hitherto unpublished) commentary, Oec. says this : —
" avl)pcoiro<; yap eerrat, ov ierriv r) irapoveria /car' ivepyeiav
rov aaravd Kadco<; euau^os eiprjrai • tovto ovv, cpr/eriv,
to drjpiov drroKrevel tous Bvo pdprvpa% • /ecu ra
irrciipaTa avrcov, aracpa pixpei iv rat? irXareiais ttj?
iXrjp • ,"

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 35
thus preceding the remarks of Andreas. In one of our large families
2 1 -28-73-79- 79a-80-99- 1 03- 1 1 2-(1 30)- 1 38- 1 70, we have the addi
tion of dTaepa post peyaXrj<s, while pixpei has been already supplied
by 1 8 (and we find another variant, pieprjaeTai, in the important MS.
159). This large 21 family also adds eacrei before em, being a last
variation for the Coptic addition.
There you have a picture from Gigas onward at a period from
which the oldest Greek witnesses which have come down to us may
be said to date. This picture is exceptional, with its mass of detail,
and for this reason we have chosen it to illustrate the matter.
We will not wait to discuss a number of variations in the matter
of the phrase as to the 7rXaTetas rr/s iroXeco<;. There are a number
of interesting small variants in which 1 8, Gigas, and the Syriac are
involved. But the point we make of retranslation into Greek from the
Versions very early, quite apart from any basic text being involved, is,
I think, made abundantly clear from the above.
Now, as regards the basic text, if a common underlying text were
involved or concerned, we would also agree elsewhere in this same
chapter with other unusual readings of the versions, as at : —
xi. 1 . + %/3uo-ou9 post KaXapo; by copt and aeth,
4. + iraen)<; ante T179 7779 „ syr S,
5. - aBiKr/crai pr. loco „ copt,
Ibid, nocere — ledere pro aBiKijo-ai bis „ gigas,
Ibid. deXrjcrei ev rovroi; „ Hippolytus,
6. Kara)3aivrj pro fipexv » syr S,
Ibid, raireivcocrai pro iraragai „ syr S,
Ibid. + rov Bpopov avrcov Kai „ Hippolytus,
13. + Kai ante ovopara „ syr S,
but we do not.
I do not mean to say that all the sporadic agreement with the
Versions,— first with one and then with another,— is all due to their
reflex action on the Greek. But I do mean to say that most of it is.
The residuum, after sorting this out, of course probably applies to
the old foundation text, of which we can get glimpses occasionally, and
succeed in dating the accretions, and in accounting for them.

36 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
Thus, we have an excellent example at xiii. 5. Here is the
ordinary text : —
" /cal iBodrj avrco erropa XaXovv peydXa Kal )3Xacr<prjpias ¦
ko.1 iBodrj avrco i^overiet iroirjcrai prjvas reererapaKovra ovo."
An innocent enough looking verse ! But there is something wrong
about etjovcria iroirjcrai. Power to do what ? The consequence is
that the Complutensian, following its MSS. (which we have identified)
and followed by Beza and Elzevir, added iroXepov between e^ovena
and iroirjcrai, and Colinaeus adds after uoirjcrai. They are supported
by EB of the uncials and no less than a hundred cursives, but they
are doubtless wrong. This group includes good cursives like 47, 56,
simply because they had to make the best of a bad job. Even our
MS. 1 1 3, while excluding etjovcrai, incorporates iroXepov.
Now the secret is this. The texts of Irenceus aud Dionysius
(extant here) omit rroirjereti, leaving us with " /cat eBodij avrco e^overia "
..." and was given to him authority : for forty- two months." In
fact Dion, adds /cat before prjvas to emphasize matters. But N
1 00 and 1 1 3 omit etjovcria INSTEAD OF iroirjcrai, because they
misread the indications in the foundation copy as to the right word
to omit !
The matter is further illustrated by the fact that N scratched his
head and wanted to complete the sense, so he supplies o deXei before
prjvai. The beast was given to do what he wished for forty-two
months. No cursives support. Only one version. That one is aeth.
Thus the source which influenced N was accessible to aeth, or aeth
got it later than the time of N. (The Aethiopic version works hard
to overcome many ancient difficulties.) There is nothing else to detain
us in the verse.
But it offers additional proof that 1 1 3 reproduces as to base a text
or texts of most respectable age.
In this connection, I can mention that 1 1 3 is the only cursive to
support N at XVIII. 1 4, where that MS. reads piirapa. for Xiirapa,
and we have poiirapa.
This is, of course, a small matter, but it shows how the wind blows.
Shortly afterwards, at XVIII. 1 8, another proof occurs. For opcovres,
N* writes first Xeyo^Tts, then changes this to Xeirovres, and finally to
fiXeirovres. Our MS. now writes calmly and without hesitation (but

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 37
also without other support) : Xeyovres • jSXeiTov. Most have simply
fZXerrovTes, instead of opcovres.
But we shall never distinguish the elements of the lost primal text,
unless we assemble, more carefully than hitherto, the keys existing in
the Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Aethiopic, and Armenian versions, which
link these up in very early times with certain of our Greek documents,
and assist in simplifying the problem by directing attention to the
character of the Greek texts severally (and sometimes compositely)
underlying the Version texts.
Substitutions and transpositions in our MS. appear to be purpose
ful. Additions are quite rare, a very good signal of no thirteenth-
century editing contemporaneous with the last scribe.
Omissions, when not simple errors in the original, have a certain
object. Thus the shortened form of the threat to Laodicea (III. 1 5/16)
is a good example. Our MS. briefly sets forth the whole matter
thus : — (JLoa erov ra epya • otl Y»t/^/oos rj Kai ov L,eo~TO<s • aA. oti
xX-Lapbs rj " peXXco ere ipeere e/c tov erTopa/ros pov."
Some accretion there must have been, since the original text of the
Seer was set down, as can be seen by variations in other documents.
All are far more prolix.
In the matter of substitutions, take as an example : XIV. 4,
yvvaiKos in the singular, for ywaiKcov of all other Greeks except 1 57
and 164.
But this has good Version support — (aeth, boh, sah, and doubtless
Syriac originally) — and sounds very likely to have been corrupted to
the plural later.
" These are they who have had no contact with WOMAN —
(not ' women ') — for virgins are they."
Again, at X. 2, as to the substitution of yeypapevov — (the scribe
always writes this word with one p) — for etvecoypevov, quite alone
among the Greek witnesses, while Greek A and the Coptic conspire
to show us a blank here, seems to indicate that both words may be
additions. The sense requires neither word : —
"... And having in his hand a little book."
But at X. 3 (immediately thereafter) Kvpdrai for pvKarai (of the
lion roaring) may be merely the frothing (or due to the somnolence)

38 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
of the scribe himself. [Note, however, that it is not a mere slip or
error, but a real word].
Among unique substitutions, not countenanced by other Greeks,
or by the Versions, we might refer to cpapayyi (a Septuagint word)
pro cpappaKeia in XVIII. 23. I hardly know what to make of it,
whether we accept cpapayyi or cpaXayyi. There is no trace of
this in other Greek documents. However, our unwonted and unique
ipayeverav (not a Septuagint word) in XVII. 2 for epedverdr/erav
may show the trend of the recension.
This also applies to jSaeravierdrjereTe (vult — rat) for /cara-
KavdrjcreTai in XVIII. 8.
In the matter of omissions, we cannot be precise, owing to the
apparent carelessness of our scribes predecessor at an indeterminate
date. As to additions, most are of the very slightest importance. The
more important ones all have Version support, notably : —

xi. 8. + Koiraerdrjerovrai, with gig, etc. (previously referred to).
xix. 10. / + iroirjaa; post opa pi) „ 32, 95-127, 159 gig Prim vg.
xxii. 9. t + iroirja-q; „ „ „ „ 32, 56, X27 (hiat95) gig Prim vg.

The reader will want to know something about other strange
readings, so far having no support. The list is a long and curious one.
I will give a few to satisfy a legitimate curiosity : —

i. 10. irvevpariKco; vid (compendio) for ev irvi. [Observe that 143
(see article 3) omits].
1 1 . Kai irepyjrov + avra ( — rat; eKKXrjcriaii) en ecpeaov k.t.X.
" And send them to Ephesus ..."
ii. 1 3. + ou« ante aireKravdi) (" Antipas, my faithful witness, who was
not murdered among you ").
iii. 10. rjpepa; rov ireipaapov pro copa; rov ireipaapov [against plain
omission of the word by syr S and copt. Always a danger
signal !]
20. - Kai avro; per' e/tou. A curious omission, and yet plausible
enough if we consider such a balancing clause to be an
early addition.
iv. 5. eiropevovro pro eKiropevovrai, avoiding reduplication of eK.
ix. 1 . ireerli (sic) pro ireirrcoKora.
x. 2. Begia pro %et/ot. (See, for the counterpart, under Syriac at II. 1 .)

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 39
x. 10. KapBiapro KoiXia, but this has the support of 59, while we do not
so write in verse 9. It might well be that KapBia in the
second place is correct, and koiXm in verse 9, because
very early the places may have been assimilated and
accommodated.
xii. 4. - auT0U9. (In the Coptics the word is involved in the verb.)
10. apn eyevero r) crcoTrjpia (pro j3aaiXeia) Kai rj Bvvapi; Kai rj
egovaia (pro )3acriXeid) tov deov rjpcov Kai rj j3aeriXeia
(pro egovcria) rov %/oio-tou avrov. It is difficult to under
stand this threefold change. It is done without a tremor.
- Kai TOU9 7TT<B^OU9.
BiKaia expivai pro ravra eKpiva;.
— oirov rj yvvrj Kadrjrai eir avrcov.
- Kai orav eXdrj. (Possible error from homoioteleuton in the
Coptic, which, however, does not itself omit.)
Kvpio; pvpicov for Kvpioi Kvpicov. Not repeated later upon
another occasion.
iropevopevoi; pro ireirrcopevoi;. (No Versions, but Prim and
arm 2 omit the word. Another danger signal !)
prjKo; pro v\fro;.
" fierpov evyyeXov o ecrnv avdpcoirov " (a complete inversion).
Obs. ovvov pro avov 114, ovpavov pleno 143.
xxii. 1. - uSaT09 ^corji. (No others. Some read £covto; (104) and
others the equivalent vivae for vitae (gig Pair latt syr))
2. ex<ov pro iroiovv.
Ibid, tou irierroi; pro rcov edvcov (following + Karr)yyeXere after
gvXov in the same verse, with a few Greek cursives).
1 1. Kai o BiKaicoaai pro Kai o BiKaioi.
I offer my excuses for this very partial presentation of a most com
plicated subject.
But for the courtesy of the Editor, I could not have presumed to
add even this much. But time presses, the cycles continue on their
courses, life is short, eyes are weakening, and it seems desirable to put
on record this witness, arriving so late amongst our material, and yet
present in our catalogues for these many years past. Von Soden does
not use it.
I would close my rapid survey with this observation. Upon the
right hand pages of my Ledger of collected readings, I have pencilled
in the more important readings obtained from collations of the Versions
and Fathers. Many of these are gradually being removed — each time

xiii.

16.

xvi

.5.

xvii

i.9.

10.

14.

xix.

17.

xxi.

16.

17.

40 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
I collate an important Greek document, many transfers take place —
to the left-hand side, to join the collected readings of Greek MSS.,
with or without Version and patristic support.
There will still be left a fairly large residuum, with which to
elucidate the problem of the basic texts, and mere accretions thereto
and whether the basic text was Greek or Graeco-Syriac.

ABERDEEN ; THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

.SHARP (MARGARET); M.A. A Jodrell Deed and the Seals iof the' Black Prince. 1922.
| . Pp. 12. With 3 illustrations, v <•
..THUMB (A.)% The Modern Greek and his Ancestry.' 1914. 8vo, pp.,27.
! TOUT (T. F.), M.A., Litt.D., F.B.A. The Captivity and Death of Edward of Carnarvon,
..,,¦. ,1920, 8vorPP. 49. 2s.,, ' • ' . •'¦ ,,
. — Thev English Civil Service in" the Fourteenth Century. 1916, 8vo, pp. 32.
|*^- Mediaeval and Modern Warfare. 19 1 9. . 8vo, pp. IS.
1*-t—'A Mediaeval B'urgja'ry. ; 1915. 8vo, pp. f4, With illustrations.
V- — Mediaeval Forgers "and Forgeries. ¦> 1 920. ~8vo, pp. 3 1 .v _
.¦?.' — — Mediaeval Town Planning.. t91 7. 8vo, pp. 35. ' With 1 1 illustrations, 2s.
fc-r —The Place of St. Thomas of Canterbury in History. 1921.. Pp. 32. ls.6cl. /' , ¦ ']
¦ Some Conflicting Tendencies in English Administrative History in the Fourteenth Century. ,
,.;.,., Pp. 28; ,1s. _6d. .•¦ : ' ,-'•';: ':,-¦'.'",_ ..- ,., , '
1^-j ' The Study of Mediaeval Chronicles. 1922. Pp. 32. Is. 6d. '¦"•,">,, ' r'.QA
|SMITH (G. ELLIOT), M.A., M.D., F.R.S., etc' The Influence of Ancient EgyptiariCivili-.
fc'-i .,, sation in the East and in America. 1916.. Pp.32; Wi'h 7 illustrations!. y"
WILKINSON (B.), M.A. The Authorisation of Chahtiery Writs under Edward III. 1924X
Pp.34.. ls.6d. > '-:.;. ' ...-
WILLARD (JAMES F.), M.A. An Early Exchequer Tally. . With illustrations.
" " / ' •' • XlTERARY. ' ,
' ¦ . - v '.'¦•¦'..
; HERFQRD (C. H.j, M.A., Litt.D., etc. Gabriele d'Annunzio. 1920. Pp. 27.
•—— Dante and Milton. 1924. Pp. 36. Is. 6d.
:;,—- Leasing. 1923. Pp.- 22. ". / -.. ,.\-_ \ . '" ' r
f.- — r National and International jdeals in tfi# English Pogts. .1916. Pp. 24.. . ' «
^f-^- Norse Myth in English Poetry, j 919. Pp. 3L' '.*
— — The Poetry of Lucretius. 1918. Pp. 26. .. , ¦',,,
:-,V- ' " Recent Tendencies in, European Poetry. 1921. Pp. 27. ,
'*"¦  Some Approaches to Religion through Poetry during the past Two Generations. 1922V
¦ • Pp/33:/:. " '; , '¦"¦'"¦ . ¦- .¦ ":',;*¦ ; ¦ .. ¦. ¦¦„ ,*
GUPPY (HENRY), M.A., D.Phjl. A Brief. Sketch of the Life and Times' of Shakespeare.
With a-ChronoIogical Table of the principal Events. 1916. Pp.30 With frontispiece.
 A Brief Summary of the" History of the ¦" First- Folio " Edition of Shakes'peare^s Dramas.
,.. . 1923. Pp.24; 5 'illustrations.^ ' .,. . .
^"-t-^-" Dante ABghieri,* 1321-1921. An appreciation, in commemoration of .the Six-hundredth
:'- . 'Anniversary of the Poet's Death. Pp. 13. With 3 facsimiles. \
'¦' POEL (WILLIAM). Prominent Points in the Life and Writings of Shakespeare. Arranged
, , ' ' in four tables. 1919. Pp.12. '
'--— Some Notes on Shakespeare's Stage and Plays. 1916. Pp.16. With 3 illustrations.
ROBERTS (W, WRIGHT), B.A. Music in Shakespeare. .1923. Pp.14.'

Theological.
BUCKLE (D. P.), M.A. The Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. A Study of Hagiographip Develop."
ment. 1921. Pp.9. With 4 facsimiles. , .C
CALDER (W. M.), M.A., Philadelphia and Montanism. 1923. Pp. 46.- With 3 rllirs- .
trations. Is. 6d. ai
HARRIS (J. RENDEL), Litt.D., D.Theol., etc. Metrital Fragments in iii. Maccabees'!
.1920. Pp. 13.
 Athena, Sophia, and the Logos; 1 922. Pp. 1 7.
 Celsus and Aristides. 1921. Pp. 13.
 Marcion's Book of Contradictions. 1 92 1 . Pp. 21.
 A New Christian Apology. 1923. Pp, 36. Is. 6d.
 Stoic Origins of the Fourth Gospel. 1922. Pp. 13.
 Tatian : Perfection according to the Saviour. 1924. Pp; 42. Is. 6d.
HOSKIER (H. C). Manuscripts of the Apocalypse : Recent Investigations, Part 1. 1922,1
Pp.20. With 5 facsimiles. Part II. 1923. Part III. 1923. Part IV. 1924..-"
MINGANA (A.), D.D. Synopsis of Christian Doctrine in the Fourth Century according to
Theodore of Mopsuestia. 1920. Pp.21.
PEAKE (A. S.), M.A., D.D., etc.- The Quintessence of Paulinism. 1917-18.- Pp.31.
— The Messiah and the Son of Man. 1924. Pp.32. Is. 6d.
 The Roots of Hebrew Prophecy and Jewish Apocalyptic. 1923. Pp;'2Z.
 The Movement of Old Testament Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century. Synopsis, of a
Lecture in the John Rylands Library on Nov. 1 1, 1903. With some leading Dates in;
Pentateuch Criticism. 19.03. Pp.8. ' "i-.\
 Bibliographical Notes for the Study of the Old Testament. 1913. Pp.. 7. - " i
— — Bibliographical Notes for Students of the New Testament. 1914. Pp. 10.
POWICKE (FREDERICK }.), M.A., Ph.D. A Puritan Idyll; or, Richard Baxter's Love
"Story. 1917. Pp.35-:
-¦  f The Story and Significance of the Rev. Richard Baxter's "Saints' everlasting rest ". 1920.^
Pp. 35. - With frontispiece. "^
'¦¦. Miscellaneous.
-»- ... - - -. -.
JAMES HOPE MOULTON, 1863-1917. I. A Biographical Sketch, with some Account of .".
hi? Literary Legacies. By W. Fiddian Moulton. M.A. 2. A Record of Professor J. HI
* Moulton's Work, with some explanation of its significance. By A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D*
3. Letter from Dr. Rendel Harris to the Rev. W. Fiddian Moulton. 1917. Pp.18.
With portrait.
CHARLTON (H. B.), M.A." A List of the Writings of Prof. C. E. Vaughan. Portrait:
1923. Pp. 12.' ,|
ESSEN (L. VAN DER). La Bibliotheque de I' University de Louvain. . . . Steps towards!
the reconstruction of the Library of the University of Louvain. [By H. Guppy] 1915.,
HARRIS (J. RENDEL), LittD., D.Theol., etc. The Woodpecker in Human Form. 1920.
Pp. 17.
RIVERS (W. H. R.). Dreams and Primitive Culture. 1917-18. Pp.26.
 Mind and-Medicine. Second edition. 1920. Pp. 23.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
APOCALYPSE^REGEINJT INVESTIGATIONS

:-> . " v
gfjUE PATMOS MS. OTHER SY RIAGISING MSS.
CONCLUSION '

; . 'Br
H. C. HOSKIER

printed from " The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library,'*.
. "¦ -'- ."¦ Vol. 8, No. 2, July, i;924

REPRINTED FOR'PRIVATE CIRCULATION
' ' \ * . , i924

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE— RECENT
INVESTIGATIONS. By H. C. HOSKIER.
V.
The Patmos MS. Other Syriacising MSS.
Conclusion.
PATMOS besides having harboured John, the Seer of the
Apocalypse, is reputed to have been the home of other
clairaudients and clairvoyants such as Apollonius of Tyana
in a previous incarnation (although I understand modern criticism
throws doubt upon the existence of such a man). See Philostratus,
"Life of Apollonius," book 3, section 24: "I said I had a small
cabin in the isle of Patmos where Proteus dwelt of old."
Be this as it may, I have — for sentimental reasons — -not dared to
neglect the Patmos MSS., although they have been difficult to consult,
a rule of the library forbidding more than two pages of a MS. to be
photographed. One (No. 64 = my 1 79) is of minor importance and of the 1
family, but the other is more important than I thought. This one,
No. 1 2 in the island library, is our No. 1 78.
It has a sister MS., No. 38 (Rome Vat. gr. 579), which has been
known since the time of Birch and which is contained in a vol. of
Miscellanies. To these 38- 1 78 we can now add the uncial fragment
known as F or 052 Gregory at Athos (Pant. 99.2). We now have
the group F-38- 1 78, which contains a substratum of the text which
is really ancient, with a certain amount of revision.
My collation of 1 78 is made from a hand-copy of the MS. ob
tained through the kind offices of Professor Kelsey of the University
"of Michigan during a visit which he paid to the Greek Islands. This
copy was read over with the MS. by Prof. Kelsey and again by the

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

Chief of the Monastery, and there is not much doubt about its
readings. We can rule the MS. out from any paramount place in our col
lection of MSS. because it bears undoubted evidence of having been
carelessly copied in the early stages of its reproduction and somewhat
" reworked " probably at the very outset of its career down the ages.
But its general text is ancient and of very considerable importance and
interest, especially as in a variety of its more striking readings it has
the support of the Crawford Syriac, not alone, but with other high
authorities, e.g. ; Order of syr St and 38, 59,
61-126(95,200).
Syr S and CA and 146 (the
(Ecumenian MS.), 159, 200.
Syr S gig and A 36, 38, fam
\\9gig.
Syr S N 38, 200.
SyrH 14,28**, 32, 111,127,
146, 159,200,^^(164
on pro o cov).
SyrHC 18,38, 111, 130, 146,
200 gig Auct de prom. vg.
Syr F 81 , 200 h copt Prim.
Syr S gig and 36, 1 46.
Syr S copt and 38.
Syr S 38 fam 1 1 9 and 1 46 com.
Syr S 38.
Syr S gig h aeth Prim and
NC 95-127 and 146 txt &
com.
SyrSXh and 38.
Syr S aeth arm »•'<» 38, 59, 69,
114, 130.
'Syr S N 38, 97.
Syr S arm 3 Prim N* 38, 47.
Syr Prim gig boh11'1 «S fam
35 (partly), 59,95-127,111,
113,159.
Syr S Prim gig and C.
SyrSH 113, 152.
Syr S % copt and A.

ii. 10.

o Bia/3oXo; jSaXXeiv e£vpcov

13.

— ev an

18.

- avrov prim

iv. 8.

ev eKacnov

v.5.

— 0 cov

vi. 17.

avrcov pro avrov

viii. 1 1 .

co; pro el;

ix. 2.

+ Kaiopevrj;

xi. 5.

oerri; pro el n; sec

10.
15.
xii. 2.

Xaprjaovrai
deov pro Kvpiov
+ Kai post exovcra

6.
xiii. 2.

eixepro e^et
- crropa sec

xiv. 19.
xvi. 15.
xviii. 12.

em rr); yr); (pro ei; rrjv yrjv)
epxerai (pro epxopai)
papyapircov

23.
xix. 14.

- ev prim
evBeBvpevoi;

xx. 2.

o ocpi; o apxaio;

&»

* H5
^ i «r«" V-rt- own ~>n j/ goc o"«T« K?<u>r*-'x^
-ppr9»(t« epou. Tew-n»«*>T<au«/iri»AiG- ¦
^t»ioi >o'fOi -m T»\ koj. 4p» ai/,0J' e«J<ri-. xaj
' E K-ntc ~mt rUcTov y ^UTTBC t»c ^ujiTc^tep**?
WTol 3-t • It ai € «f** w^/ *¦} o'c To?<rY$ S^J ^
- U <£^ri Kau- to f> poicr t<uau o> <a^ julclk*? <r - K <*A
Jfel%T5SA«AauTp«u.c kou -inLrJ' -td» <r -M^Nntj
-TT»P» KsU^fiOJ- o| crJ'd'£,4/a/TOcVl«'T1fSf
c'c y \C ax *AlMI/ o irp «*» "n> cTw f/ /-tHTsw a/IY a^T^
'4/»|#Tn*»|/T'fiur £ "?r! * 4» miajr - ~ru> \i nM^p38^^
?\» "CJ \ v " * • ' \, / *S
-rw j/ •SI * "**%» ru»^ r»p £ <y*/n»f/- K, «A«tA>»e~
/• ., <~ ' <t-... - «N^/A'. • *¦ /

I

\ . . „ -r « > f . \ >
< ', »•' '> ^ • * ! ail
,,<U. (W ery-wyi i TP» p « c ul^/»> k. cu. u •+* A F

J a * p-> k an •-» uu*» u q ixnUJ £ K ~ro u o uu o u arrro
a »-" »/ * tv " — * v '•i

Apoc. 178 (Patmos No. 12). Reduced one-third.

[To /ace p. 2.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 3
11. + avrov post irpoercoirov Syr S copt aeth latt et verss
56, 67, 95, 114, 120, 127,
146, 149, 155, 200.
xxi. 6. yeyovaeriv Syr S 38, 56, 127, 146 txt &
com 159.
7. - awro? .Syr S A 127, 159.
16. + avrrjv post irXaro<; sec Syr S Hier aeth copt and 18,
39, 143.
xxii. 2. Kapirov; pro rov Kaprrov 113 syr S alone with N 65 rov;
Kapirov;.
9. Spa' pr) ervvBovXo; erov elpi Syr S and 120, 137, 143, 156.
and this bears directly on the question of an old, if not original graeco-
syriac recension or redaction.
There is further sympathy with syr S by 38, where 178 is
wanting (XVII. 1/14) notably -ovopa. fifth verse, 38, 97-122, 146
com and syr S, sixth verse davpa peya iBcov avrrjv N 38 syr S.
The MS. is wanting XVII. 1-14 and XXII. 16 to the end.
Otherwise complete.
It is easily identified with 38 from the following (a few out of 43
places) : — i. 11. epeovovarj; pro Xeyovarj;.
ii. 20. irodei; pro ea;.
iii. 5. airaXev^rco pro e^aXev^rco.
ix. 17. - ovtco;.
19. rjv pro eicriv.
20. rco Baipovi pro ra Baipovia.
x. 2. Karexcov pro Kai epi/.
xi. 5. oan; pro el rv; sec = copt syr S.
(1 1 . eiereXdi) pro eierrjXdev.
Ibid, errrjaovrai pro eerrrjcrav.
Ibid, eiriireereirai pro eirecrev.
12. aKOVcrovrai pro rjKOverav.
xii. 4. iraiBiov pro reKvov.
xix. 3. eirrov pro eiprjKav.
besides the + Kai eXeyxoi ere (post epeerai) at iii. 16 referred to
already in a previous article.
The MS. holds our attention from the start, because, besides
+ tou Kvpiov tjpeov (post airoKaXvxjJLs) in i. 1 with 1 2 alone, we
find the unusual tov Xoyov for row? Xoyovs at i. 3 with SB 32, 100,

4 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
102, 130, 154, arm, and rjplv for rjpds at i. 6 with A Oxyr ,079,
38, 1 30, 1 46 and a very few.
At ii. 3 the scribe ceases at Bia, to ovopa pov omitting
KeKOTTLiieas kj.l ov KeKprjieas in toto, thus alone with Victorin.
At ii. 5 we read pvrj povevcrov ovv with 38, 81, 1 30.
The original reading was probably pvrjpoveverov without ovv
(instead of pvrjpoveve ovv). Observe syr S and Prim omit ovv.
At the Vlth chapter we find special agreement with the Meteora
MS., our 200, viz. at
vi. 8. omerco avrov pro txer avrov = 200 (146) and Coptic.
1 1 . nva pro en = 200 (38 has en + riva).
Ibid, eco; av pro eco; ov = 200.
In the next chapters VII. and VIII. we pick up F, which is extant
there :

vii. 16.

ireerelrai pro ireerrj

with F pauc (38 = irearjrai).

Ibid.

- 0 ante rjXio;

»,

F38, 59, 73,80-138,200.

Ibid.

— irav

,,

F alone.

viii. 2.

— rov;

,,
F fam 46 and 58.
Ibid.
earr'jKeo-av
t,
F 9-13-27, 75 (ecmjKeicrav
38, etc.).
3.
>/
ecrrrj
,,
F fam 62, 149.
4.
+ tov dpovov ante tov
deov
,,
F solo.
10.11.
coanrep pro eo;
(0; pro ei;
>>
F solo.
F 81, 200 h copt syr S
Prim.
It has no direct affiliation with the important MS. 56 as a whole,
yet at XXII. 1 4 it runs with the small group fc$ A 38 for ol irXvvovres
Tas erroXa; avrcov in place of 01 iroiovvre<s ra? evroXas avrov and
the conflation of the two readings in 56.
Its composite character can be seen from the following. Some of
them, however, will bear the closest and most intelligent scrutiny : —
i. 8. + Kai ante o iravroKparcop With fam 25 as a whole only.
Possibly Latin version in
fluence is responsible from
misreading " venturus est
omnipotens."
9. ev irjaov pro ujo-ov xpierrov pr. NCP 38, 111, 143, 146 com
gig copt Dionys.
ii. 10. pexpipro axpi 22, 38, 1 13, 159.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE

ii. 14.

- on

C 111, 130, \46 Prim.

21.

— Kai ov perevorjaev

12,49,59, 114, 121, 152,159.

iii. 2.

yevov pro yivov

130 (148), 200.

4.

aXXa exei; oXiya ovopara

NCA38, 130,200.

iv. 1 init.

+ xai

146, 200 aeth armP]ur bohduo
(rell boh + Be).

3.

opoia oi? opaai; crpapayBov

47 (cf 38).

4,

ev XevK0i<; ( - ipanoi;)

N 130, 143,200.

8.

— Kai eacodev

28,38,59,98, 103-112, 121.

v. 13.

— a eari

« fam 21, 38, 47, 111*, 113,
159^.

vii. 3.

Kai pro prjre prim

A 38, 106 copt.

11.

+ ayioi ante ayyeXoi

28 (vide infra viii. 3 et alibi).

12.

— Kai 7) aocpia

A 113, 121, 164 arm'.

13.

ra<; XevKa; aroXa;

Fam 2] et200.

viii. 3.

eireBodr) pro eBodrj

28 only.

ix. 7.

- co; prim

28,59, 113, 152*.

10.

eixpv pro exovaiv

38 fam 119,200.

11.

+ prjcrei post eXXrjviKrj

38 fam 119 (+ yXcoaarj 200
h gig Prim).

13.

— reacrapcov

NaA 18 fam 21, 111, 146^
& com 1 49 copt latt aliq.

17.

— Kai ante eK tcov crroparcov

4 Anon.

Ibid.

e^eiropevero (pro eKiropeverai)

38 fam \\9.

21.

irovr)pia<; pro iropveia;

W A. 1 78 is the first cursive'

to join HA for this.
It is immediately followed by fSXepparcov for KXepparcov, which
is new. Observe sah syr S and Prim omit the clause, and are
therefore not available for comparison.

X. 1.

arvXo<; pro arvXoi

38, 46-88-101-137, 67-120, 91,
109 a™.

9.

fiijSXiov pro /3ij3XapiBiov

« 127, 130, 146. [This must
be original. Even 38 has
been harmonised here.]

Ibid.

KapBiav pro KOiXiav

A 63.

10.

— yXvKV

59 (cf syr S in ver. 9).

xi. 6.

$pe%7j (pro fipexv)

146 txt & Hipp (146 com et
200 Ppegei).

18.

+ erov post ayioi;

38,61,74, 126, 164.

xii. 6.

+ airrj post rjroipacr pevov

36, 200 boh aeth.

xiii. 8.

+ avrov ante ev

CA 130, 146 (vide supra ii. 14,
iii. 4),

6 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
13. eK rov ovpavov KarajSaiveiv (C)A 56, 111, 127.
1 6. Kai pro f) 1 **- 1 2, 38, 81 , 1 1 3 sah boh arm.
17. to xapaypa rov dvptov ¦ r) to|^ ^g copt
ovopa avrov • J
xiv. 6. evayyeXicracrdai (fr$) aliq [non 38].
8. rj fieyaXi) iroXv; 1 30 solus et aeth.
15. + avrov post vaov S aeth.
xv. 6. \t#oi> pro Xivov CA 38* marg 48 [non relfam],
\ 46 txt & com.
xvi. 2. irovrjpov Kai KaKov (pro KaKov~\ ^ jo/a^ /«/er grcecos ¦ (h =
Kai irovrjpov) f saevum"et malum).
10. aim pro eK HE. 17, 67-120.
1 3. wcret j3arpaxoi Fam 1 1 9 (^ Na).
xviii. 9. iBcocri pro /3Xeireocri N only.
xx. 9. air o pro eK 18 (yyr).
1 1 . eiravco pro eir N 38 syr.
xxi. 6. Xeyei pro eiire N 47.
9. et irpcoro; pro eh Fam 35 (partim), 38.
Taking the last eight instances in connection with the mutations of
singular for plural and vice versa, it seems to indicate version influence.
Observe also XVI. 1 1 e/3Xacrcpripovv for e/3Xacrcpr)p7)crav = gig
blasphemabant. All the above are interesting but it shows how far apart were the
recensions before the time of N, and " the true text " is no longer
to be found at Patmos but is scattered through our documents.
Here are the readings which appear so far to be unique '• —
i. 17. - eipi.
18. + co; ante veKpo<; = 200 (+ coerei 1 14 aeth, contra Iren).
20. - eirra quart, ante ckkX. So boh A* so1 and 1 46.
ii. 1. ev rrj Be%ia xelPL ( ~~ avrov). (31, 164.)
11. + ro ay to v post irvevpa.
15. rrjv BiBax^v Kparovvra;. (- Kparovvra; 113.)
Lj. axpic o rav rj^co.
iii. 3. cb; pro irco;.
Ibid. + Kai ante rjgco prim.
14. rrj; ev XaoBiKeicov eKKXrjcrta. Cf. Tert de eccl. generaliter.
18. iroXXa pro XevKa.
iv. 1 . fier epov XaXovaa Xeycov (pro XaXovcrrj; fierepov Xeyovcra).
4. - eiKoai Kai reaaape;. (So 164.)
7. +o ante avdpcoirov.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 7
v. 1 . + ev ante ereppayicriv.
vi. 1 . piav cpcovrjv pro evo;.
1 1 . eco; av pro eco; ov. (So now Apoc. 200.)
Ibid. + per avrov; ante co; Kai avroi. Cf )A* so1 + viro avrcov.
17 fin. + (de novo) Kai irav opo; k.t.X. ex vers 14/15 usque ad Kai
oi irXovcrioi Kai oi x^tapxai, pergens vii. 1 Kai pera
tovto (sic).
vii. 15. rov deov pro avrov.
viii. 8. - peya.
ix. 1 . o Be irepirro<; pro Kai o irepirro;.
4. prjBe pro ovBe bis. So now 1 30, 200.
5. eppedr) pro eBodrj.
11. exovre; pro exovaiv.
1 4. rrj yfrdppco rov irorajiov rov jisydXov eveppdrov pro rco irorapco
rco peyaXco evcpparrj. [Hiat boh hoc loco.]
1 6. BiapvpiaSa;.
21. jSXepparcov pro KXepparcov.
x. 9. co; peXi yXvKV. (co<; pieXi yXvKa^cov 1 13.)
xi. 6. eljovcri pro e%dv°~iv prim.
Ibid, exovaiv pro exovaiv sec
9. depicovrai.
Ibid. fin. p.vrjpeia (pro pvrjpara). So 1 1 1 , and pvrjpeiov 36 pro pvrjpa.
Ibid. fin. Post pvrjp&ia + em rjpepa; rpei<; rjpicrv.
Vers. 14. Ita: "iraprjXde Be r) Bevrepa opyrj- Kal irapeyevero avvropco;
rj rpirr) " ( - raxp, - iBov). I Cf aeth.
18. - rov (vid) ante picrdov.
xii. 4. avpovaa pro ervpei.
10. eyevero pro rjKovera.
Ibid, ev rco ovvco " Xeyovaa. (Cf. 56, fam \\9; cf. copt) (eK tov
ovpavov Xeyovaa 113.)
14. [o7rov] irpeepero.
Ibid. [Kai] to rjpicrv [Kaipov]. Cf. copt.
xiii. 2. to avaj3aivov (pro o).
Ibid. + Kai post eiBov.
4. aireo rco BpaKovn 'pro rov BpaKovra. New thus with avrco.
8. oval oial • ov oi sic et solus, sed cf. A ovai pro cov ov.
12. rpirov pro rrpcorov.
xv. 3. peyaXa ra epya erov Kai davpacrra. ( = copt.)
4. ncr ere ov pr,, epojSrjdr, [=200]. (Cf. 130; cf. « 95, 127;
,/89.)
5. [/i6Ta] - ravra vid.
xvi. 1. + eoBe post virayere. Forsan ex errore oculi ex copt.
(XCJUcy = eKXeare)

8 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xvi. 6. eBcoKav [meiv], Cf. 1 30 eBcoKev.
9. avrco Bovvai Bogav.
18. ovrco; peya; ereicrjio;.
xvii. 15. eiriKadrjrai pro Kadrjrai. (Cf 1 70 et syr S.)
xviii. 7. roerovrov jSacravicrpov Bore avrrj.
8. KaraKXiadrjaeTai pro KaraKavdrjcrerai (" deluged with fire ").
Ibid, o laxvpo; Kvpio;.
14. erov rrj; emdvpia; rrj; ^u%i7? erov. (Cf. NCAP 95, 1 27, 1 30.)
19. eXeyov pro Xeyovre;. (Cf. aeth.)
20. aipa pro Kpipa.
21. + ev avrrj ante en. (+ ev avrrj post en SB 14-92.)
22. Kidapcov pro KidapcoBcov. So 124. (Cf syr S.)
Ibid, en ev croi secundo loco [non prim. tert].
xix. 5. e^rjXdev airo tov dpovov pro eK rov dpovov e^rjXde. So 1 1 1
( = copt).
6. [ftpovrcov] laxypdv.
20. + Kai ante eirXavrjere.
xxi. 2. eocrei pro co;.
3. [Kai avro; o deo; earai jier avrcov] eaTO-i avrcov 6eo<; pro deo;
avrcov k.t.X. Cf. A 65 et 12.
10. + rrjv ante iXrjp.
11. + Kai post laamBi. (Cf copt + GCjOl "being of" et syr:
co; opoico<; ; cf. 1 43 rj dcririBi rj KpverraX)
23. ovre pro ovBe.
24. oicrovai pro cpepovcri. (Cf ver. 26.) cpopeaeocriv 200.
xxii. 1 . vBarcov pro vBaro; = syr Z.
2. Kapirov; pro rov Kapirov. So 113; cf. syr S et S 65 rov;
Kapirov;.
A study of the above is not such as to inspire confidence in the
" detached " character of the recension. Yet with all its faults the
MS. is highly interesting.
The 38- 1 78 recension does not seem to favour Coptic as a whole,
yet, at times, the only clues available as to unique readings go back
again to Coptic, or possibly to the " underlying " Greek text of those
versions. Strange readings, however, which at first sight we should
look for in Coptic or Syriac or Latin are not to be found there.
We have evidently to do with a composite base, and a good deal
of retranslation or version influence. I cannot expect my readers to
share my views as fully as I could wish in this respect without taking
them laboriously all over the ground of the syriacising and latinising

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 9
Greek MSS. which have preceded this study. I hope, however, they
may gradually come to see that I am not perversely afflicted with any
wish to over-emphasise this. I simply cannot get away from it.
[Since this article was written I have been fortunate enough to
come across another MS. of this group, which supplies the parts
missing in 1 78, and we thus recover for the Patmos MS. two
readings of most significant age, for at XVII. 2 we are to read
eiroirjerav iropveiav for eiropveverav, and at XXII. 20 + eivai
before vai prim., both readings so far only known in S.]
The Old Syro-Greek Recension.
Besides 38- 1 78, there are other prominent MSS. which are of a
syriacising character, as the 2 1 group, the 1 1 9 group, and more parti
cularly the MSS. 1 8 and 40, not to speak of our eclectic 36.
I regard the MSS. 1 8 and 40 as bilingual Graeco-Syriacs from the
time of their original archetype, and the same is probably true of the
five-fold 1 19 group, now consisting of 1 19-123-144-148-158 (which
is the most ancient stem of the 1 or textus receptus family). Concern
ing such MSS. as eclectic 36, and important 56, 113,1 30, and 200,
their Syriac element doubtless traces to the common base of syr S, be
that Greek or Graeco-Syriac.
Other few MSS. such as 59 (which has a sister 121) also have
a deep Syriac trend at times, but this MS. has been much reworked
and we cannot particularly lay stress on the Syriac element alone.
However 59 is a confirmed and inveterate retranslator. For in
stance, at IX. 5 concerning the scorpion's sting, he strikes a new
chord. We have already had the variations
iraicrrj by t.r. and many,
irearj by SABP (hiant CE) and many,
irecrrj eir' by syr S,
irXrj^rj by the Complutensian group,
and BaKrj by 23 and 55 (cf. Amos V. 19 Septuagint),
but it is left for 59- 1 2 1 to ring another change, for they write :
Kpoverrj.
Of course there remain still plenty of synonyms in the rich Greek
language for the scribes to have toyed with, such as the verbs Kporeco

10 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
(a variation of the above Kpovco), deivco, /3dXXco or ipfidXXco, kotttco,
iXavvco, iXeXi^co, irardererco (used elsewhere in Apoc), eriroBeco,
Kvprj fiasco, iprrirrrco (practically used by syr S), rrpoermeiLco, etc.
It seems curious why the matter of the scorpion's sting should
have fascinated the scribes and caused them to improvise here. While
they were about it, why not have used the verbs epXdco or dpdererco
or dpvererco or Ipdercrco (as with lightning). They are good strong
words, like the BaKij of the Septuagint in Amos V. 1 9 (of a serpent
biting). This BaKrj of 23-55 is a retransliteration of the sahidic and
bohairic, both having this form here.
Doubtless it was to emphasise the fact that we were not to read
simple ireerrj like the uncials, as these were supposed by the scribes to
have committed rretierrj to writing in the form of an itacism.
As regards our 59 there cannot have been alternative readings in
his exemplar for he gives no marginal readings whatever, and his
curious but interesting text flows along perfectly smoothly with elabor
ate chapter headings, as if it were a regular standard. Therefore the
fault of eclecticism and retranslation helongs to the parents of the MS.,
nor do the new readings come from the commentary. And this was
an ancient text, preceding B, to which the MS. has been perhaps
partially conformed. Thus, at XIX. 1 2 the omission of &>s before
cpXb£ irvpos with NBPE etc., is a good combination with Hipp (but
not syr S nor Ireii). It is the harder reading but no doubt correct,
and (is was only imported from a sense of want, or from the commen
tary. For the commentary clearly recognises its absence in a way,
the text of it running thus :
"to ayveoerrov tov ovopiaro;, to rrj; ovcria; airov arjpaivei
aKaraXrjirjov. rai; yap oiKOvopiai; cov iroXvovvpo; ' ch; dyadb; '
ch; iroipiijv ' co; rjXio; ' co; <pa><; ' d>; tcorj ' o>? BiKaiocrvvrj ' m;
ayiaerpo;' co; airoXvTpcoai; . . . cb; aepdapro; ' co; doparo;' a>;
dddvaro; ' a>? dvaXXoicoro; ..."
But to return to syr S. Here is unique agreement of order by 59
and syr S in X. 8 : £7ri ttjs yrj<; Kai em ttj<; daXaererrj<; ; and of
the omission of ttjs epcovrj; at X. 7 the only support being by 146;
and at VI. 9 rrjv ereppayiBa ttjv ireprrrrjv the same plus 14-92
(another partial syriaciser) with the important MSS. Ill and 130;
VIII. 1 3 - Xoiireov syr S. Observe that 59 omits and adds later in

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 1 1
the verse ; XII. 6 - e/cei ante Tpeepcocnv 1 4-92, 59, 1 30 syr S and
h only ; and at XIII. 1 7 - Bvvrjrai by syr S and 59 absolutely alone
together ; and at XIV. 14 em rrjv xeLpaftro ev TV XeLPL 59 and
syr S quite alone ; also at XVIII. 1 2 our 59 joins the small group
for papyapircov and at VIII. 1 3 for omission of Kai eiBov.
Family 1 19 [quite unknown to Gwynn].
As to the family 1 1 9 agreeing with syr S, we find a very curious
place, viz. VI. 1 2, where they write cos dcrKos instead of cos craze/cos,
a change so infinitesimal in the Syriac word there signifying the differ
ence between the two words that Gwynn left cra/c/cos in his text.
The sense of the passage :
" Kal 6 rjXio; eyevero peka; eh; . . .
undoubtedly calls for craze/cos but here not only does the whole five
fold family without exception, 119-1 23- 1 44- 1 48- 1 58, witness to
aovcos but in other respects also is quite close to the Syriac. Thus,
not only have we a large Syriac sympathy, but the very Syriac order
of words stares us in the face. Consider :
ix. 20. Kai ra tjvXiva Kai ra Xidiva With syr S, S and boh and no
others.
xii. 3. o-rjpeiov aXXov Quite alone among Greeks with
syr.
xviii. 21. Xidov peyav co; pvXov Alone as a family plus 32 and
1 49 with syr.
(And notice this feature beyond as to Apoc. 40 at III. 2 ireirXrjpcopeva
to, epya, and above as to 59 at X. 8, and beyond again under 36.
Group all these places for the true picture.)
Even cpaivcov (I. 16) of Irenaeus' translator (who seems to
have obtained this from his Greek via the Syriac or via a Graeco-
Syriac bilingual), found in fam 1 1 9 and also in 1 1 1 (for cpaivei),
seems to trace to Syriac construction ; and, going further, we are
struck by a substitution of tovto for to (iifSXiov in V. 8, doubtless
due to Syriac form : "it, the book.'
Confusion of cases also (with that visible throughout 56) looks
like retranslation at some time, as at XVIII. 5, the genitive (alone

12 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
among MSS. with 1 13) tcov aBiKrjpaTcov for the accusative to.
aBiKr/para, but this may merely have reference to N.T. Greek.1
Are we face to face with an older Syriac, underlying syr S ?
It is fair to ask this question, for at times syr S and syr X have
points in common not recorded by any Greek MSS., and not due
to Syriac peculiarities.
Note further at XV. 6 irepi dropped after the compound
irepie^coerpevoi. Also the singular at XVI. 1 4 irvevpa, XVIII. 1 3 dvpiapa, due
perhaps to absence of diacritic points in the ancient Syriac.
Note a certain well-weighed character of retranslation in our family
reading at X. 3 of /3pvxarai for the usual pviearai, perhaps influenced
by the commentary, where we find " fipvypco Xeovros." But this is
revision, as some censor thought the writer of the Apoc. did not re
member that a lion: " ySpv^arai " while an ox: " pvKdrai." In
other words a bit of high-flown modern criticism !
Note further, perhaps, ei^ov (with 38-178 and 200 in verse 10)
for exoveriv at IX. 10, 11, where the Syriac is : "there is to them,"
as the fleury palimpsest h : " caudae vero sicut scorpiorum erat," as
against the " habent " of gigas (male Belsheim " habebant ").
But, in order to obviate for the reader any hesitation in accepting
my views on the subject, I append a list of other important places
where fam 1 19 is with the Syriac, viz. :
i. 7. otyovrai pro o^-erai With S 111, 113, 114 (plus
1-12, branch of the 1 \9 fam)
and syr, confirmed at once at
i. 9 by the addition of vpcov
after ervyKoivcovo;, hitherto
unique among our Greek
codices, but witnessed to by
both syr S and syr 2 !
1 While the accusative or even the dative is permissible after pvrjpovevco,
even New Testament Greek generally favours the genitive, only St. Matthew
using the accusative (XVI. 9 pvrjpovevere rov; irevre aprov;), which St.
Mark (VIII. 18) turns by: pvrjpovevere ore rov; irevre aprov; . . ., and
St. Paul once (2 Tim. II. 8) : juvripoveve irjcrovv xPio~rov eyrjyeppevov eK
veKpcov. Otherwise St. Luke, St. John (XV. 20 rov Xoyov, XVI. 4 avrcov,
XVI. 21 rrj; dXi^eco;) and St. Paul elsewhere all use the genitive.
The enallage of cases is, however, an uncertain matter.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 13

ii. 5.

- eK TOV TOTTOV aVTTJ<;

Alone with syr S.

vii. 10.

+ Kai ante Xeyovres

Alone with syr S.

viii. 13.

— Kai eiBov

With syr S and other members
of the 1 family.

xi. 10.

Xaprjerovrai

With syr S and only 38-178
with 146 com.

xii. 10.

— Kai rj etjovaia rov xP^errov

By 119* and syr S (but not
countenanced by the other
members of the 1 1 9 group).

xiii. 13.

em pro ei;

With syr St copt aeth and only
56 of the other Greeks.

xvi. 18.

— Kai epcovai

With syr S and other members
oifam 1.

xvii. 8.

virayei pro virayeiv

So A and very few Greeks with
syr S Iren and gig.

xix. 18.

— iravrcov

With syr S and only a few
other members oifam 1.

xx. 8.

+ Kai ante crvvayayeiv

With syr S and certain other
cursives.

xxii. 1.

+ Kai ante Xapirpov

With syr S quite alone.

Note also that the 1 1 9 recension precedes the first hand of S, for
at IX. 20 where the 1 1 9 group substitutes avrcov for rauTcus, N
has already conflated the two readings and wrote avrcov ravrais,
i.e. 4 " iv tclIs irXr/yals avrcov raurais. '
As TO 18.
In 1 898 I had sixty-nine unique readings for Apoc. 1 8. These
are now reduced to a handful, and the following is the new notable
support : —
i. 5. - V pa; prim
iv. 8. + Kai ante KVKXodev
vii. 4. - ecrcppayicrpevoi
vii. 1 5 fin. en avroi;
1 7. + Kai ante irrjya;
+ oBovre; ante Xeovrcov

ix. 8.

11. 16.

+ coi ante ovopa
Biapvpicov jivpiaBcov pro ^>la~\(*yi
pvpiaBe; pvpiaBcov J
ix. \8init. Kai airo (pro airo vet viro) Syr S copt.

143.56 ( + Kai ev 1 43).
130, \46 syr S.
36.
Syr S.
h (the fourth century Fleury
palimpsest).
h and syr S ( + o S),

14 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

xiii. 6.

- avrov sec

Syr S.

xv. 3.

o j3acriXev; rcov aicovcov

Syr S and t, and N*C 56,
95-127, 111,159, sahvg and
ps-Ambr.

xvi. 8.

— ev irvpi

Syr S and arm 3.

21.

— co;

40 and Prim (S. sed correxit
ipse *).

vii. 10.

ecrrrj pro ecrnv

" Superest " Prim Auct de Prom

(eerrrj E).
xviii. 16. xPvaco ( ~ €V) 92, \46-\ 55, latt. syr.
17. oipro Kai ocroi Ps-Ambr (qui pro et qui), (in
18 seq. epyafrpevoi sol pro
epya^ovrai).
xx. 10. oirov o fevBoirpocpVTV; Kai ro] \ ^ ^ ^
drjpiov J
xxi. 1 2. jieya vfrrjXov ( — Kai) Cf sah boh.
1 6. + avrrj; post to irXaro; sec 1 43 copt.
xxii. 1. irorapov vBaro; ^corj; Kadapov\^^- c
Xapirpov )
3. earai ev avrrj 143 «^£
15. Kai oi iroiovvre; ro yjrevBo^]
(pro Kai ira; o cpiXcov Kai V Copt (— iroicov aeth).
iroicov tyevBo;) I
In addition to the above we are alone or nearly alone with S
well over a dozen times, such as XV. 2 /SacriAeu (pro o jSao-iXeus)
by «* 18, 40, 98.
For an apparently pure matter of retranslation into Greek by 1 8,
take XIII. 10, where we read : et? tis aixpetXconei aixpetXconer-
drjereTai against fifteen varieties of the common rendering by others,
and 18 remains alone, although the place bristles with support of
conventional variations from the ei ns OLixpaXcocrLav ervvayei eis
aixpdXcocr iav virayei of the textus receptus.
Again at XIII. 1 7 we read in 1 8 alone rj ayopaerai rj ircoXrjcrai,
the first rj finding no place elsewhere.
Again XIV. 9 em rrjs xet/°°5 f°r e77"t Tr)v XeiPa now fin(^m8
support by (36) 1 1 1 and fam 1 1 9, a notable group with Syriac
strain. And XX. 9 cnro pro eK remains alone with 1 78.
And XXI. 21 KpverraXos pro vaXos remains alone.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 15
And XXII. 2 Bvo Kai Se/ca for BeoBeKa remains alone (only 72
has BvoBeKa). XXII. 8 eire/3Xe\jja pro e/SXeipa.
As to the age of the recension, compare a few of the readings
occurring in sole conjunction with \r\, as at :
iv. 1. + iBov ante rj epeovrj.
x. 4. ocra pro a.
xv. 7. - £7TTa sec.
xx. 10. + oirov ante o "tyevBoir poepijrrj; . (To which add sah.)
12. rai; fiijSXoi; pro roi; fiifiXioi;.
xxii. 5. ovk exovcri(v) xpeiav (pro xpetav 0VK ex°vcri). To which add
56-108 and A (ovx), while 143 writes ovk exovaiv
Xpeiav as Gwynn translates for syr S (with 127 and
1 46- 1 55, merely substituting ovx) and gig " non egebunt "
(neque opus erit Prim) and you have a most ancient com
bination of N A 1 8, 56- 1 08, 1 27, 1 43, 1 46, syr Sgig Prim
for the order.
1 1 . Kai o pvirapo; pviravdr/rco en. To which add (1 1 3) and 1 30,
syr S Gwynn.
20. - aprjv. To which add 1 43, 1 46 gig copt syr S.
The same applies to relation with exceptional readings of A :
ix. 1 3. Keparcov ( - reaaapcov). A 1 8 and 111, 1 46 copt latt aliq.
xxi. 13. The order : Kai airo /3op(p)a . . . Kai airo Bverpcov . . . Kai
airo vorov. A 18 remain alone.
xxii. 16. ev rais eKKXrjaiai; pro em rai; ckkX. A 18, a few more, and
latt copt.
And once with C at :
xviii. 12. Kai irav aKevos gvXov ( - e/c) npicorarov. C 18, to which add
111,113, 146.
And NC in combination at :
vi. 17. avrcov pro avrov. fc^C 18 and also 38, 111, 130, 146, 178,
200 syr S and t latt.
And MA in combination at :
xxi. 3. dpovov pro ovpavov. #A 18, no other cursives, but Iren A mbr
Aug vg.
xxii. 5. + epeoro; ante Xvxvov. NA 18 and 56-108, 127, 200 (syr S),
Note finally this at :

16

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

xi. 8. eir i rcov irXareicov pro em rrj; irXareia;. Syr S, while 18
adds rcov oBcov, actually having : em rrj; irXareia;
rcov oBcov.

As TO 40.
In 1 906 I had about eighty unique readings for 40. These are
now considerably reduced, and the following have now this support : —
1 13, 146-155 h vg aeth arm.
Order of syr S only.
59, 1 2 1 gig syr S.
113, 1 43 syr S Prim (as against
all others, for even Irenaeus
has enim).
53. (Notice a curious substitu
tion for ava by syr S of :
airo rcov ovvxcov avrov Kai
eiravo).)

i. 3. aKOveov (pro oi aKovovre;)
iii. 2. ireirXrjpcopeva ra epya
19. - eav
iv. 7 init. - Kai

v. 13.

+ iravra ante ra

111.

vi. 6.

— recrcrapcov

200 and syr S.

8.

— ovopa avra,

\

Arm (cf. curious inversion in
syr S).

ix. 3.

eSjovaia co; exovaiv ( — e%ovo
tav seq)

'|= ]30 syr St and h.

7.

co; irpoereoirov

avdpcorrcov

= syr S vid (co; rrpoermira
avdpcoirov 1 1 3 arm).

8.

— rjaav

Syr S h aeth and 21, 164.

11.

afiaaBveov

Cf. vafiaBBcov 111, et fiavBcov
1 46 txt. Nabathdon arm 4.

Ibid.

— ovopa sec

Boh arm sah.
x. 9.
— avrco
Arm*.
xi. 11.
— eireaev
Cf. Prim ; cf. syr S aeth
eyevero pro eirecrev ; cf. copt.
xii. 9.
+ Kai ante efiXrjdrj sec
h gig syr S aeth.
17.
— exovrcov
Cf. arm aliq.
xiii. 4.
irpocreKVvrjere i
)ro irpocreKVvrjai
iv pr. loco with 36 and svr S onlv.
Gwynn says as to syr S " this
is an unsupported and im
possible reading," yet both
36 and 40 have it !
xiv. \4fin. - o%v 40; obs. XevKov pro o%v syr S
alone.
MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 17
xvi. 6. - Kai secund Boh.
xxi. 22. + avro; post deo; Cf syr S + avro; ante vao;.
Again here, as bearing upon retranslation, observe that at :
i. 9. Xeyopevrj pro KaXovjievrj 40 remains alone.
13. evBeBvpevco and irepie^cocrpevco 40
20. a pro cov 40
x. 1. cocrei pro a>? 40
id. 9 fin. ev pvrj par i pro ei; pvrjpa 40 „ „ but compare
copt arm syr % aeth "in
sepulcro."
xvii. 1 1 . touto pro avro; (referring tol An ¦ ,
o N ° fW remains alone.
to arjpiov) )
xix. 7. ayaXXiaacopeda pro ayaXXicojieda
or ayaXXicopev of all the rest.
xx. 3. aireercppayierev pro eercppayiaev Quite alone.
Notice the repeated singular for plural VII. 3, XIII. 16, XX. 4
of to) percoirco for tcov peTcoircov. In XIII. 1 6 C has rov pereoirov.
In the somewhat larger combinations we also find syr S prominently
supporting, as at
x. 6. — Kai rrjv daXaacrav Kai ra ev avrrj.
xviii. 8. - o deo;. As TO 36.
I hesitate to emphasise 36 as it is so very eclectic, but here are
many special agreements with syr S, as at :
xix. 1 7. aXXov pro eva Only N 36, 1 1 3, 1 46 and syr S
with sah boh.
i. 20. Kai ai XvXviai ai eirra + atj^j % ^ ^ g
Xpverai J
ii. 20. rj Xeyovcra eavrrjv ^^^)0nly «*36, 143, 151 and^S.
+ eivai )
iii. 3. Be pro ovv sec Only 36, 113 syr S and Prim.
6. - ovt«? Only 36 and syr S (as amended
by Gwynn).
16. - ovrcos Only 36, 100, 144 syr S and
gig and <?££&.
1 7. - «<w rvcpXo; Syr S and 36 only with 1 46 com.

18

THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

v. 3.
vii. 16.
xiii. 4.
17.

- irvpo; Syr S aeth and 36 only with
159 (and the Clem. vulg.
and pseudo-Ambr. [against
Jerome on Daniel]). This
omission goes entirely un
noticed by von Soden.
ev rrj yrj Syr S and 36 and gig quite
alone.
- en bis Syr S and 36 alone ( - en pr.
^ aliq copt latt).
(Prima loco) irpocreKwrjcre pMSyr S % ^ 40 on]y.
Syr S, + n by 36 and by these

ir pocreKwrjaav
+ en post ircoXrjerai

xiv. 14. Xbvkov pro ogv

only.
Syr S, o%v + Xiav by 36. No
others change, with the ex
ception of the aforesaid notable
Graeco-Syriac 40, which (find
ing a difficulty) omits o^v alone
among MSS. !
Syr S and 36 with 61-126 gig
and Iren (tcov ovpavcov 8-24,
114 and 140).
36 syr S gig and only 1 7*, 67-
120.
36 syr S gig and only 1 8 and
a few others.

Only 36, 130 with syr S and
latt (but not gig).
36 and syr S quite alone so far,
and observe at V. 9 where syr S alone omits /ecu yXcoererrjs, 36
equally alone transfers the words to the end of the verse, evidently
having omitted at first on the basis of this recension.
1 This is an interesting omission for it should help to date the recensions
which omit. It looks like revision, for the somewhat tautological character of
the basic text probably contained it, and it was eliminated for critical reasons
of style. For, if the basic text did not contain it, who would have thought of
adding it here ?

xix. 14. rov ovpavov pro ev tco ovpavco
Note singular for plural :
ix. 1 7. rov erroparo;
18. tov errofiaro;
Note a matter of order at :
vi. 6. Kai rov oivov Kai to eXaiov
And another at :
xiii. 10. i) man; Kai rj viropovrj

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 19
As regards such MSS. as 14-92, 47, 56, 1 1 1, 1 13, 1 14,
130, 143, 146, 170,200.
I have already furnished data in these articles concerning 1 1 3,
1 30, 143, and 200. The others, and notably 56 (to which we cannot
possibly do justice here), carry us into the heart of the basic text
underlying all, for when 56 agrees with syr S it is generally in a
small combination and with other versions. The more exceptional
readings are nearly all supported by several versions, thus taking us
back to early times and mixed readings before the text was more or
less settled by Church usage.
As to age there is a small place which fixes it far back, as at
VII. 1 6 our 56 adds en after 17X105. Thus also N*, although the
first hand de tempore corrects himself.
It supports syr S at :
vii. 9. + Kai ante irepij3ej3'h.rjpevoi Quite alone.
xiii. 1 3. em rrjv yrjv pro ei; rrjv yrjv 56 with all fam 1 1 9 and copt

aeth.

at xviii. 1 3 reads Kai iirirov;,

and enters into the important combination for " the King of the Ages '
at XV. 3 (see above under 18), and supports syr S alone at XXI. 5
with + poi post eirrev.
As regards I 1 4 at Rome (which has found a sister in 1 93 at
Jerusalem), we have other striking agreement alone with syr S, and
the same remark applies to the other MSS. named above, a tabula
tion of which need not delay us at this point.

Syriac and Latin Alone.
Finally here is an exhibition of syr S and the Latin standing
together in constant sympathy APART FROM any Greek MSS.
If we suppose a common underlying Greek base as being respon
sible for this, we must scrap all our Greek MSS. extant !
Is it not more reasonable to suppose that this is a sympathy of inter
action between the two, apart from any question of Greek base, which
will come in later in Table II. under tripartite agreement ?

20 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
TABLE I.
I present the following table, which has involved an immense
amount of labour to eliminate all other witnesses.
Of course I exclude many minute matters (and I omit reference
to the plural eora for ovs of syr S throughout, as the Latins vary, but
seem to be the only support), and give the more salient features. Of
course h is only available in a small section.
Comparison of Gwynn's Greek translation of syr S with the Gigas
MS. and other Latin readings. Amongst other things watch the play
of the tenses :
ii. 1 init. + Kai And + Et by gig and h and
Prim.
ii. 5. - ovv So syr S and Prim alone.
iv. 1. eraXmyya And tuham gig.
v. 9. Xvcrai pro avoi^ai Syr S. Observe the " resign-
are" ok gig against " aperire"
of the rest (hiat h).
ix. 7. ro ofioicopa pro ra opoicopaTa And gig : similitudo [non h].
11. ayyeXov pro /3acriXea Syr S. So^ "angulum abyssi"
( - regem).
x. 7 init. ovk pro aXXa Syr S. Om. aXXa gig and
copt alone.
1 1 . The order : e7ri edveai Kai Xaoi; Syr S and % with vg.
xi. 14. eXrjXvde pro epxerai Syr S. So Latin venit, the
indeterminate tense, cannot be
overlooked in this connection.
(Gig reads venit, male Bel-
sheim veniet.) See below
again.
15 follows close with e$acriXevaev\Syr S with gig am "regnavit"
pro jSacriXevcrei ) for the regnabit of Prim vg.
xii. 2. Kpafyvaa pro Kpagei Syr S and so amiatinus " da
mans " [non gig h],
10. iBov pro apri Syr S. Omit h Fulg. Ob
serve gig A non " modo " pro
"nunc."
12. Karafiaiveipro Kareftr) Syr S. Cf latt " descendit,"
indeterminate, as was " venit "
above, and as " ascendit "
below at xix. 3.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 21
xii. 17. eXovai pro eXovrcov Syr S and latt, all "habent."
No Greeks.
xiii. 4. + rovrco post drjpico ult. Syr S Prim (and copt aeth
Iren).
10. Kai ocrri; (pro ei n; sec) Syr S Prim (Et qui). [Non
Iren int gig.]
[I do not emphasise other single agreement with Prim,
such as - xPvaa^ at xv. 7.]
10. airoKrav drjaerai (pro airoKrav\ Syr S and gig (interficietur,
"Vvai) J against occidi of Prim al).
14. irXavrjaei vel etjaXetfei (pro\Sy^' Cf-Jren'm\amiatinus
irXava) \ " seducet " (seduxit Prim al,
I seducit gig).
xiv. 9. + avrov post xapaw" Syr S and t Prim and ps-
Ambr.
20. eir i pro airo Syr S and latt vg Prim
Anon ps-Ambr, et h : " per
istadio m.d.c." [non gig = "a
stadiis"].
[XV. 1. A curious thing occurs here, which will bear mention.
The usual Greek and Latin is :
ayyeXov; eirra exovra; irXrjya; eirra ra; ecrxara;
and : angelos septem habentes septem plagas novissimas,
but Gwynn says syr S has literally aXXa? instead of eerxaras while
the translator of syr 2 almost has it as an addition : "illas ultimas,"
and, upon turning up h, we read (without any other Latin or Greek
authority) : " illas novissimas " !
See also XXI. 9 where syr S repeats this reading, " irXrjycov rcov
aXXcov for irXrjycov rcov eerx^rcov of all others, and syr % has
again : " plagis hisce postremis".]
The above might be passed by if we did not find such an extra
ordinary concatenation between Syriac and Latin immediately thereafter
at: XVI. 3 where syr S [non %] substitutes r) daXaercra or mare
for aipa. Now both h and gig ADD " mare," and no others make any
change. Gig says : " mare sanguis sicut mortui," and

22 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
h says : " mare velut 'mortuis sanguis,"
the differing order showing deliberation here as to the addition.
Now Prim, knows nothing of this, nor any of the Greeks, nor the
Coptic. Only aeth — (that inveterate connor of evidence) — has :
"et factus'est sanguis mare."
This, I submit, is very remarkable, occurring in a place so close to
XV. 1 , and is followed (see next list) by eyevovro for eyevero in the
next verse 4, countenanced by h gig, but not by vg, with the usual
imposing array of important Greek cursives together with uncial A
(but not HC).
And here we may well pause for a moment in order to call atten
tion to a side-light offered by Primasius' commentary.
In XVI. 1 1 syr S seems to substitute gratuitously
Kai ovk eiravaavro for Kai ov perevorjaav,
while the Latins know nothing except the usual " et non egerunt
poenitentiam." Primasius' text is not extant but in his commentary
we read :
" Iniquitatem in excelso locuti sunt ; supercilio enim momentaneae
prosperitatis ut sumus elati, unde poenitendo converti debuerunt, con-
tenebrari laetantur."
Is there any connection between the " momentary " matter of Prim.
and the " pausing " of syr S ? As a matter of fact aeth almost
supports the eiraveravTO of syr S, since his translator gives us " re-
sipuerunt" ! The Coptics only acknowledge the recognised reading
[Horner's new edition of sah not in my hands when this is written].
To proceed :
xvi. 1 6. Syr S reads ervvayei alone (against syr S, which here has crvvrj-
yayov alone with fc>$) for the usual ervvrjyayev. It so
happens that the vulgate (and ps-Ambr) here exhibit
congrega&t against congregant of the rest of our known
authorities.
1 8 fin. Another curious thing occurs here, where syr S alone adds rjv at
the end, thus: ovtco peya; rjv. Syr % is rendered:
"talis terraemotus, adeo magnus." There is no rjv any
where to be found except in aeth : " tanta fuit," but the
Latin has sic for ovtco. Is it possible that " sic," misread
" sit " in a polyglot, engendered rjv ? Prim and pseudo-
Ambr are not available, omitting the latter part of the
verse.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 23
xvi. 21. Of course we cannot press or even notice, except in passing, the
co; rdXavrov for co; raXavnaia of syr S, and the sicut
talentum of gig vg ps-Ambr, although Prim expresses
" talenti ponderis " suppressing " sicut," and supplying
"ingens." Anon has "quasi talentum." ^^.-"grando
quanta sunt talenta," syr % : " grando magna quasi talenti
pondo," as boh.
xvii. 2. + iravre; post epedvadrjcrav. Not referred to by Gwynn in his
footnotes. It is only supported by the Latin ps-Ambr 1 \2
and by Anon contra Fulg [Hiat Prim].
4. Xidov; ripiov; (pro Xidico npico). Syr S, and Xidoi; npioi;
by syr % translator. The only support is from Cyprian
in his quotation here : " lapidibus preciosis." The other
Latins are against it, even Tertullian, extant here.
16. Observe a curious point which now occurs. Syr S has the
equivalent of eiriaKe-^rovrai for picrrjaovcri (rrjv iropvrjv).
No support. But, instead of the "odient" oi gig, Prim
writes " odio infectabant." It is possible syr S has left
out a word for " scorn " here, but part of the armenian
MSS. have the equivalent of " shaWfudge."
xviii. 4. rrj; irXrjyrj; (pro rcov irXrjycov). Syr S, as gig " de plaga "
only (aeth plagae).
7. - avrrj post Bore. Gig and syr S, but syr S also omits Bore.
No others, however, omit avrrj or ei.
1 2. Kai irav ctkbvo; eK %vXov ripiov (pro ripicorarov). Syr S and
gig : " et omne vas eburneum precioszm," agreeing with
crKevo;. Prim has " de precioso ligno."
1 7. ev rrj daXaaarj syr S and " in mari " gig and latt for rrjv
daXaaaav of all Greeks.
23. ev rai; cpappaKeiai; plural syr S, and so all latt, against all
Greeks singular ev rrj cpapp-aKeia.
xix. 9. + eicri ante KeKXrjpevoi. Cf. all latt: " vocati sunt."
xx. 7. - ra ante %tXta errj. Syr S [non % : " illi mille anni "]. Latt
omn. "mille anni."
13. eKpidrj (pro eKpidrjerav). Syr S [non S] et vg et ps-Ambr
"judicatum est" [non rell latt].
xxi. 4. earai en secund. ( - ovk). Syr S, and thus gig and latt.
17. ' perpco avdpcoirov. Syr S, and "mensur* hominis " gig and latt
(as against all Greeks perpov, except fam 103 perpcov).
23. + ecrn (ante to apviov). Syr S only and the Latins gig Prim
Hier ps-Ambr Anon and vg. Greek No. 41 alone
adds ecrn, but against its own family, so I exclude it from
the Greek table to follow.

24 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xxii. 9. + rovrov; post rrjpovvrcov. Syr S. So gig and latt (not
Prim) : " eorum qui servant."
17. - o deXcov. Syr S and so gigas : " Et qui sitit veniat a accipiat
aquam."
Note. — Of course the above tabulation would be much more
compelling if we had exhibited in more detail the huge evidence
against these readings, but we have no space for this.
TABLE II.
Now observe the adherence of N and some other important Greek
documents to the grouplet of syr and lat :
iii. 3. - ovv prim ^ 14, 1 6, 69 syr S gig only.
8. ra epya erov (pro erov ra epya) Only N and syr lat (ra epya
era 1 1 3 vid).
v. 9. aBovre; (pro Kai aBovcriv) So syr and only Prim : " can-
tantes."
13. ev rrj daXacrerrj (pro em rrj;\ ^ only and latt with syr S and
daXaercrrj;) ) ~Z.
Ibid. + Kai (ante rjKovcra) |$ aliq syr S and gig.
ArR • T7 fji ^L • (NC 18, 38-178, 111, 130, 146,
N.B. v, 17. avrcov (pro avrov) chSngmg\^m
the sense. v ' ^
\ gig and latt.
vii. 9. - Kai iBov A(C) syr S sah boh latt.
viii. 11. ch; (pro el;) F 1 78 syr S h Prim and copt
[tion gig].
ix. 8 fin. - rjerav 21 , 40, 73, 164 and h [non gig]
aeth syr S.
17 ( . f17, 36, 67-120 syr S gig; (and
I/, tov crroparo; (pro rcov crropa- \ ' ' J * <=> v "
T£UI/) j again gig at ix. 18 wither S
I and some others).
x. 3. rai; eavrcov cpcovai; &fam 7 syr S and gig.
8. epiovrjv (pro rj epcovrj rjv) 121, 127, 146/<2;« 7 syr S and
latt.
1 59 quite alone with Prim and
Auct deprom. quite definitely.
NC 95-127, 146, 178 syr Sand
h gig Prim aeth only.
40 syr S gig h and aeth.
81, 124, jryr S,g-zg- and copt.
+ evcomov (ante rcov irpecr-}^ . c i
Pvrepcov) j« ^ ^ S only.

xi. 4.

- eerrcocrai

xii. 2.

+ «at ^>0.s^ exovcra

9.

+ Kai ante ejSXrjdrj sec

xiii. 10.

- Sei avrov

xiv. 3.

+ evcomov (ante rcov

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 25

Ibid.
xvi. 4.

+ avrco (post ijkoX)
+ o (ante excov)
epcovrj pro Kpavyrj
eyevovro pro eyevero

8. + avrco (post ijkoX) \\3 syrS and 2 Prim and copt.
18. f 6 (#«fe eytoj/) CA 200 jyr S and 2 £-*£• vg
[non h Prim].
SAB aliq syr S [wo« 2] gig h
[Hiat Prim].
A 36, 56, 95-127, 100, 11 1,130,
146, 149, 200 syr S t aeth
copt Prim gig h [non vg].
xvii. 15. icp cov vet icf>' ol; (pro ov syr S [contra syr %], referring to to
vBara). Thus only 170 marg, 146 com, and "super
quas" by Prim Cypr Aug Fulg al vett and copt,
contra gig vg ps-Ambr et Anon " ubi."
xviii. 7 init. oaov 92* and fam 62 (pro oaa). Observe ecp' oerov of syr S
and "in quantum" of Cypr Prim Pacian AuctProm,
and " quantum" of gig vg Anon and ps-Ambr (oerov)
157).

XX

12.
23.
. 11.

papyapircov cpavrj aoi ( — ev)
+ avrov post irpoacoirov

xxi. 3. eerKrjvcocre (pro crKijvcocrei)

1 1 . ripico (pro TipicoTarco)

18.

- rjv

Ibid

Xpvcriov Kadapov (pro XPV0~l0V
Kadapov)

21. xpvcriov Kadapov

^ and a few with syr S % gig
Prim boh 1/2 (arm aeth).
C 178 syr S gig and /VzW
"tibi'Vn>"inte."
Only 56,67-120,95-127, 114,
146, 149, 178, 200 syr Sand
2 /a# and the other versions.
Syr S and t with N* 111, 143
only of Greeks and gig am
only of Latins.
Fam 25 with syr S and gig vg
ps-Ambr "pretioso" against
" pretiosissimo " of Prim
Anon.
tf> AP 62, 65, 72, 111 [non
soror 127], 136, 146, 147
syr S and % aeth and gig
(in structura murus ejus) and
Anon (et supellex muri).
113 syr S % and am " auro
mundo," Prim aeth " ex
auro mundo," but gig aurum
purum.
Again, this time only supported
by Prim (plus Hier and
Vigil-Taps extant here)
and aeth.

26 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
xxii. 2 init. + Kai Only 113, 143, 200 syr S gig
(against all other latt) aeth
and arm.
5. ovx e&vai xPelav (Pro °VK~\Syr S and % with A 143 and
exovai XPeiav) J latt, which all have the future.
8 init. - Kai Only 1 1 3 syr S sah boh et vgg
aliq.
12. Kara ro epyov (pro co; ro epyov) Syr S with Greek fam 21 , 113,
170 sah boh, and Prim vg
ps-Ambr Cypr Anon all
" secundum " except gig
"pro."
Remains a doctrinal passage at :
xii. 11. " Kai avroi eviKrjerav avrov (om. 1 22 syr)
Bia to aipa (ev rco aipan syr S) tov apviov Kai Bia tov Xoyov
rrj; paprvpia; avrcov " (avrov syr S).
This avrov for avrcov is subscribed to by the Greeks 22, fam
46-88-101-137 (part of the one family), 47, 87 [agamst its fam] and
1 00. Now h and gig both have testimonii sui (against Primasius'
testimonu eoruni), which is perhaps a shade ambiguous, as they do
not say ejus, but undoubtedly represents avrov.
Notice a very curious way in which h and syr S approach each
other at i. 16. For "popcpaia Bierropos ofeia" Gwynn renders
syr S : irvevpa o^v ( — Biaropos),
while h writes : gladius utrimque acutus,
but gig : gladius utraque parte acutus
while Iren : gladius ex utraque parte acuta
and 1 46 : popcpaia ofeia Bierropos, alone changing the order.
And notice the whole treatment at VI. 1 4, syr S writing the
equivalent of :
xai o ovpavo; eraKrj (or aireraKtj) Kai co; j^ijSXia (or /3i/3Xiov) eiXixdrjcrav
for the usual :
Kai (o) ovpavo; airexcopiadrj co; /3i/3Xiov eiXiacro/jievov.
Observe that for airexcvpLerdrj all the Latins have discessit or
recessit, and that Prim actually writes evolvitur instead of the
participial form involutus of gigas and the eiXicrcropevov or
eXiereropevos of all the Greeks.
And then, again, the (or ' a ') basic text is revealed by the

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 27
concurrence of important Greek documents with syr S without Latin,
as at :
x. 1. - ierXvpov j ]3; \^com syr 3.
8. -rjvecoypevov W3,\30,\46com syr 2>.
xi. 6 init. + Kai ] ] 3 syr g
7. daXacrerrj; pro afivaaov \ \ 3 Syr S.
and so forth.
The polyglot character of syr S comes out in such passages

as

xi. 1 8. rois piKpoi; pera rcov peyaXcov ") With Coptic, and in the
xix. 5. iravre; 01 piKpoi pera tcov jjieyaXcov) Coptic manner.
20 fin. Kai deico (pro ev tco deico) Syr S with Prim and
Auct de Pron>. Cf
Coptic tiBXX.
On the other hand, we have apparent improvisations, not concurred
in by others, as at :
XX. 1 2 of the books being opened : Kai aXXo fiifiXiov rjvoixdrj
o ecTTi Trjs Kpierecos instead of t,corjs. Syr S actually follows
this alone with ev rco f3i/3Xico instead of ev tois jSl/BXlols.
Sometimes syr S and t are found quite alone, as at :
XXI. 1 ovpavovs Kaivovs, and in the first 8 verses of Chapter I.
Conclusion.
Can history express the very early polyglot interaction more
clearly ? It would not seem possible, but it requires infinite patience
to convince oneself, and I can only indicate the path leading to true
Knowledge. It has its penances and its disappointments, but it is the
only one (as the Indians say) which leads to Emancipation !
As regards the Seer's own Syro-Greek style, observe the following
redundant relative constructions (hitherto barely touched upon by other
critics), a real Semitic — (whether Hebraic or Aramaic) — mode of ex
pression, to be paralleled as far back as in Genesis, viz. :
Apoc. ii. 7 and 1 7. tco vikcovti Bcocrco aireo cpayeiv.
iii. 8. IBov BeBuKa evcoiriov erov dvpav dvecpypevrjv rjv oiBel;
Bvvarai KXeicrai airrjv.
vi. 4. Kal rcL Kadrjpevcp eir' aireo iBodrj avrco Xaj3eiv.
vii. 2. ol? iBodrj avroi; dBiKrjaai.

28 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
9. ov dpidprjcrai airov oiBel; iBvvaro.
xii. 4. 'iva orav tSkj] to tSkvov airrj; Karacpdyrj airo (some
MSS).
xiii. 12. ov idepairevdrj r) irXrjyrj rov davdrov avrov.
xvii. 9. oirov rj yvvr) Kadrjrai iir' aireov.
xx. 8. a>v 6 apidpo; aireov (some MSS. omit) co; r) ap/io;
rrj; daXdaarj;.
Now notice the same proportionate number of similar expressions
in the book of Genesis : (Hebrew order of words) :
Gen. iv. 5. Hath appointed to me God seed another instead of
Abel whom slew him Cain.
v. 29. Because of the ground which hath cursed it Jehovah.
xix. 29. When he overthrew the cities in which dwelt in them
Lot.
xxiv. 3 and 37. Not thou shalt take a wife unto my son of the
daughters of the Canaanites, whom I dwell in
the midst of them.
xxiv. 1 4. And let it come to pass that the damsel whom I shall
say to her. . . .
xxx. 26. Give me my wives and my children whom I have
served thee for them.
xxxi. 13. I am the God of Bethel where thou anointedst there
the pillar, and where thou vowest unto me there
a vow.
xxxiv. 8. Shechem my son longeth the soul of him for your
daughter.
xxxvii. 1 3. And Israel loved Joseph more than all his children
because the son of old age he was his.
xliii. 38. If befall him mischief by the way the which ye go
in it.
xliv. 1 6 and 1 7. Behold we are the servants of my Lord, both we and
also he whom is found the cup in the hand of
him.
xiv. 4. And he said I am Joseph your brother whom ye sold
me into Egypt.
xlviii. 15. The God whom did walk my fathers before him.
Thus a link (of most undesigned coincidence), is formed between the
first and the last books of the Canon, and marks the Alpha and
Omega of our Scriptures, and a continuity, which the ultra-modernist

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 29
— (God forgive his conceit and complacency) — with all the ingenuity
at his command, is not able to break nor to weaken.
And, if we want to carry the analogy further, and if we invade
the precincts of the Johannine Gospel, we have not far to go (III. 29)
before we pick up the Semitic expression xaP"- XatPei» an<^ observe
the Johannine usage of the doublet " dpr/v dprjv " in introductory
clauses some twenty-five times, not so set forth in the Synoptics, where
dprjv is found employed singly. Compare the double use of Amen
in the Old Testament at Numbers V. 22, Nehemiah VIII. 6, and
thrice in the Psalms (XLI. 13, LXXII. 19, LXXXIX. 52) " Amen
and Amen." But, beyond that — (for it is true that the Latins and
the Greeks sometimes indulge in this form of emphasis) — there are
other things of interest and points of lucid contact with Genesis, form
ing another golden thread of connection. For instance, redundant
expressions similar to those given above, are found seven times in the
very first chapter of the Gospel at :
i. 12. ocroi Be eXa/3ov avrov eBcoKev airoi; iffovcrlav reKva deov
yevecrdai roi; iriarevovaiv el; rb ovopa airov.
18. o povoyevrj; vlb; 6 cov el; rbv koXitov rov irarpb;, iKeivo;
ifyjyrjcraro . (See also i. 33 below.)
27. airo; ecrnv 6 oirierco pov ipxopevo; 6; epirpoadev pov yeyovev.
(The last four words are omitted by some.)
Ibid, ov (eyco) oiK elpi &%ios 'iva Xvcrco avrov rbv ipdvra rov viro-
Brjparo;.
33. 'AXX' 6 irep-tyas pe j3airri^eiv iv vBan iKeivo; poi elirev.
Ibid, icf bv dv 'iBrj; to irvevpa Kara/3aivov Kal pevov iir' avrov ovro;
icrnv 6 jSairri^cov ev irvi dyieo.
46. bv eypatye Mcoarj; iv rco vbpco Kal oi irpoeprjrai evprjKapev
'Irjcrovv rbv vibv rov 'Icocrrjcp rov airo Nafaper.
And e.g. at :
iii. 26. o? rjv pera erov irepav rov 'lopBdvov co av pepaprvprjKa; 'iBe
ovro; flairn^ei.
. k32oX b ecopaKe Kal rjKovcre rovro paprvpei.
Such expressions are rarely found in Jesus' own simple and majestic
language, yet we can observe— if He be correctly reported : —
xiii. 26. iKeivo; ecrnv cp iyco fiasco (vet fidtya;) rb ¦fcopiov Kal Bcoerco
aireo.
xviii. 9. on ovs BeBcoKa; poi oiK dircoXeaa e'£ aireov oiBeva. (Although
this is reported as a quotation.)

30 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
But, more important is the form which we find at John II. 4 in
the opening part of the marriage feast at Cana, where we read
this: rl ipol Kai eroi, yvvai ;
which is not to be rendered, as in our rude and ungainly translation :
Woman, what have I to do with thee ?
but: What is that to me and to thee, Dame ?
or : What is that as betwixt me and thee, O Ladye ?
which corresponds to Genesis XXIII., where, during the polite negotia
tions between Abraham and the Hittites for the transfer of the field of
Machpelah for a burial place, Ephron the Hittite says to Abraham,
as to the price (ver. 1 5) :
Betwixt me and betwixt thee what is that ? Therefore thy dead bury.
El Elyon, El Shadai and El Bethel of Genesis, the great I AM
of Exodus — Ahayah — the " Living God " of Deuteronomy, and the
Ancient of days : " King Kehdem" of David (Psa. LXXIV. 12),
and of Daniel, reappears in St. John's Gospel as the LOGOS, and
(XIII. 13/14) as the "EIMI," the I AM of the New Testament —
and that irrespective of the scene before Pilate — to wit at that appar
ently incongruous place and connection — the washing of the disciples
feet— When therefore he washed their feet and took his garments, sitting
down again he said to them : " Know ye what I have done to you ?
Ye call me the Master and the Lord, and right properly (KaXco;) so
say ye, for I AM. If then I washed your feet — the Lord and the
Master — ye also owe it to one another to wash the feet. An example,
I (your Lord and Master, there is no yap in some excellent witnesses),1
gave you, that as I did for you, ye also should do."
And in verse 1 9 :
From now on, I tell you before the event, that when it occurs ye
may believe that I AM.
and viii. 28. When ye have lifted up the Son of man then shall ye know
that I AM.
24. If ye believe not that I AM ye shall die in your sins.
1 See my "Codex B and its Allies," vol. i. p. 453.

MANUSCRIPTS OF THE APOCALYPSE 31
Then, turning to the scene in Gethsemane (Jo. XVIII. 5), we
meet with the majestic I AM in response to the enquiry of Judas'
band for Jesus the Nazarene, and are reminded of the record in the
same chapter (ver. 17) of poor Peter's ovk elpi—i AM NOT.'
And it is no use saying that the Aramaic turn of phrase might have
been different, for even if Jesus did not speak Greek on this occasion
to the soldiery, it is clear that He did not use the Hebraistic expres
sion so common throughout Genesis of Hineni : " Behold me,"
generally translated in our versions " Here I am," for the Greek
particularly lends itself to iBov or iSe with which the book of the
Apocalypse is filled.
And, beyond this and at the water scene, VI. 20, of course the
claim is once more fully set forth in that great passage at John VIII.
49/58, concluding with the words :
Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham became, I AM.
" I AM," not I WAS. As to verse 56 " Abraham your father
rejoiced in that he saw my day ; and he saw (it) and rejoiced," see
Dr. F. C. Burney's study on " The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth
Gospel," p. Ill, and notes on p. 1 I I / 1 1 2 in connection with another
Semitic background and turn of phrase.
And while the World, after 2000 years, is in such an agony of
confusion, and while the ultra-" Modernist " is so slowly and so
painfully pretending to be honestly trying to grope his way (unaided)
towards the light, out of the Babel of voices this is what I hear con
tinually ringing in my ears from the uplifted and patient voice of John
of Patmos, crying in the wilderness :
Surely ye do not realise, all ye that pass by, that within the short
compass of the Apocalypse, the great El Elyon of Melchisedech re
appears as : the portentous Knower and Searcher of all hearts, King of
Kings and Lord of Lords, as the Holy One, the KING OF THE
AGES, who WAS and IS and IS TO BE, the Creator (IV. 11) and
Container and Ordainer and Pervader, the Presider and Dictator ; the
unexpected Returner, the Deliverer, the WORTHY ONE, the JUST
and TRUE, HE of the Unknown Name (XIX. 12) "called" the
WORD OF GOD, The enthroned and rainbow-encircled Diamond
(of IV. 3), HE also of the golden crown and sharp sickle, the Reaper
with eyes aflame, set in a visage effulgent with power, and with the

32 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY
voice of many waters, The Bestower of the crown of life and of the
secret protective names, the Lord of Love and the Lord of Patience,
THE FAITHFUL WITNESS with Righteousness the girdle of His
loins, the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD, the First
born of the dead, the Ruler of the Kings of the Earth, the Veiler
and the Unveiler, the Revealer and Withholder, the ARCHE and the
TELOS, the FIRST and the LAST, The ALPHA and OMEGA, He
who " became dead and lived again " ; He is ARIEL the LION
of Judah, the Scion of David, the Keeper of the Keys, The Opener of
the Seals, the Conqueror, the Morning Star, The Shekinah and the
Daysman, the Keeper of the Tree of Life and of the Book of Life,
the Headman of the marriage feast, THE ALMIGHTY, as well as
the LAMB who is the Light of the Heavenly Mansions and in whom is
concentrated all power and riches and wisdom and strength and glory
and honour and Eulogia and Eucharistia ; and, beyond all this, His
Headquarters are situated at the Source of the Water of Life (XXII.
I), and He is the " nW"H " of the twenty- first chapter, "the
' WELL ' at the World's end," when time shall be no more, the
MAKER OF ALL THINGS NEW.
This is why I am concerned to recover, as far as it is possible,
the exact wording of this sublime message to the Churches and to
Humanity-at-large.

ABERDEBN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02455 7770