A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I.Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose
Religion
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I.
Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
There is, however, one ground for hesitation before we ascribe the
sections, as well as the canons, to Eusebius; namely, that not a few
ancient manuscripts (e.g. Codd. FHY) contain the former, while they omit
the latter. Of palimpsests indeed it might be said with reason, that the
rough process which so nearly obliterated the ink of the older writing,
would completely remove the coloured paint (κιννάβαρις, _vermilion_,
prescribed by Eusebius, though blue or green is occasionally found) in
which the canons were invariably noted; hence we need not wonder at their
absence from the Codices Ephraemi, Nitriensis (R), Dublinensis (Z), Codd.
IWb of Tischendorf, and the Wolfenbüttel fragments (PQ), in all which the
sections are yet legible in ink. The Codex Sinaiticus contains both; but
Tischendorf decidedly pronounces them to be in a later hand. In the Codex
Bezae too, as well as the Codex Cyprius (K), even the Ammonian sections,
without the canons, are by later hands, though the latter has prefixed the
list or table of the canons. Of the oldest copies the Cod. Alex. (A),
Tischendorf’s Codd. WaΘ, the Cotton frag. (N), and Codd. Beratinus and
Rossanensis alone contain both the sections and the canons. Even in more
modern cursive books the latter are often deficient, though the former are
present. This peculiarity we have observed in Burney 23, in the British
Museum, of the twelfth century, although the Epistle to Carpianus stands
at the beginning; in a rather remarkable copy of about the twelfth
century, in the Cambridge University Library (Mm. 6. 9, Scholz Evan. 440),
in which, however, the table of canons but not the Epistle to Carpianus
precedes; in the Gonville and Caius Gospels of the twelfth century (Evan.
59), and in a manuscript of about the thirteenth century at Trinity
College, Cambridge (B. x. 17)(73). These facts certainly seem to indicate
that in the judgement of critics and transcribers, whatever that judgement
may be deemed worth, the Ammonian sections had a previous existence to the
Eusebian canons, as well as served for an independent purpose(74).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account