W. (William) Sanday.

A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans online

. (page 8 of 71)
Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 8 of 71)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Sov>i.(iiei yap /.ifTa rwv TtKvwv aiirrji. 17 Si dvco 'lepovaaXfjfM iXevBepa eariv,
^Tis earl fj^rjrrjp fjfjuv. yeypanrai yap, 'EvippdvO-qri, arupa 17 ov riitrovaa . . .
^/iHS Se, d5e\(poi, Kard 'laaaK errayyeXias riKva tanev. d\K' wanep Tore 6
Kara aapKa yevvrjOeh tS'iaiKe ruv Kara Uvivfia, ovroj Kal vvv. dWd ri Keyei
i) ypa<pr} ; ""ErcBaXe rfjv TratSiaKrjV Kal rbv vluv avrr^s, ov yap /*?) KXrjpovonrjaji
6 iiios T^y -naiSiaKTjs fierd rov vlov rrjs f\tv6epas. 6io, d5e\<poi, oiiic eafiev
watSiaKTjs TiKva, dkkd t^s eKevOepas.

It would be interesting^ to work out the comparison of this passage of
Eph. with the earlier Epistles phrase by phrase (e. g. cp. Eph. iv. 7 with
Rom. xii. 3, 6 ; i Cor. xii. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 13) ; but to do this would be really
endless and would have too remote a beaiing on our present subject. Enough
will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. to Romans'
and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline
Epistles generally, as seen in a somewhat extreme example. It is usual,
especially in Germany, to take Ep. to Romans with its companion Epistles
as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. But Bp. Light-
foot has pointed out that this is an error, this group of Epistles having been
written under conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to
have been permanent. 'Owing to their greater length in proportion to the
rest, it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of
St. Paul's style ; yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one, called
forth by peculiar circumstances, just as at a late period the style of the
Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. The normal
style of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians and those of the Roman captivity V

When we look back over the whole of the data the impression
which they leave is that although the difference, taken at its
extremes, is no doubt considerable, it is yet sufficiently bridged
over. It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate
the assumption of diflerent authorship. Even though any single
cause would hardly be enough to account for it, there may quite

* Besides the passages commented upon here, refeience may be made to the
marked coincidences between the doxolof^y, Rom. xv. 25-27, and Ej). to
Kphesians. These are fully pointed out ad loc , and the genumeness ot the
doxology is defended in § 9 of this IntroducUon.

* Journ. of Class, and Sacr. Plii/ol , ut sup., p. 302.



well have been a concurrence of causes. And on the other hand
the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really
the same author, are weighty enough to support the conclusion.
Between the limits thus set, it seems to us that the phenomena of
style in the Epistles attributed to St Paul may be ranged without

§ 7. The Text.

(i) Authorities. The authorities quoted for the various readings
to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf's
great collection {Nov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. ed. 8, Lipsiae, 1872),
with some verification of the Patristic testimony. For a fuller
account of these authorities the student must be referred to the
Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition (mainly the work of Dr. C. R.
Gregory, 1884, 1890, 1894), and to the latest edition of Scrivener's
Introduction (ed. Miller, London, 1894). They may be briefly
enumerated as follows :

(i) Greek Manuscripts.

Primary uncials.

t^ Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the
Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai ; now at St. Petersburg.
Contains the whole Epistle complete.
Its correctors are

J^" contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second

MS. of high value;
t^** attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi ;
t^" attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of
about this date are sometimes distinguished as t^^a and

A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library
at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly

since 1533^ (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul Hi a Paid v,

p. 86). Complete.

The corrector B'' is nearly of the same date and used
a good copy, though not quite so good as the original.
Some six centuries later the faded characters were re-
traced, and a few new readings introduced by B'.

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library

at Paris. Contains the whole Episile, with the exception of
the following passages : ii. 5 (cajra Se tt^v . . . vtto tov vo/iov

* Dr. Gregory would carry back the evidence further, to 152 1 {Proleg
p. 360), but M. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS. in the earlier Tfsts


iii. 21 ; ix. 6 oix otov . , . tav X. 15 : xi. 31 rjnfi]dr](Tav r^
. . . 'iTKr]pa)}ia xiii. lO.

D. Cod. Claiomontanus, saec. vi. Graeco-Latinus. Once at

Clermont, near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be
trusted), now in the National Library at Paris. Contains the
Pauline Epistles, but Rom. i. i, Uavkos . . . ayanriTois Qfoi
i. 7, is missing, and i. 27 i^fKavOrja-nv . . . fcfjevptras KUKwv i. 30
(in the Latin i. 24-27) is supplied by a later hand.

E. Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Formerly

at St. Germain-des-Prds, now at St. Petersburg. [This MS.
might well be allowed to drop out of the Hst, as it is nothing
more than a faulty copy of D.]

F. Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix. Graeco-Latinus. Bought by Bentley

in Germany, and probably written at Reichenau [Augia
Major); now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rom. i. I DaOXos . . . iv tw ^[/xo)] iii. 19 is missing, both
in the Greek and Latin texts.

G. Cod. Boernerianus. saec. ix ex. Graeco-Latinus. Written at

St. Gall, now at Dresden. Rom. i. i dcpcopiafievos . . . niareat
i. 5, and ii. 16 ra Kpvnra . . . yopiv jjs ii. 25 are missing.
Originally formed part of the same MS. with A (Cod. San-
gallensis) of the Gospels.

It has been suggested by Traube (Wattenbach, Anhitung tur Griech.

Palciograpkie, ed. 3, 1895, p. 41) that this M.S. was written by the same
hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which
bears the signature 2r;5uAios 2«ottos €70; iypa\pa. The resemblance of the
handwriting is close, as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris
Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux, p. 313, with that of the
St. Gall Gospels in the Paiaeographical Society's series (i. pi. 179). This
fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. of
St. Paul's Epistles is not al-o to be identified with the compiler of the com-
mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas ;Migne, Patrol.
Lot. ciii. 9-128), which is also ascribed to a ' Sedulius Scotus.' The answer
must be in the negative. The commentary presents none of the charac-
teristic readings of the MS., and appears to represent a higher grade of
scholarship. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres
hellenici who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. Gall (seethe
authorities quoted in Caspari, Que/len zum Tauf symbol, iii. 475 n, and
compare Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 137). There are several instances
of the name ' Sedulius Scotus ' (Migne, P. L. ut sup.).

It should be noted that of these MSS. i^ A B C are parts of what
were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter
throughout the LXX and Greek Testament ; D E F G are all
Graeco-Latin, and are different MSS. from those which bear the
same notation on the Gospels and Acts. In Westcott and Hort's
Introduclion they are distinguished as D.^ Ej Fj G,. An important
MS., Cod. Coislinianus (11 or M^), which, however, exists only in
fragments, is unfortunarlely wanting for this Epistle ; see below.

§ 7.] THE TEXT IxV

Secondary uncials,

K. Cod. Mosquensis, saec. ix. Brought to Moscow from the monastery ol
St. Dionysius on Mount Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul.
Rom. X. 1 8 dAA.d Kk-^ai to the end is missing.

L. Cod. Angelicus, saec. ix. In the Angclican Library of the Augustinian
monks at Rome. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans com-

P. Cod. Porphyrianns, saec. ix in. A palimpsest brought from the East by
Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. Contains
Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul., Apoc. Rom. ii. 15 \anoXo'^ov^\).kvojv . . .
1) dSiffta ■ri\jmv'\ iii. 5 ; viii. 35 ©e^i 6 SiKaiwy . . . 'iva f) Ka\T'' iK\o-fr]v\
ix. II ; xi. 3 2 KoX diTOTOfiiav . . . Ovaiav xii. i are missing.

S, Cod. Athous Laurae, saec. viii-ix. In the monastery Laura on Mount
Athos. Contains Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. Romans complete. This
MS. has not yet been collated.

Z. Cod. Patiriensis, saec. v. Formerly belonging to the Basilian monks
of the abbey of Sta. Maria de lo Patire near Rossano, now in the
Vatican. There is some reason to think that the MS. may have come
originally from Constantinople (cf. Batiffol, V Abbaye de Rossano, pp. 6,
79 and 62, 71-74). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves, containing portions
of Acts, Epp. Cath., Epp. Paul. These include Rom. xiii. 4-xv. 9.
A study of readings from this MS. is published in the Revue Bibliqiu
for April, 1895.


A few only of the leading minuscules can be given,
5. (= Ew. 5, Act. 5), saec. xiv. At Paris ; at one time in Calabria.
17. (= Eatv. 33, Act. 13), saec. ix (Omont, ix-x Gregory). At Paris.

Called by Eichhom ' the queen of cursives.'
31. («:Act. 25, Apoc. 7). Written 1087 a. D. Belonged to John Covell,
English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675 ; now in the British
33. (» Act. 26), saec. xii. Has a similar history to the last.
37. (= Ew. 69, Act. 31, Apoc. 14), saec. xv. The well-known * Leicester
MS.' ; one of the ■ Ferrar group,' the archetype of which was probably
written in Calabria.
47. Saec. xi. Now in the Bodleian, but at one time belonged to the monas-
tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis.
67. (-"Act. 66, Apoc. 34), saec. xi. Now at Vienna: at one time in the
possession of Arsenius, archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. The
marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. containing many peculiar
and ancient readings akin to those of M Paul., which is not extant for
Ep. to Romans.
71. Saec. x-xi. At Vienna. Thought to have been written in Calabria.
8c. (— Act. 73), saec, xi. In the Vatican.

93, (" Act, 83, Apoc. 99), saec. xii (Gregory). At Naples. Said to have
been compared with a MS, of Pamphilus, but as yet collated only io
a few places.
137. ( = Ew. 363, Act. 117), saec. xiii-xiy. At Paris.

353. (Gregory, 260 Scrivener = Ew. 489. Greg., 507 Scriv. ; Act. 195 Greg.,
334 Scriv.), In the library of Trin. Coll., Cambridge. Written on
Mount Sinai in the year 131 6,
These MSS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving con-
spicuous readings in the commentary, partly those on which stre^s is laid
by Hort {Introd. p. 166), and partly those which Bousset connects witb hi»
' < "odex Pamphili ' (see t>elow).


(a) Versions.
The versions quoted are the following :
The Latin (Latt.).

The Vetus Latina (Lat Vet^

The Vulgate (Vulg.).
The Egyptian (Aegypt).

The Bohairic (Boh.).

The Saliidic (Sah.).
The Syriac (Syrr.).

The Peshitto (Pesh.).

The Harclean (Hard.).
The Armenian (Arm.).
The Gothic (Goth.).
The Ethiopia (Aeth.).

Of these the Vetns Latina is very imperfectly preserred t© u. We
possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. These are :

gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus, saec. vi, which contains fragments of Rom. zL

33-xii. 5 ;. xii. 17-xiii. 5 ; xiv. 9-20 ; xv. 3-13.
r. Cod. Frisingensis. saec. v or vi, containing Rom. xiv. lO-iv. 13.
r,. Cod. Gottvicensis, saec. vi or vii, containing Rom. ▼. i6-vi. 4;
vi. 6-19.

The texts of these fragments are, however, neither early (relatively to the
history of the Version) nor of much ii teiest. To supplement them we have
the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. D E FG mentioned above, usually
quoted as d e f g, and quotations in the Latin Fathers. The former do not
strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version, as they are too much
conformed to their own Greek, d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text
not in all cases altered to suit the Greek ; g is based on the Old Latin
but is very much modified ; f is the Vulgate translation, altered with the
help of g or a MS. closely akin to g. F'or the Fathers we are mainly
indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. ii iii), Cyprian (saec. iii),
the Latin Irenaeus (saec. ii, or more probably iv), Hilary of Poitiers (saec
iv ', and to the so-called Speculum S. Augustini (cited as m), a Spanish
text also of the fourth century (see below, p. 124).

One or two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the
evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version i, see on i. 30 ; v. 3-5 ; viii. 36),
which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the
history of the Version. They have however more to do with the changes
in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. The fullest treat-
ment of the Vetus Latina of St. Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler,
Die lateinischen Bibeliiberseizungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879;
but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general
agreement to be reached.
For the Vulgate the following MSS. are occasionally quoted:

am. Cod. Amiatinus c. 700 a. d.

fuld. Cod. F'uldensis a 546 a. d.

harl. British Museum Harl. 1775. Saec. ri or vii.

toi. Cod. Toletanus. Saec. x, or rather perhaps viii (see Berger, His-
toire de la Vulgate,'^. J 4).
The Vulgate of St. Paul's Epistles Is a revision of the Old Latin so slight
and cursory as to be hardly an independent authority. It was however made



with the help of the Greek MSS., and we have the express statement of
St. Jerome himself that in Rom. xii. ii he substituted Domino servientes
for tempori servientes of the older Version {Ep. xxvii. 3 ad Marcellam).
We gather from tliis letter that Jerome's edition liad been issued in the year
385 A. D.

Of the Egyptian Versions, Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic
(= ' me.' WH.) and cited by Tisch. as ' Coptic' (' cop.'). For the reasons
which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener, Introd. ii. 106,
ed. 4. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the
Epistles to have followed Wilkins; see Tisch. N.T. p. ccxxxiv, ed. 7), but
in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that
^ his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. 6; viii. 28;
'" X. 5 ; xvi, 27. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text, but
also a fresh collation with the Greek, is much needed.

In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version ( = 'sah.' Tisch., 'the.' WH.) some
few readings have been added from the fragments published by Amelineau
in the Zeitschrift fUr Aegypt. Sprache, 1887. These fragments contain vi.
ao-33 ; vii. I-3I ; viii. 15-38 ; ix, 7-23 ; xi. 31-36; xii. 1-9.

The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current
much in its present form early in the fourth century. How much earlier
than this it was in use, and what amount of change it had previously under-
gone, are questions still being debated. In any case, there is no other form
of the Version extant for the Pauline Epistles.

The Harclean Syriac (= 'syr. p[osterior] ' Tisch., 'hi.' WH.) is a re-
cension made by the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616
A. D., of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 A. D., which for this part
of the N.T. is now lost. A special importance attaches to the readings,
sometimes in the text but more often in the margin, which appear to be
derived from * three (v. 1. two) approved and accurate Greek copies ' in the
monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH. Introd. p. 156 f.).

The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the
fourth century, and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth. The dates
of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain
(Scrivener, Introd. ii. 105 f., 154, etl. 4). It is of more importance to know
that the types of text which they represent are in any case early, the
Egyptian somewhat the older.

The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are such as it is
hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. ex).

(2) Internal Grouping of Authorities. The most promising and
successful of all the directions in which textual criticism is being
pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small
groups of authorities, and investigating their mutual relations and
origin. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most aflfected by-
recent researches are t^B ; WY{, Arm., Euthal., and in less degree
a number of minuscules ; D [E] F G.


The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS.
with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea. That is a view
which has been held for some time past (e. g. by the late Canon Cook,
Revised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 1 59 ff. ; and Dr. Scrivener,
Collation of Cod. Sinailicus, p. xxxvii f.), but without resting upon any very
solid arguments. And it must always be remembered that so excellent
a palaeographer as Dr. Ceriani of Milan (a/. Scrivener, Introd. i. 121, ed. 4)
thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Graecia), and that Dr. Hort


also gives some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. We aro
however coiiironted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both
MSS. if they weie not written in the same place had at least in part the same
scribes. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf iN. T. Vat., Lipsiae, 1867,
pp. xxi-xxiii), on j^rounds which seem to be sufficient, that the writer whom
he calls the ' fourth scribe ' of N wrote also the N.T. portion of B. And, as
it has been Fnid, additional arguments are becoming available for connecting
K with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris, Stichometry, p. 71 ff.;
and the essay of Jiousset referred to below}.

The provenance of N would only carry with it approximately and not
exactly that of B. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible, or
not difficult, for the same scribe to have a hand in both. For instance, the
view that N had its origin in Palestine would not be inconsisteiit with the
older view, recently revived and defended by Bousset, that B was an Egyp-
tian MS. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine
and Egypt, especially among the followers ot Origen, that they would belong
▼irtually to the same region. But when Herr Bousset goes further and main-
tains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius ', that is another
matter, and as it seems to us, at least prima facie, by no means probable.
The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century, which is
the date assigned to Hesychius. If we admit that the MS. may be Egyptian,
it is only as one amongst several possibilities. Nothing can as yet be
regarded as proved.

Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which con-
nect the two MSS. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that
they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. The weight which
their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testi-
mony so much as upon its early date. That the date of their common
readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of
readings in which they differ, these divergent readings being shared not by
any means always by the same but by a great variety of other authorities.
From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence
of the ancestors of the two MSS. and the actual MSS. the fortunes of each
had been quite distinct. Not only on a single occasion, but on a number of
successive occasions, new strains of text have been introduced on one or
other of the lines. N especially has received several side streams in the
course of its history, now of the colour which we call ' Western' and now
'Alexandrian*; and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has
a clear infusion of Western readings. It is possible that all these may have
come in from a single copy ; but it is less likely that all the * Western ' or
all the 'Alexandrian' readings which are found in N had a single origin.
Indeed the history of N since it was written does but reflect the history of
its ancestry. We have only to suppose the corrections of N'* embodied in
the text of one MS., then those of N** first inserted in the margin and then
embodied in the text of a succeeding MS., then those of N"^* in a third and
N'='' in a fourth, to form a mental picture of the process by which our present
MS. became what it is. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this
process, to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text 01 the
MS. consists, to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities.
This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been.

N« H, Arm , Euthal.

A number of scholars working on i{ have thrown out suggestions which
would tend to group together these authorities, and possibly to bring them

' A similar view is held by Corssen. He regards the modem text based on
K P) as nnr ein Spiegelbild einer ■willkiirtich Jixierten Recension des vierten
Jahrhunderts \_Der Cypianische Textd. Acta Apostolorum, Berlin, 1893, p. 24).



into some further connexion with SB. The MS. 11 Taul. (unfortunately,
as we have said, not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of
its connexion with the library of Caesarea, as the subscription to Ep. to Titus
states expressly that the MS. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in
the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand.' Now in June,
1893, Dr. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. H Paul,
and Euthalius {Stichonielry, p. 88). This had also been noticed by Dr. P.
Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p. 12). Early in
1894 Herr W. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte u. Un-
tersuchungen a series of Tcxt-kyitische Studien znni iV. 7'., in the course
of which (without any concert with Dr. Rendel Harris, but perhaps with
some knowledge of Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this
connexion, but also brought into the group the third corrector cf N (K").
A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speaks
in graphic terms of a MS. corrected by the Hexapla of Origan, com-
pared by Antoninus a confessor, and corrected by Pamphilus * in prison '
(i. e. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). Attention had
often been drawn to this note, but Herr Bousset was the first to make the
fall use of it which it deserved. He found on examination that the presump-
tion raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion
between the re<idings of X" and those of H and Euthalius which were inde-
pendently associated with Pamphilus'. Lastly, to complete the series of
novel and striking observations, Mr. F. C. Conylieare comes forward in the
current number of iht Journal of Philology (no. 46, 1895) and maintains
a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version. These
researches are at present in full swing, and will doubtless lead by degrees
to more or less definite results. The essays which have been mentioned
all contain some more speculative matter in addition to what has been
mentioned, but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid
nucleus. It is only just what we should have expected. The library
founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most famous of
all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries ; it was also tie
greatest centre of literary and copying actiTity just at the moment when
Christianity received its greatest expansion ; the prestige not only ol
Eusebius and Pamphilus, but of the still more potent name (for some time
yet to come) of Origen, attached to it. It would have been strange if it haii
not been consulted Irom far and wide and if the intlaence of it were not felt
in many parts of Christendom.

D F G, Goth.

Not only is E a mere copy of D, but there is a very close relation between
F and G, especially in the Greek. It is not as yet absolutely determined

Online LibraryW. (William) SandayA critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans → online text (page 8 of 71)