Encyclopaedia Britannica, or, a Dictionary of arts, sciences, and miscellaneous literature : enlarged and improved. Illustrated with nearly six hundred engravings > Volume 19, Scripture-SUG

SCR
[ H ]
SCR
Scripture, have been printed word for word, and therefore form an
1 '' original edition of the Greek Teilament. We can boall:
but of a very few manufcripts of this kind. Hearne
printed at Oxford, in 1715, the A6ls of the Apoftlesin
Greek and Latin from the Codex Laudianus 3.5 Knit-
tel has annexed to his edition of Ulphilas, p. 53—1x8,
a copy of two very ancient fragments preferved in the
library of Wolfenbuttle ; the one of the four Gofpels
in general, the other of St Luke and St John. Woide
printed in 1786 the Codex Alexandrinus, a manufcript
of great antiquity, which fhall afterwards be more
fully defcribed ^ and the univerlity of Cambridge has
refolved to publilh, in a limilar manner, the Cod.
Cant. I. or, as it is fometimes called, the Codex Bezae,
the care of which is intrufted to Dr Kipling, a publica¬
tion which will be thankfully received by every friend
to facred criticifm. It was the intention of the Abbe
Spoletti, a few years ago, to publilh the whole of the
celebrated Codex Vaticanus j which would likewife have
been a moft valuable acceflion, fince a more important
manufcript is hardly to be found in all Europe. He
delivered for this purpofe a memorial to the pope ; but
the defign was not put into execution, either becaufe
the pope refufed his affent or the abbe abandoned it
himfelf. See the Oriental Bible, vol. xxii. N°333. and
vol. xxiii. N° 348.
“ A very valuable library,” fays Michaelis, “ might
be compofed of the impreflions of ancient manufcripts,
of taking an though too expenfive for a private perfon, fhould
be admitted into every univerlity colleddion, efpecially
the Alexandrian and Cambridge manufcripts, to which
I would add, if it were now poflible to procure it,
Hearne’s edition of the Codex Laudianus 3. A plan
of this fort could be executed only in England, by a
private fubfcription, where a zeal is frequently difplay-
ed in literary undertakings that is unknown in other
countries j and it were to be wilhed that the project
were begun before length of time has rendered the ma¬
nufcripts illegible, and the attempt therefore fruitlefs.
Ten thoufand pounds would go a great way towards
the fulfilling of this requelt, if the learned themfelves
did not augment the difficulty of the undertaking, by
adding their own critical remarks, and endeavouring
thereby to recommend their publications, rather than by
prefenting to the public a faithful copy of the original.
Should pollerity be put in poffeffion of faithful impreffions
of important manufcripts, an acquifition which would
render the higheft fervice to facred criticifm, all thefe
editions of the New Teftament ffiould be regulated on
the fame plan as Hearne’s edition of the A£ts of the
Apoftles.” It muft be highly flattering to the patrio¬
tic fpirit of an Engliffiman to hear the encomiums which
learned foreigners have fo profufely bellowed on our li¬
berality in fupporting works of genius and learning
and public utility. The plan which Michaelis propofes
130
Michaelis’s
propofal
impreffion
of ancient
manu¬
fcripts,
•vol. ii.
p. 182.
to us, in preference to all the other nations in Europe, Scripture,
is noble and magnificent, and would certainly confer 1"" "V ■
immortality on thofe men who would give it their pa¬
tronage and affiltance.
There are many ancient manufcripts, efpecially in
Italy, which have never been collated, but lie Hill unex¬
plored. Here is a field where much remains to be done.
See Marlh’s Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 643.
Michaelis has given a catalogue of ancient manufcripts,
amounting in number to 292, to which he has added a
ffiort account of each. In this place we fhall confine
our obfervations to the moft celebrated, the Alexan¬
drian and Vatican manufcripts, which we have chiefly
extracted from Michaelis.
The Alexandrian manufcript confifts of four volumes j Acc^t of
the firft three of which contain the Old Teftament, the the Adexan-
fourth the New Teftament, together with the firft Epi-drian ma-
ftle of Clement to the Corinthians, and a fragment of the nulcr*Pt-
fecond. In the New Teftament, which alone is the ob¬
ject of our prefent inquiry, is wanting the beginning as
far as Matthew xxv. 6. a j likewife from
John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7.
It muft likewife be obferved, that the Pfalms are pre¬
ceded by the epiftle of Athanafius to Marcellinus, and
followed by a catalogue, containing thofe which are to
be ufed in prayer for each hour, both of the day and of
the night; alfo by 14 hymns, partly apocryphal, partly
biblical, the nth of which is an hymn in praife of the
Virgin Mary, entitled tjjj S-utoxx : fur¬
ther, the Hypothefes Eufebii are annexed to the Pfalms,
and his Canones to the Gofpels. It is true, that this
has no immediate reference to the New Teftament, but
may have influence in determining the antiquity of the
manufcript itfelf.
It has neither accents nor marks of afpiration ; it is
written with capital, or, as they are called, uncial let¬
ters, and has very few abbreviations. There are no in¬
tervals between the words ; byt the fenfe of a paflage is
fometimes terminated by a point, and fometimes by a
vacant fpace. Here arifes a fufpicion that the copyift
did not underftand Greek, becaufe thefe marks are
fometimes found even in the middle of a word, for in-
ftance Levit. v. 4. ttvcpos y for ecu opoa-y, and Numb. xiii.
29. pu Yiryf.
This manufcript was prefented to Charles I. in 1628,
by Cyrillus Lucaris patriarch of Conftantinople. Cy-
rillus himfelf has given the following account: “ We
know fo much of this manufcript of the holy writings of
the Old and New Teftament, thatThecla an Egyptian
lady of diftinftion (nobillsfcemina JEgyptia') wrote it
with her own hand 1300 years ago (a).” She lived foon
after the council of Nice. Her name was formerly at
the end of the book ; but when Chriftianity was fubvert-
ed in Egypt by the errors of Mahomet, the books of
the Chriftians fuffered the fame fate, and the name of
Thecla
(a) He wrote this in the year 1628. According to this account, then, the manufcript muft have been written
in 328 ; a date to which fo many weighty objefb’ons may be made, that its moft ftrenuous advocates will hardly
undertake to defend it. But this error has furniffied Oudin with an opportunity of producing many arguments
againft the antiquity of the Codex Alexandrinus, which feem to imply, that Grabe and others, who have referred
it to the fourth century, fuppofe it to have been written in the above-mentioned year. Now it is probable, that
the inference which has been deduced from the account of Cyrillus is more than he himfelf intended to exprefs, as
be relates that Thecla lived after the council of Nice.