A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I.

puzzles (for such they now are to many a fair classical scholar), by being introduced into early printed books(43), have largely helped to withdraw them from use in modern times.

12. We have now to describe the practice of Biblical manuscripts as regards the insertion of ι forming a diphthong with the long vowels eta and omega, also with alpha long, whether by being ascript, i.e. written by their side, or subscript, i.e. written under them. In the earliest inscriptions and in the papyri of Thebes ι ascript (the iota not smaller than other letters) is invariably found. In the petition to Ptolemy Philometor (above, p. 41) it occurs four times in the first line, three times in the third: in the fragments of Hyperides it is perpetually though not always read, even where (especially with verbs) it has no rightful place, e.g. ετωι και αντιβολωι (facsimile No. 9, ll. 3, 4) for αἰτῶ καὶ ἀντιβολῶ. A little before the Christian era it began to grow obsolete, probably from its being lost in pronunciation. In the Herculanean Philodemus (the possible limits of whose date are from B.C. 50 to A.D. 79) as in Evann. 556, 604 (Matt. ii. 12, 13), it is often dropped, though more usually written. In Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is probably not found, and from this period it almost disappears from Biblical uncials(44); in Cureton’s Homer, of the fifth or perhaps of the sixth century, ι ascript is sometimes neglected, but usually inserted; sometimes also ι is placed above Η or Ω, an arrangement neither neat nor convenient. With the cursive character ι ascript came in again, as may be seen from the subscriptions in the Bodleian Euclid and Plato (p. 42, note 1). The semicursive fragment of St. Paul’s Epistles in red letters (M of St. Paul, Plate xii No. 34), used for the binding of Harleian 5613, contains ι ascript twice, but I have tried in vain to verify Griesbach’s statement (Symbol. Crit. ii. p. 166) that it has ι subscript “bis tantum aut ter.” I can find no such instance in these leaves. The cursive manuscripts, speaking generally, either entirely omit both forms, or, if they give either, far more often neglect than insert them. Cod. 1 of the Gospels exhibits the ascript ι. Of forty-three codices now in England which have been examined with a view to this matter, twelve have no vestige of either fashion, fifteen represent the ascript use, nine the subscript exclusively, while the few that remain exhibit both indifferently(45). The earliest cursive copy ascertained to exhibit ι subscript is Matthaei’s r (Apoc. 502 [x]), and after that the Cod. Ephesius (Evan. 71), dated A.D. 1160. The subscript ι came much into vogue during the fifteenth century, and thus was adopted in printed books.