HKB
beginning his task on the 8th of June, and finishing it the 15th of July, A.D. 1334, “working very hard”—as he must have done indeed (Burgon, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873).
121 This opinion, first put forth by Tischendorf in his N. T. Vaticanum 1867, Proleg. pp. xxi-xxiii, was minutely discussed in the course of a review of that book in the Christian Remembrancer, October 1867, by the writer of these pages. Although Dr. Hort labours to show that no critical inferences ought to be drawn from this identity of the scribe of Cod. B with the writer of six conjugate leaves of Cod. א (being three pairs in three distinct quires, one of them containing the conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel), he is constrained to admit that “the fact appears to be sufficiently established by concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctuation, avoidance of contractions, and some points of orthography” (Introduction, p. 213). The internal evidence indeed, though relating to minute matters, is cumulative and irresistible, and does not seem to have been noticed by Tischendorf, who drew his conclusions from the handwriting only.
122 Prothero (Memoir of H. Bradshaw, pp. 92-118) reprints a letter of Bradshaw from Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, worth studying:—“Simonides died hard, and to the very end was supported by a few dupes of his ingenious mendacity.” (p. 99.)
123 A more favourable estimate of the ecclesiastical policy of Cyril (who was murdered by order of the Sultan in 1638, aet. 80) is maintained by Dr. Th. Smith, “Collectanea de Cyrillo Lucario, Patriarcha Constantinopolitano,” London 1707.
124 I.e. “Memorant hunc Librum scriptū fuisse ma-nu Theclae Martyris.” On the page over against Cyril’s note the same hand writes “videantur literae ejusdé Cyrill: Lucar: ad Georgium Episco Cant” [Abbot]; Harl: 823, 2. quae extant in Clementis Epistolis ad Corinthios editionis Colomesii Lond. 1687 8o page 354 &c.
125 Not to mention a few casual lacunae here and there, especially in the early leaves of the manuscript, the lower part of one leaf has been cut out, so that Gen. xiv. 14-17; xv. 1-5; 16-20; xvi. 6-9 are wanting. The leaf containing 1 Sam. xii. 20-xiv. 9, and the nine leaves containing Ps. 1. 20-lxxx. 10 (Engl.) are lost.
126 Yet we may be sure that these two leaves did not contain the Pericope Adulterae, John vii. 58-viii. 11. Taking the Elzevir N. T. of 1624, which is printed without breaks for the verses, we count 286 lines of the Elzevir for the two leaves of Cod. A preceding its defect, 288 lines for the two which follow it; but 317 lines for the two missing leaves. Deduct the thirty lines containing John vii. 53-viii. 11, and the result for the lost leaves is 287.
127 An excellent facsimile of A is given in the Facsimiles of the Palaeographical Society, Plate 106; others in Woide’s New Testament from this MS. (1786), and in Baber’s Old Test. (1816). Two specimens from the first Epistle of Clement are exhibited in Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, vol. i. p. 110, 1838 (1863); and one in Cassell’s Bible Dict. vol. i. p. 49.
128 Notice especially what Tregelles says of the Codex Augiensis (Tregelles’ Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. p. 198), where the difference of hand in the leaves removed from their proper place is much more striking than any change in Cod. Alexandrinus. Yet even in that case it is likely that one scribe only was engaged. It should be stated, however, that Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, who, edits the autotype edition, believes that the hand changed at the beginning of St. Luke, and altered again at 1 Cor. x. 8. His reasons appear to us precarious and insufficient, and he seems to cut away the ground from under him when he admits (Praef. p. 9) that “sufficient uniformity is maintained to make it difficult to decide the exact place where a new hand begins.”